Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive105

User:122.104.185.81 reported by Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Filipino people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 122.104.185.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 07:03, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits to last version using WP:Cleanup. Stop making excuses")
2. 07:40, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Excuses reverted trouble maker")
3. 07:47, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert back same old problematic issue caused by a sockpuppet.")
4. 07:55, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Not racial slurs direct to you only because your troubvle maker. This is not American or California spec.")
5. 09:15, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Wrong reverted to last version")
6. 11:00, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Wikipidia:No original reseach by User:Cali567. It is basically a political agenda or seeking attention from this users point of view. Reverted back to last version.")
7. 11:27, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Im trying to clean what? in your point of view bullshit User:Cali567 your a sockpuppet haha")
8. 11:53, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Your making me laugh haha. Reverted back to last version")

• Diff of warning: here

Pattern of behavior and edit summaries means this is likely Orsahnses (talk · contribs), who has previously been blocked for edit warring on this page under several IP and account socks. Not a first time edit warrior. Suggest a longer than usual block against this IP and indefinite semi-protection of page. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by --Ethelh (Result: Both warned)

• Three-revert rule violation by Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on

Chris Davis (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While technically only two reverts in past hour, seven over time, and usere continues to make same deletions despite input by two editors that the material is relevant, and without any cogent reason. I note that "3RR ... is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." And "Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page". This is an experienced editor who has been blocked previously twice for 3RR, and is gaming the system with 7 reverts timed to avoid technically 3 reverts within 24 hours. Time reported: 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]

Diffs of two warnings to Yankees10; each simply deleted by user

1. [8]
2. [9]

--Ethelh (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is a malformed report; you did not list the proper links, and particularly you did not display any diffs or evidence of attempts to discuss these issues at a talk page. In the future, please fill out the report properly using the Click here to add a new report link at the top of the page.

That being said, I am giving both of you a warning. Both of you have reverted one another excessively and neither of you have attempted to have a discussion, as far as I can tell. Ethelh, you just jumped immediately to giving him template warnings today, I don't see any discussion attempts at either the article talk page or his user talk page before the template warnings. As things stand, under the edit warring rules neither one of you is "right", and if reverting without discussion continues then administrators reserve the right to block one or both of you, or to protect the article.

Warnedrʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the format error. First time here, so I am a newbie at this process. As to the assertions that there were no diffs that evidence attempts to discuss these issues, that is not the case. The diffs do reflect that, as I will discuss on your talk page.--Ethelh (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen (Result: 24h)

• Page: British–Zionist conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11] - (editor acknowledges it is a revert in his edit summary)
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced editor who knows 3rr and has been blocked for it in the past

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in editing this article at all.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster reported by User:Noloop (Result: Main edit-warriors blocked)

• Page: Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&oldid=303355919

• Previous version reverted to: [15]

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]
• 5th revert: [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

[21]

He is constantly abusive.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=302966680
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=302968521
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Americanism&diff=302850348&oldid=302830619

I solicited a Third Opinion, and WebHamster's first response was to dismiss my "stupid comment" and "inane questions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Americanism&diff=301712271&oldid=301708894

See also, "go fuck yourself" directed at another user, in a discussion that sprang from this issue... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=301844482&oldid=301839442

He's stated he intends to ignore my view while editing, e.g. "I haven't addressed anything you say because I make it a rule not to respond to total bollocks."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303355407
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303356997
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303355407

He's been blocked for edit-warring on Anti_Americanism before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWebHamster ..and for disruptive editing and trolling, two months ago. He's just here to amuse himself.Noloop (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
I have no comment on the edit warring/3RR by the user (particularly as they've had a 3RR block for the same article in the past), but for the user's behaviour taken together I'd recommend that you add to the report already filed against the user at WP:WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked WebHamster (talk · contribs) blocked for 5 days for edit-warring and repeated incivility.

Blocked Slatersteven (talk · contribs) blocked for 1 day for edit-warring.

CIreland (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjbesquire reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 55h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rjbesquire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:15, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */ - replaced "is believed to have been" for "was" since the matter remains disputed and unsettled.")
2. 18:34, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */")
3. 20:17, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */")
4. 21:40, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Corrected for accuracy.")
5. [22]

Note user may also be editing from 74.138.199.84 (additional 2 reverts today)

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Clear edit warring. If he starts reverting again after block expires, let me or another admin know and the next block will be much longer. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also blocked the IP for 12 hours. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick help =) --guyzero | talk 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:71.212.10.108 reported by User:RetroS1mone (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 71.212.10.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]
• 5th revert: [27]
• 6th revert: [28]
• 7th revert: [29]

Reverted 4 editors and uses mean or sexual insults in edit summaries, will not discuss on talk page and harasses other editors with "hey sexy lady" and "monkey boy."

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Continued to edit war after this warning and put a big "NO!" on their talk page.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Editor responds with "get over yourself" and calls me asinine [32].

Same editor obviously was edit warring from a few Texas IPs around July 10, for example [33] saying "get over herself" all though the IPs are very far apart, i suspect proxy?? RetroS1mone talk 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Aitias // discussion 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Valkyrie Red reported by User:MuZemike (Result: no vio / stale)

• Page: Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: [34]

Edit-warring on Mario on 15 July 2009

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Edit-warring on Mario on 18 July 2009

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]

Resuming of edit-warring following breakdown at Talk:Mario on 21 July 2009

• on Mario: [42]
• on Shigeru Miyamoto: [43]

• Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • For the 15 July 2009 edit-warring, informal 3RR warning by Bws2cool [44] and template-warning by MuZemike [45]
  • For the 18 July 2009 edit-warring, template-warning by MuZemike [46]
  • (not necessarily for edit-warring) For introducing unsourced BLP material to Shigeru Miyamoto, a warning by C45207 [47]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see discussion at Talk:Mario#Mr. Nintendo, where the user has indicated ignorance of the discussion at hand and proceeded to re-add the "Mr. Nintendo" material to both Mario and Shigeru Miyamoto → [48]
• After the above diff, user proceeded to re-add the "Mr. Nintendo" material (according to the reporter's read of the discussion, against consensus) to Mario [49] and to Shigeru Miyamoto [50].

For the past week, user has been consistently edit-warring over the addition of the following material to the article Mario:

...sometimes referred to by fans as Mr. Nintendo...

After being warned a second time for 3RR and direction by MuZemike to discuss at Talk:Mario, on 21 July 2009, user has decided to re-add said material back into Mario as well as Shigeru Miyamoto in what it looks like against a rough consensus in that discussion to include it in the article let alone in the first sentence in the lead. Said material has only been briefly mentioned in the description of a trophy in the video game Super Smash Bros. Melee (which still makes no mention of him being referred by fans as such) and nowhere else that is either primary, secondary, or otherwise reliable. MuZemike 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see this as a vio. WP:DR? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Willallen93 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24h)

• Page: Jordin Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Willallen93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]

The user has reverted six different editors removing a piece of information the user claims is in the source he provided, but in fact is not in the source. The user has also warned two of the six editors with vandalism warning, [58] and [59].

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

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

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fight_the_bias reported by User:ThaddeusB (Result: 24h)

• Page: Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Fight_the_bias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 204.2.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was reverted at least 4 times as an IP. After getting a final warning they immediately registered a new account (obvious WP:DUCK here) and resumed edit warring - at least 3 additional reverts. Not every single revert was to the same exact wording, but all have the same (defamitory) gist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Swift as an Eagle, User:DreamGuy reported by User:Dlabtot (Result: Stale)

• Page: Garden of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Swift as an Eagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]
• 5th revert: [66]
• 6th revert: [67]
• 7th revert: [68]
• 8th revert: [69]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I couldn't find any evidence that they tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page.

Edit-warring is not a constructive way to edit WP. Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate his desire to report this, but I'm not sure why Dlabtot says that he could not "find any evidence that they tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page." See my attempts here: Garden of Eden talk page However, I will keep this is mind and be more careful. Cheers, SAE (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And FYI, what Dlabtot listed above as a "6th revert" [72], is not a revert at all on my part. It was an unrelated edit to the same article. SAE (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:DreamGuy has also been exhibiting similar behavior elsewhere, including the Ambigram page. He has stuck well below 3RR, but mainly because I and the admin who became involved have been trying to be as reasonable as possible. He has rejected any attempts at discussion, instead calling me and other editors liars. He accuses practically everyone of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, says we all have a COI where none exists, and acts like he is the only one who understands Wikipedia rules, etc. See, for example, [73], [74], [75], [76], and others. Here are some sample edit summaries, showing his incivility:

• not helpful post from civil POV pusher - part of the game to push a POV, which is unfortunately endemic on Christian articles
• Reverted to revision 301578211 by Martarius; revert person who think he WP:OWNs artilcle restoring original research/spam/coi content without consensus.
• Undid revision 302244201 by RoyLeban (talk) the guy edit warring to push a POV/COI complains of edit warring, that's a laugh
• removing items never had consensus to be here, original research, unsourced claims of notability, promotion of nonnotable websites added as spam, removing ELs that most obviously fail WP:EL
• rv -- yeah, and if discussion ever goes your way you can add it back, your attempts to WP:OWN this article by falsifying consensus votes are over, you never had consensus to add this, so it goes
• Consensus on items to include in this page: per mul;tiple people saying this section needs to be removede, especially cosnidered how Ropy was caught blatantly lying about votes to force his way
• Who is Phil Mole?: response to person lying about source and trying to argue it should be removed because he doesn't like it)
• rv POV pushing/outright lying about what source says/allegedly doesn't say
• Alternate meaning: good grief -evidence is presented and clear as day... and now spelled out for the admin who seemed determined to ignore the obvious
• Alternate meaning: again, would need reliable sources saying its significant instead of just trivia that someone wants added because of COI
• Split?: people who want to split are arguing based upon reasons that conflict with policy
• Bot (and others) removing images from my gallery: no, our guidelines are NOT stricter than the law, we actually follow the law, which confuses people who don't understand the law

Also see [77]

RoyLeban (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stale. Three reverts for each user on 20 July and only a single one each today; whilst this isn't particularly good behaviour by either user I don't think it warrants a block. I have however watchlisted the article for any future issues. User:RoyLeban - this isn't the place to bring up user behaviour unrelated to edit-warring on this article; there are more suitable venues for that. Black Kite 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Black Kite - you're right. I should have held back. I'll take it to WP:RFC unless you think somewhere else is better. RoyLeban (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:EricLeFevre reported by User:65.188.37.65 (Result: semi)

• Page: F-22 Raptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: EricLeFevre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]
• 5th revert: [83]

User is POV-pushing via edit warring/violating 3RR. User is well-aware of the rule, demonstrated by the fact that user mentions it in the article talk page [84], threatening another user with 3RR report after violating it themselves.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dup of next report. Semi for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not merely a "dup", this user participated in clear violation of 3RR (FIVE reverts) and edit warring, and as such deserves a block. Semi-protection does nothing to prevent users like this one from edit warring. I'd like another admin to examine this report, please. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:83.242.226.130 reported by User:EricLeFevre (Result: semi)

• Page: F-22_Raptor#Controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 83.242.226.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Old article pre edit war. Sample article after edit war, controversy section deleted, cited source material removed.

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

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]

Note all of his "additions" were auto tagged with Section Blanking. Background: The F22 is an incredibly controversial weapons program that had its funding terminated by the United States Senate last night. A section was added that explained the a few of the objections to the F22 and some names of its opponents. That section is getting repeatedly deleted. It contains non biased source citations, and explanations of the opponents views. Any article with a NPOV will have sections like these especially on controversial topics like this one.

• talk page warning.

talk page warning.

EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Nubeli reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 24h)

• Page: Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nubeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:26, 22 July 2009

• 1st revert: 14:32, 22 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 17:53, 22 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 22 July 2009
• 4th revert: 19:22, 22 July 2009
• 5th revert: 20:27, 22 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:35, 22 July 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

-- Vision Thing -- 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:82.16.113.24 reported by User:Timmeh (Result: 2 weeks)

• Page: United States presidential election, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 82.16.113.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]
• 5th revert: [96]
• 6th revert: [97]
• 7th revert: [98]
• 8th revert: [99]
• 9th revert: [100]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

The user has continually reverted the images at the aforementioned article to large, unofficial ones without explanation. At first, I left a message about it on his talk page. He ignored it. I then left a 3RR warning after he violated the 3RR, yet he continues to revert after that, still with no explanation. Timmeh 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also of note, this is the same person as User talk:82.4.220.242 who has received dozens of warnings and several blocks for his disruptive editing and edit warring on articles about politics and elections in the US. It looks like his IP changes every few months and his old addresses don't look to be allocated to anyone else after he's gone on, so I suggest a long block. Timmeh 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Obsessed Battlefield reported by User:Unitanode (Result: 24h) (Result: still 24h)

• Page: {{Jordin Sparks}}
• User: Obsessed Battlefield (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104] -- included slightly uncivil -- and provably wrong -- edit summary.
• 2nd revert: [105] -- includes another insulting edit summary, questioning whether I really read the source.
• 3rd revert: [106] -- with yet another insulting edit summary.
• 4th revert: While he has yet to make a fourth revert as OB, he is almost certainly a sockpuppet of WillAllen93, who was edit-warring (and blocked for it) previously on this article.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107] -- This is in an edit summary, which he clearly read, as he left a disruptive reply at my talkpage, which I removed.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened a thread at the talkpage, in which OB simply became insulting, and refused to listen to multiple editors.

Unitanode 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: Self-revert)

• Page: Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: 13:10, 23 July 2009

• Version reverted to: [109]

• 2nd revert: 18:09, 23 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring: He is well aware that article is under 1RR since he posted this warning on my talk page today.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Note: Fascism is under 1RR. [111] [112] I left a message on talk pages of both administrators who were involved in this previously but they were editing Wikipedia only sporadically during last month. -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No action - User:The Four Deuces reverted his own change, when requested to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:81.102.157.87 reported by User:Roman888 (Result: Page protected)

• Page: Template:2009 flu pandemic table (edit | [[Talk:Template:2009 flu pandemic table|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 81.102.157.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [113]

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]

• The person is aware that there was no consensus to delete the column listing the number of confirmed cases. He proceed to make several reverts arguing that there was consensus, while there was none.

• Fully protected already by another admin; blocks would therefore be punitive at this point. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dems on the move reported by guyzero | talk (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dems on the move (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 20:12, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Discourage challenges to the concensus") - Was a material content revert to his preferred text, first added (@ 0RR) here: [117]
2. 20:19, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303801751 by Guyzero (talk) concensus CAN change, but NOT LIKELY, so the purpose is to discourage new discussions")
3. 20:38, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303805732 by Jbarta) "weak concensus" is a POV. This is a basic warning that trying to argue the matter again is futile.")
4. 23:20, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303830911 by Tarc (talk) No more "pedantic" than "please review the archives to see past discussions on this topic"")

Additionally, he has been edit warring at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

1. 20:37, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303596077 by Brothejr (talk) Lack of Objection = Concensus. If you object, please provide a reason")
2. 23:05, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303624561 by Brothejr (talk) If there is an RS, please provide the reference")
3. 22:48, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to last edit by Dems on the move. Note that the propsed bills are already covered in the article, so there is no need for duplication.")
4. 22:52, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303830123 by ChrisO (talk) There is duplication -- see talk.")
5. 22:53, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303829636 by ChrisO (talk) Huh??? They are promoting the theory, which means "campaigning" for the theory.")

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint -- only 3 reverts on the FAQ, and 3 reverts on the article in a 24 hr period. Dems on the move (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mifter (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The page that had (and may continue to have?) the "content dispute" is Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. The main article was also the subject of an edit war, but was due to a misunderstanding and not a content dispute. This was acknowledged on the article talkpage [118].

It would be a shame to see the main article fully protected when there is no content dispute there. I mentioned the main article in this report only because I'm concerned that User:Dems on the move appears to be hitting the undo button on good faith edits too quickly, which caused some aggravation today. I believe this overall report is stale, and am not seeking a block, but please reconsider the article protection. thank you, --guyzero | talk 01:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:YourHumanRights reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24h)

• Page: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: YourHumanRights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:32, 21 July 2009

• 1st revert: 01:11, 23 July 2009 (2 consecutive edits by YourHumanRights)
• 2nd revert: 19:15, 23 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:19, 23 July 2009 (restores material from this prior edit which had been removed)
• 4th revert: 23:32, 23 July 2009 (partial undo of immediately preceding edit)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:26, 23 July 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not pretty...

Reported by MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pandacomics and User:Readin (result: peace?)

• Pandacomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Readin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry about the unorthodox report. These users are reverting one another across numerous articles; the dispute is over the use of "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" to describe birthplaces/locations of singers/actors. Anyway, I have already warned both users (and warned Pandacomics that I would block him right away if he continues reverting—this user in particular has abused rollback during a content dispute and has ignored the other user's request to start a discussion), but soon I am going to be away from the computer for several hours so I'm requesting that someone here can keep an eye on things and be ready to step in if the reverting continues. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like peace may now have broken out William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Moradrock reported by User:Hairhorn (Result: 24h)

• Page: Kirkuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Moradrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (reverts are not identical; the user blanks whole sections, then after they're replaced, blanks different ones, eventually closing the circle and redeleting the same material over again. This is my first 3RR nom, apologies if this is a simple vandalism case rather than a content dispute. More than a dozen blankings over the past two days.)

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Have not attemped, user does not even leave edit summaries.)

Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I could not find a single instance of a technical violation of 3RR, since it's reverts on different sections. However, either as a violation of WP:LAWYER (here I'm assuming good faith) or as vandalism (more likely), I've given a 24-hour block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AnarchistAssassin reported by User:DreamGuy (Result: stale)

• Page: ENom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: AnarchistAssassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]
• 4th revert: [128]
• 5th revert: [129] (*It should be noted that this revert was a revert of a null edit I made earlier to add an edit comment, but from the comments it doesn't look like AnarchistAssassin or the editor that reverted him later knew the content was the same as earlier content; maybe not technically a revert, but already had four anyway)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130] (and also others on the page)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ENom#Illegal_hijacking_of_Customers.27_Websites

This person is a SPA account to add blatant POV and OR to a page about a business accusing company of breaking laws, occasionally citing sources that do not support his accusations. Appears to be a WP:DUCK case of a sockpuppet of previously banned user/sockpuppeter User:KillAllSpammers/User:TeerGrub -- would be nice if the person were indef blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there any particular reason this report has been ignored while later reports have been handled already? DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No good reason, just random chance. Perhaps because it was semi-stale when reported; it is certainly stale now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Technically no 3RR violation, but persistent pattern of edit warring with little or no talk page discussion across multiple articles. This is small sample, but other edit wars not listed here are on going. User's edits are frequently reverted as fails to seek consensus and negotiate with other users.

Genetic history of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 04:04, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Removed unnecessary map of Africa.")
2. 18:39, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 18:40, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Compromise")
4. 19:49, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid mass deletion of sourced material.")
5. 20:29, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid extreme afrocentric POV")

Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Also edit warring on

1. 03:40, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early history */")
2. 15:55, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid unexplained deletion of map.")
3. 15:56, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:34, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Map is sourced read talk page (of map). You want me to go to your first edits and start undoing them?")

Poles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 03:45, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:08, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "What are you talking about? that is not a blog intry its a map and who is Osioł?")
3. 16:53, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Re added map.")
4. 18:32, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Whatever.I don t follow you around except for on articles that are about genetics. Which I would edit anyway.")

Muntuwandi has also edit warred on those articles if that is considered edit warring.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You may want to protect genetic history of Europe for a few days because Muntuwandi has a long term tendency of Reverting its edits. He has reverted the edits of me, Small Victory,Causteas, The Ogre and others simply to add afrocentric POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Also it is important to remember that I have no reccord of a pattern of edit warring with little or no talk page discussion across multiple articles on the Articles about the poles and Croats I only did a few edits on those articles since they were invented. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. If you have issues with the editor generally, consider opening a request for comment. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle reported by User:Mwalshie (Result: 12h)

• Page: Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: QueenofBattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [131]

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]
• 3rd revert: [134]
• 4th revert: [-------]

• Editor reverted 3 times, becoming progressively less civil first.

Initially editor expressed an issue with having Anon editors (Undid revision 304068248 by 76.126.99.67 (talk)undid bizarre reversion from ANON), so I registered an account.

Editor then decided that other people's disagreement was "bizarre" (Undid revision 304068248 by 76.126.99.67 (talk)undid bizarre reversion from ANON)) so I registered an account.

Then editor decided reverted his/her edits was vandalism. (rv POV vandalism; editor has been warned.)

At no stage did this editor engage in the talk page to hash out the issue at question, until after all this. [[135]] Editor resorted to accusing me of sock-pupperty, an allegation that regular editors should not use to inflame things, but should report it for investigation if needed. Then the editor started stalking me on other articles : Salt Pit

• I issued a 3RR warning template [136]

And even that became an edit war, with the editor repeatedly blanking it. My iunderstanding is doing so oon one's talk page is allowed, but the sheer persistencey of it looks odd... Diff, removing 3RR warning [137] Diff, removing 3RR warning [138] Diff, removing 3RR warning [139]

I had already disengaged on blocking her repeated reversions at [Waterboarding] so as too cool the issue on that page. {Waterboarding is a ARB probation artcile due to what looks like a long ugly history plaqued by recentism. As such I feel this editor needs to cool off the issue (as I will). On such an article, removing content without engaging in talk as was done at 1st revert: [140] is not helpful to anyone. 'The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.'

I am requesting admin action to keep things cool at [Waterboarding], even if in their judgement that includes keeping me out, or equal treatment for myself for reverting the users deletions at the article (or the talk page).

Mwalshie (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mwalshie, you insisted to keep the edits after QueenofBattle explained the issue on your talk page: QueenofBattle specifically said your edits were unsourced. You then claimed her edits as vandalism and you reverted without solving the issue. The warning template was bogus and unacceptable, thus it was reverted. ZooFari 06:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A warning page is not bogus, nor unacceptable for 3RR, [141][142][143]. Saying Cheney is right-wing in that context is certainly NOT unsourceable, the unsourceable claim was wikilaywering to supress another editors contribution (whoever put right wing in). Just deleting, repeatedly (and not saying it in talk), then deleting and demanding that text be sourced (on my page, NOT talk) is not helpful, we have cite templates to request sources, and a talk page wheich are preferred to blanking words from troublesome articles. Insitsting on source for Cheney's left right leanings is like demanding a source to show that water is wet If we require sourcing at that obvious a level we should all give up on writing encylopedias. Anyway, had a cite request been put in, I or another editor would have found a source to cite the obvious. QueenofBattle did not enage in discussion on the article until after he/she was blanking the 3RR template. It took that template to engage this user in talk. As such, I think the template served it's purpose, it stopped the warring on the article and initiated the talk activity; as such wouldn't you not consider it effective. Mwalshie (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, for preventing a no-talk edit on an arb probation article, I've been called a sockpuppet, a vandal, and bizarre. All for reverting the edit and starting a talk in the article's talk page on it. Mwalshie (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet allegation. [144] Edit Summary: QueenofBattle (talk | contribs) (364 bytes) (Welcome to Wikipedia. I think.) (italiced by ~) Mwalshie (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

12h for Mw William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Marktreut reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Reporter and reportee both blocked 24h)

• Page: Lupin III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Marktreut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff - restored after it was removed, putting it in another section
• 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: see Talk:Lupin III#Renamed for French Broadcast

Once again, Marktreut is edit warring and acting in a disruptive fashion. He added a section on "copyright issues" to Lupin III, a good article currently undergoing a GAR. Today, the article's primary editor who has been working to address the GA issues merged the section into the production section and removed the sentences regarding the series renamed as it was sourced to a non-reliable source and falsely claimed the series was renamed to avoid the copyright issue. Marktreut restored his content in the new section, reverting the removal. He continues to revert attempts to remove his non-reliable, and possibly copyright violating source, despite myself and the other editor asking him to stop in the discussion and his being warned. In the last revert, he put in a blatantly false reference that does not mention the name of the series at all (also not his first time). This is not the first time he has done this, causing several articles to be locked and himself to be blocked at least once. He knows fully well that he should not edit war, so there is no real excuse here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Marktreut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit-warring.
• Blocked AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit-warring, failure to assume good faith.

CIreland (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Unitanode reported by User: Ethelh (Result: Declined)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Declined by an administrator; decision to decline endorsed by another one. No need for further discussion on this page; if deemed necessary, this can be discussed elsewhere. — Aitias // discussion 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Page: Sam Fuld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [145]

• 1st revert: [146]
• 2nd revert: [147]
• 3rd revert: [148]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150], [151] and [152]

The article in question, Sam Fuld, was formerly stable until the recent past. User:Unitanode has in the last 24 hours deleted (among other appropriate language) the statement that Fuld is Jewish three times. See [153] The seasoned reverter is one short of his fourth revert, but rather than revert and have him revert a fourth time I would hope his edit warring and refusals to leave the article stable as it was for a long time while discussing it on a talk page can be addressed now.

I detailed the basis for that statement not only my edit summaries, but also discussed it at some length on the article's talk page [154] and the talk page of the complaining editor (Unitanode) [155].

In my last edit summary, in addition, I had entreated Unitanode to "Please stop edit warring; please leave as is (and has it has been, in stable form, for a long time) and discuss on talk page where I have discussed." (see [156]) His response was ignore my entreaty, and to revert yet again, and then to open a [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents] at [157].

As to the substance of the dispute, The deleted language was as follows: " Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill." In place of that, Unitanode insists on "Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic."

The support for the deleted three words consists of three citations (emphasis added below), as follows:

Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.

The complaining editor here would delete the words "who is Jewish" (see [158]), and instead indicate the religions of Fuld's parents, as follows:

Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.

One article of the above three citations, written by Jonathan Mayo, a senior staff writer for MLB.com (the official publication of major league baseball), who has been writing for MLB.com on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post), and who has been writing about Fuld since 2007, states: "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg .... ". ("Members of the Tribe", also known as "MOT" is slang for Jewish (Israelite or Member of the Tribe of Judah), as is reflected at [159] and [160]).

A second article says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13".

And a third citation clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.)."

I would note that Jews are a nation and ethnicity, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates that a Jew is a member "of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group .... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated". Jews therefore differ from many other religions, which are not ethnicities or nations.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, but inclusion must be justifiable by external references. Such is the case here. The article does not state what he believes in, just that he is a member of this ethnoreligious group, where ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly related. With three supporting citations, including one who is a senior writer for the official publication of the sport, and who has written on Fuld in both 2007 and 2009, I believe that the citations amply warrant the sentence as is.

WP:BLPCAT, which my colleague refers to, is limited to statements as to the subject's "religious beliefs and sexual orientation." Here, that is not the focus (we do not say "Fuld believes in Judaism ... for example, he could be a Jew for Jesus). We only say that he is part of the ethnoreligious nationality known as the Jewish people; what two of the authors above refer to as a "member of the tribe". I note, as well, that curiously while railing against the deletion of the heavily sourced reference to Fuld's religion, he insists on inserting references to Fuld's parents' religions -- which clearly don't meet the standard that my colleague (innappropriately, I would suggest) says apply. See [161]. I also note that the criteria for religion per se brings to mind the rhetorical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Apparently, by the criteria, not unless we can find a statement made by him to that effect; and, judging by my research, it is possible that none exists.

In addition, it should be noted that my collegae baseas his deletions on a guidance as to categories on wikipedia. But he was not deleting categories at all -- he was deleting text within the article. Categories, of course, raise different issues -- as the guidance says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". While for the aforementioned reasons the category should also remain, it should be noted that the entire premise for his removal of this information was based on an innapplicable guideline.

I also think it a shame that my fellow editor would not agree to leave the article in the form that it has been in stable fashion for an extended period of time, and instead insisted on edit warring despite my entreaties to leave it as is and discuss on the talk pages.

--Ethelh (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Since there has been no violation of the three-revert-rule by either party that I could see, I am disinclined on that basis alone to block. Moreover, I concur that Unitanode's edits constitute a removal of poorly sourced information about a living individual insofar as "Jewish" may be read as a statement about ethnicity and religion and none of the provided sources (one of which is a blog) adequately support this. I do not understand what the problem is with distinguishing within the article the two meanings of "Jewish" but that is a matter for the article editors. Finally, I would advise Ethelh that blind reverts such as [162] that change back unrelated formatting changes as well as the material actually in dispute do not create a favourable impression. CIreland (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) While the decline was based on the fact that there has not been a violation of the three-revert-rule, a violation of the 3RR is not required here in order to block the user.

The edit warring guidance states: "edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule." see WP:WAR.

I understand, and agree, that this seasoned editor has only made 3 reverts in under 24 hours (and not 4). One could perhaps conjecture whether this may fall into the category of "gaming the system", which prohibits an editor from finding within the 3RR policy wording "apparent" justification for disruptive actions that policy is clearly not at all intended to support.

But the basis of my complaint is simply that the editor has engaged in edit warring, and has not agreed to let the article remain as it had been in its stable form, while discussing our issues on a talk page.

I failed in my efforts to convince him to stop edit warring/reverting. I chose to not demean the process by letting it get to the 4-revert point, however. This editor refused to stop reverting, and in the interim leave the article as-is and discuss our disagreements. He did this despite my clear warnings and requests (see above). Having failed in my efforts to convince him to stop edit warring, I brought it here. I did that given that I feel his actions fell squarely within the portion of WP:WAR quoted above.

2) As to the suggestion that the information was poorly sourced, I disagree. One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball, who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a "poor source". That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

As to the suggestion that one of the other secondary sources is a blog, perhaps that is a characterization of the second source listed above. But the fact that it is a blog is not reason, in and of itself, to no disregard it. Per Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, blogs may be used as sources in Wikipedia articles, depending on the blog in question (specifically, the nature of its author and/or publication), and this author and the publication are just the sort countenanced by the guidance.

The author of that entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.[163]

The newspaper, which has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey.[164] The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question.

By the way, though this does not appear to be the expression of an opinion, but rather a fact, if anyone thinks it necessary (I don't) we could always say: "According to ..., Fuld is Jewish."

3) As to "I would advise Ethelh that blind reverts ... that change back unrelated formatting changes as well as the material actually in dispute do not create a favourable impression," I would point out that the material in question related to matters which the other editor was reverting blindly in the first place, such as italicizing the names of publications. He blindly reverted my performing those and other appropriate edits. I think that comment is directed at the wrong editor.--Ethelh (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse decline. I was gathering links to paste here. User:Ethelh appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPing; see these two permalinks: AN/I and Talk:Sam Fuld (two sections on that page). There is also related content at BLP/N. I suggested politely that 3RR does not apply to BLP violations, in the hope that this might simmer down a notch, to no avail. I agree it is not 100% clear-cut that it is a BLP issue, but it is definitely not clear-cut that Fuld identifies himself as Jewish, and Ethelh is aware of this and chooses to rely on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to draw the conclusion. I couldn't care less how Fuld identifies himself, but we cannot make the decision for him, and "MOT" asserted by others is not a high enough bar for BLP. I would also note that this dispute appears to predate User: Unitanode's involvement; see Talk:Sam Fuld for a discussion which Ethelh was involved in 6 days ago.  Frank  |  talk  14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not at all "forum shopping". As you point out, I attempted to resolve this through discussion on talk pages. I also sought to attempt to resolve this through discussion on edit summaries, as discussed above. My efforts were unavailing. Rather than edit war, and given that my last request for discussion rather than reversion was met with a blind revert (see above), I sought assistance in putting an end to this edit war via the above request. I understand that when an editor edit wars with you, that is the next step if efforts at talk page discussion are unavailing. Rather than being forum shopping, that is what I understand Wikipedia directs one to do in such instances. Am I missing a step, or are you suggesting that under these circumstances I should do nothing?

As to the AN/I, I did not go shopping in that forum; the other editor did, and the focus of his complaint seems to be my asking him if he was the editor that was wikistalking me, not the issue here -- edit warring. As to the BLP/N, I was not made aware of that until it had already been closed, so I did not go shopping there either.

And as to the suggestion that 3RR does not apply to a BLPCAT violation, I note that this was in no way a WP:BLPCAT as was asserted by the editor, as it does not involve (at this point) an edit war about a category (which is what BLPCAT applies to), but rather an edit war about reversions to the text of the article (which BLPCAT does not apply to). I would suggest that it is in fact 100% clear-cut that this is not a BLPCAT issue, as the reverting editor incorrectly charged.--Ethelh (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: "MOT" asserted by others is not a high enough bar for BLP. Your apparent reliance on WP:WIKILAWYERING is unlikely to gather significant support for your point of view. The vast majority of editors around here do not care one way or the other what religion or ethnic group Sam Fuld belongs to. That same vast majority is committed to upholding WP:BLP, and the edits you are trying to add to the article do not meet the bar.  Frank  |  talk  01:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sherurcij reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: )

• Page: Somalia Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Sherurcij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 06:32, 25 July 2009

• 1st revert: Revision as of 08:19, 25 July 2009
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:54, 25 July 2009 - revert back to same version but with a few words changed around & one wikified link to avoid 3RR
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:12, 26 July 2009
• 4th revert: Revision as of 07:04, 26 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

• Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The dispute is over the inclusion of copyright-violating screenshots from video footage depicting scenes of racist human torture, screenshots which the User:Sherurcij insists on including in the Somalia Affair article. This user has voluntarily chosen to caption several of these images with the word "nigger" (e.g. 1 and 2), and has also again voluntarily titled one of those images which he has uploaded as "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers". I think this user is acting out of bad faith, and at least one other user and an uninvolved administrator agree with me. Over the past 24 hours, User:Sherurcij basically reverted four times my attempts to remove these copyright-violating images of torture. In his second revert, however, he wikified one link and changed four words around to try and make it appear as if he wasn't, in fact, reverting back to the same version of the article which included those copyright-violating images of torture (and thus avoid 3RR). But as can be seen, that too is still very much a revert. Middayexpress (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:98.148.49.233 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: Jackie Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 98.148.49.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [165]

• 1st revert: [166]
• 2nd revert: [167]
• 3rd revert: [168]
• 4th revert: [169]
• 5th revert: [170]
• 6th revert: [171]
• 7th revert: [172]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Promptly removed by IP user with edit summary "blanking disruption by mindless bureaucrat"

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [174]

Multiple warnings from multiple users, repeatedly blanked by IP user

IP began with edit summary denouncing provisions of WP:RS as "an idiotic rule" [175] and continued with uncivil edit summaries including personal attacks

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Aitias // discussion 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael H 34 reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 24h)

• Page: Fathers' rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Michael H 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a case of long-term POV-driven edit warring against consensus, rather than strictly speaking 3RR. Since being blocked twice[176] for 3RR on a related page (Parental alienation syndrome), Michael has been careful not to break the "limit" of four reverts. However, as can be seen below, there is both a long standing pattern of reverting editors, and today in a little over 24 hours 4 restorations (update; now 5 within 34 hours) of the disputed material (with three within 24 hours) The material sourced from an opinion column ("half of its members are women") does not have the agreement of other editors on the talkpage or at the RSN and this (and other aspects of MH34's editing), have been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage of the articles concerned. Recent edits

1. 14:11, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "add attributed sentence and well sourced sentence")
2. 16:18, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */ Better attribution; Minnesota Star Tribune article is a quality source for the attributed opinion of Sacks and Thompson")
3. 17:16, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid the RSN disapproved the opinion article as a source for a fact; the statement in the article is now different and attributed")
4. 15:59, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303412421 dated 2009-07-21 21:24:58 by Michael H 34 using popups")
5. 00:14, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303551089 dated 2009-07-22 15:59:28 by Michael H 34 using popups")

A more examples of the pattern of slow edit-warring against consensus on this article since mid June. [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]

Per instructions above: here is an (incomplete) summary of the more recent disruptive editing from this account.[185]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: has been blocked before for editwarring. However, in this talkpage posting I warned him that if he reverted once again to his preferred version without getting consensus for his edit, I would report him here. He did and so I am.

• Endless discussion has been occurring for weeks on this talkpage. Here are some links [186][187]

—Slp1 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No-one did anything with this because it wasn't clear-cut. Now its stale, sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. It's very hard for all of to know how and where to handle situations like this, I realize, though multo frustrating for those involved. :-( --Slp1 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible to reopen this; after the usual few days pause, he's at it again, with another revert of the same material[188]. --Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - This report was closed as stale on 24 July, at a time when the last reported edit by Michael H was on 23 July. Since Michael H 34 has once again (on 27 July) restored the disputed reference by Sacks and Thompson, he is blocked 24 hours. He should be aware that the talk page consensus is against him. If he agrees to get consensus on the Talk page before making any further changes to this article, any admin may lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ec- thanks, EdJ and just for the record, I'll just say I was coming here to report a second revert today of the same material [189].--Slp1 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Chensiyuan and User:66.210.61.224 reported by User:Dabomb87 (Result:Page protection )

• Page: Bill Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users: Chensiyuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  66.210.61.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [190] (the edit warring has been going on for days, but 3RR was breached only today)

66.210.61.224

• 1st revert: [191]
• 2nd revert: [192]
• 3rd revert: [193]
• 4th revert: [194]

Chensiyuan

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199] (IP warning)
• I did not warn Chensiyuan; this was an honest mistake. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]

Breaches of 3RR by both parties; I hope that this does not come down to blocks, but I don't want the edit warring continued. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page until some sort of resolution about his height is sorted out on the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:89.241.185.12 reported by User:MuZemike (Result: 31h)

• Page: Fine Gael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 89.241.185.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [201]

• 1st revert: [202]
• 2nd revert: [203]
• 3rd revert: [204]
• 4th revert: [205]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207], [208]

User continuously adding POV and unreliably-sourced information, labeling Fine Gael and some of its members as "fascists" or "Nazis". MuZemike 02:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Realjduck1979 reported by Jduck1979 (Result: 72 hours)

• Page: User:Jduck1979 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Realjduck1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=209113247 Original from when i had to fix it in April 2008

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304041274
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304339228 (my fix after first violation, from IP: 74.196.172.31)
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304380909 (vandalism to my userpage from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realjduck1979 )
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304417460 (from when i've put it right just now)

Story: on the morning of Sunday 26th July 2009 I found someone following me over at Twitter mocking / harrassing me.

Later that same day I checked my Wikipedia user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jduck1979 It had been modified by persons unknown from IP Address 74.196.172.31 So I had to undo their little additions, which included a taunt people used to bully with since primary school in the 1980's.

I've just checked again at 5:50am BST on 27th July 2009 to find somebody had deleted a load of stuff off my page, and replaced more text... the offender being person using this Wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realjduck1979

I believe this to be the work of the person behind this cyberbullying attempt over at Twitter: https://twitter.com/realjduck1979 This is my real one: https://twitter.com/jduck1979

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned the user (Is it necessary in this case?)--B@xter⁹ 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - 72 hours to Realjduck1979 for disruptive editing. Since Jduck1979 registered his Wikipedia account back in 2006, he is the owner of that name for Wikipedia purposes. It is not important here who uses the name 'Jduck1979' elsewhere on the web. If the more recent Wikipedia editor known as Realjduck1979 continues to mess around with the other guy's user page, I suggest an indefinite block. In addition, if 74.196.172.31 (talk · contribs) continues to misbehave that IP should be blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Arab Cowboy (Result: )

• Page: Asmahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [209]

• 1st revert: [210]
• 2nd revert: [211]
• 3rd revert: [212]
• 4th revert: [213]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan/Archive_2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Farid_al-Atrash#Stop_editwarring

This article has been in dispute for months and currently a mediator, User:Diaa Abdelmoneim, has been kindly helping resolve this dispute. After an absence of two days, I returned to find User:Supreme Deliciousness had made numerous edits to the article, some of which were approved by mediator. When it was my turn to make my changes, improve, and add sources to the article, as agreed on the Talk apge with the mediator, and after having spent 24 hours of continuos work and research to properly reference the article with reliable sources and improve its flow, User:Supreme Deliciousness reverted all of my work within minutes. I had not broken ANY agreements made on the Talk page reached through discussion, espcially with the mediator. I have been following the mediator's instructions to the letter. Any substantive changes that had not been previously agreed on the Talk page with mediator, I placed here, also as instructed by mediator, and not within the article.

So far, User Supreme Deliciousness has reverted the article 4 times in a matter of less than 2 hours, as shown above, although I warned him each time against restarting the edit war and to discuss the changes to which he objected on the Talk page. He did not heed the warnings and proceeded with his 4 reverts, undoing my 24-hour worth of hard work. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert the article 4 times, first time I did, then I took back the info backed up with sources he had added and restored the sections he had vandalized. Mediator asked for adding of sources to the article, what Arab Cowboy did was to change the whole content of the article without agreement at the talkpage first, as the mediation has been so far, he changed several areas without providing sources or references to fit his agenda. This is vandalism. Arab Cowboy has then edit warred.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=304285754&oldid=304283056
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=304287050&oldid=304285754
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=304289862&oldid=304287050

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I have provided sources to all of my text, to the extreme best of my ability. This is what took me 24 hours of hard work to do. There was no vandalism of any shape at all done by me. "Fitting my agenda" is not an excuse for your reverts and your edit warring on this basis is forbidden by Wikipedia. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying, you changed the Atrash Section, you deleted that Sulaf Fawakherji is a Syrian actress, although that is what the source say. You deleted that Suwayda is her familys home town, which is also sourced. You deleted part of the lead of the article, This is vandalism! These things were sourced and had nothing to do with what the mediator asked you to do which was to ad sources to the article and improve text backed by sources, You went on a vandalism spree removing everything you don't like to fit your agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=304289862&oldid=304193933 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the rudeness of your language here and elsewhere, I have NOT removed any sourced information at all. This is the first diff that you reverted with your edit warring. In fact, you removed a lot a information that was very properly sourced by doing this first revert. Responding to your specific false accusation of vandalism:

• The article is not about Sulaf Fawakherji and her nationality is irrelevant to the Asmahan article, and the ref was not placed after the nationality but after the name, which I did not change. You had added this nationality during my two-day absence. Are we going to list the nationalities of all the actors in the series? This is irrelevant information.
• On homeland, mediator had instructed that all reference to a homeland be removed. Mediator's exact words on 13:09, 25 July 2009 were "I think we agreed at the beginning that homeland was not to be used".
• "Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" was not sourced and was redundant; it was like saying "Supreme Deliciousness is Syrian and belonging to the Syrian Deliciousness family." This is redundancy on an unprecedented level and is very poor writing style. Mediator's exact words on this matter on 16:52, 23 July 2009 were "Syrian-Lebanese is doubtful as there is no proof that she got the Lebanese citizenship."
• Any proposed changes that had not been previously agreed, I placed very neatly here, on the Talk page, as per mediator's instructions, and not in the article.

ALL of my changes were legitimate and previously agreed or approved by mediator on the Talk page of the article. Again, your 4 reverts of what you think was "fitting my agenda" is exactly what the 3RR is for. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You deleted sourced info, you deleted she is Syrian, and you yourself had previously added that all actors and directors she met was "Egyptian" if this is relevant to the article, the actor who played her is also relevant. You delete sourced info.

Yes mediator said that "homeland" was not to be used, but you deleted "her familys hometown" which is a different thing, which was also sourced.

You are twisting what he said, the Syrian-Lebanese thing was about was she should be called in the lead, It had nothing to to with ""Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" which has to do with descent and not citizenship.

You are a liar! your edits was not approved at the talkpage, we have been been editing the article with mediator help and agreements at talkpage, now Arab Cowboy has destroyed the whole article, he changed it to fit what he himself wants without any kind of agreement! This is vandalism!

Also his meatpuppet Nefer Tweety has showed up --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The vulgarity of your style only reflects on you and your cause. Even if what you blurb above is true, which it is not, it does not give you the right to revert my work 4 times in less than 2 hours. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my work 4 times in the same time and your meatpuppet also reverted my work. I reverted because you deleted sourced info and was not following the mediation process of talking in the talkpage and agreeing to changes by the mediator.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This goes to show who the liar really is; you've already posted what you claim to be 3 reverts done by me, not 4. While you in fact have done 4 reverts in less than 2 hours, of MY work. My edits were a restoration of my own work that you had reverted. Your attempts to deceive the system, as you have done with your "Supreme Allah" username, by copying and pasting the old article instead of actually "undoing" will not fly by the admins. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

3 time you reverted the page, and 4 including the first time when you reverted the info I had added before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: I just noticed that it's been two days since this report was filed, and no one seems to have touched it. Is there any particular reason why? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned)

• Page: Illinois Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [215]

• 1st revert: [216]
• 2nd revert: [217]
• 3rd revert: [218]
• 4th revert: [219]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [220]

Attempted Dispute resolution took place on user talk pages.

• Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk pages: [221], [222]

Despite my providing references that a regulatory branch of the US Federal Government recognizes IRYM as the reporting marks for this museum, NE2 removed this information 4 times within 24hrs. WuhWuzDat 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your references don't back up what you're saying. Nowhere do any of your references state that IRYM is the reporting mark, just a convenient abbreviation. It can't be the reporting mark, because a museum would have a "private mark" ending in X; marks ending in M are for common carriers. I also took it to WT:TWP and got no response. This is a case where obvious misinformation is being inserted into the article. --NE2 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have warned both editors and asked them to agree to stop edit warring. One editor is technically at 4RR and the other at three. It appears there are strong feelings on both sides. Under conditions like this, both parties are often blocked. Still, it is uncommon to sanction an editor who has publicly agreed to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do, in fact, have strong feelings about the insertion of misinformation, which I am 100% sure that this is. Is 3RR flawed in specialist topics? --NE2 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both warned. If either user continues to revert at Illinois Railway Museum they will be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. For example, ask at WP:3O for another view, or ask at WP:RSN to see if the references can properly support the conclusions that were drawn. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did ask at WT:TWP, which seems like the best place. --NE2 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Solas eile reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Killings at Coolacrease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Solas eile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [223]

• 1st revert: [224]
• 2nd revert: [225]
• 3rd revert: [226]
• 4th revert: [227]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228] [229]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rtr10 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: PP 72h)

• Page: Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rtr10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [230]

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]
  • Please note that the fourth revert has a deceptive edit summary, but it is a revert nonetheless.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

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

• I tried to discuss this with User:Rtr10 on her/his Talk page, not on the article's Talk page. See User talk:Rtr10#July 2009. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted these were not just reverts of personal opinion. A legitimate reference/citation from an article from TIME Magazine and User:Malik Shabazz continued to revert and threatened that I would be banned if I reverted to the referenced content. The last edit was not meant to be "deceptive" it was clearly just a recap of the edit, adding a citation needed tag. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sugar coating biography page. The bias of User:Malik Shabazz has become quite obvious and his first intention being sugar coating an article, rather than providing the actual information. Rtr10 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Your "source" doesn't say what you claim it says, and your last revert re-inserted the disputed material. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a revert. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected – While you (Malik) have not technically violated 3RR, you both have been revert warring these past few days. You two have not made an attempt to resolve the issue; giving Rtr10 a warning on his talk page does not constitute resolving a content dispute. Therefore, the page has been protected for 3 days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: Moot)

• Page: Arrest of Henry Louis Gates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: GoldDragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [diff phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&oldid=304236064

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&diff=304215807&oldid=304215742
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&diff=304233193&oldid=304232220
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&diff=304330175&oldid=304326954
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&diff=304358156&oldid=304355961
• Note: Reversions center on the phrase "police across the country" and the allegation that Obama did not have all the facts before him when he first spoke.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoldDragon&diff=304355127&oldid=304354704

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wehwalt#Gates_arrest

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Stale However, GoldDragon has been blocked per EncyclopediaUpdaticus's report below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Biofase reported by User:RicoCorinth (Result: Editor has agreed to stop)

• Page: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Biofase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [236]

1. 19:37, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "no need for a separate section on this") (S/he deletes a section I'd created and my post.)
2. 19:50, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "Let's try keeping discussion of one topic in one section PLEASE!!!") (Converts the section I'd created into plain text, so that it is no longer a section.)
3. 02:43, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "Let's try keeping this contained in its own section") (The deletion of the section I'd created, is seen on the left-hand side, halfway down -- not to mention the moving around of other people's posts, including mine.)
4. 03:33, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Less emotionally-charged example */ Fine, just keep everything in it's appropriate section please so constructive debate can take place. And stop making accusations of destructive edits.") (The bottom left, in red -- for a fourth time -- you see that s/he has deleted the text of the same section (already pre-destroyed by him/her). I created this section, not Biofase! Note, also, s/he changes a subsection I made, into a section.)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237] / [238]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [240]

S/he keeps mangling, editing[241] and deleting my sections -- and moving people's posts all over the place (including mine). I can't keep track of it! S/he just does what s/he wants with other people's content. It's like, it's up to him (her?) whether or not I can have a section I made. Biofase's contributions history goes back to June 19, 2009, but s/he gives every indication of having been around a lot longer!
Also, s/he made two comments and then prevents me from replying to one of them -- again and again moving my reply out from in between his or her two comments. Dealing with this impossibly disruptive user is extremely frustrating.
In five years of editing, I've never seen anything so extreme. -- Rico 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through pages and pages of diffs on the Talk:Neutral POV page --over 150 edits, the overwhelming majority of them by RicoCorinth--and the biggest problem I see is Rico, who seems to take a brute force approach to talk page discussion: multiple edits in a short space of time, usually to make small changes to his own posts (often well after they were posted, which is not desirable); constant repetition of the same thing over and over; refusal to accept consensus; and a habit of personal attacks, among other things.

He makes rapid-fire edits, often several in the space of a minute, making small changes to his posts and effectively preventing others from getting a word in. In a couple of cases, such as here, he appears to be changing the time stamp on his own post for some unknown reason.

He characterizes any formatting change to his own posts by other users (such as adding colons to preserve talk page flow or moving unrelated posts to a different section) as vandalism, while he himself here deletes another user's post entirely, and here makes substantial changes to another user's post.

He has been warned several times about making personal attacks on other editors; here's one example, in which he writes "Cconning people on a 5P talk page to get NPOV changed just to hep you is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that."

I've attempted to have discussions with Rico myself, as on the Talk:Carrie Prejean page (see the Breast implants (again) section for the most recent), in which he displays the same type of behaviour, and have found it extremely frustrating and ultimately fruitless.

In short, I see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits. On the other hand, I suggest any admin making a decision here closely examine Rico's posts to the relevant page (starting at 18:29, July 28, 2009, when it appears he first started participating in the discussion)in light of the notice at the top of this page, which reads: "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Exploding Boy (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, this is WP:BATTLE (which is disruptive). You have a GIANT conflict of interest in evaluating a situation involving me. You cannot possibly be expected to fairly and neutrally evaluate it. As an editor that has fought me (and others) hard over whether it was okay to have an attack coatrack for Carrie Prejean, you should not be commenting on this 3RR, for that reason.

You should not be commenting on any dispute that involves me, and not you, because of Wikipedia:BATTLE. ("Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges [...] or nurture hatred or fear.")

It would be of zero surprise, to anyone that has observed interactions between us -- and your behavior in general -- that you would conclude: "the biggest problem I see is Rico," "I see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits," and "suggest [...] the person filing the report may also be blocked."

No one would expect you to conclude anything else, regardless of the facts. I figured you might try a stunt like this.

This was the edit I called vandalism, in which you added a colon to a reply of mine, turning it into a reply to a different post of yours. It was obvious which post I had been replying to, because I quoted you in my reply.

I've seen other editors replace their sig, time and date stamp with "~~~~" -- when making a minor change to a post that no one's replied to -- and it seems to be the most honest thing to do. If that's not what we're supposed to do, I'd be happy to read the rule that says what we are supposed to do. We can delete our own posts, if no one has replied to them. When we make some minor change to a post that no one's replied to -- and replace our sig, time and date stamp with "~~~~" -- it's in effect deleting our posts, and reposting, simultaneously.

You write you, "see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits." They are four edits that mangled, edited or repeatedly deleted a section I'd created -- with the end result always being that the section title no longer existed. You expose your well-known bias against me (not that I'm the only one you're biased against, as InaMaka and others would attest to). Also, who else would go through 150 posts, just to make a case (against a Carrie Prejean adversary)? Who else would go through "through pages and pages of diffs," just to get revenge?

I've blown the whistle on you for breaking the rules[242], and I don't expect you loved that.

Why haven't you confessed your COI, like about how we've gone round and round at different noticeboards over the Carrie Prejean attack page? Almost every time I post, you accuse me of violating some rule, no matter how much of a stretch it is (or just flat-out wrong). I'm not the only opposing editor I've seen you do this too, and it's pretty clear why you do it.

What you refer to as me making "substantial changes to another user's post," was me putting a reply of mine back where it was before Biofase moved it. Biofase had two posts, one after another -- with the same number of colons -- and apparently considered them part of one big post, and wouldn't let me reply to just the top one. When I tried, Biofase would move my post.

You make rapid fire edits, as anyone can see from the Carrie Prejean history.

I wrote, "Cconning people on a 5P talk page to get NPOV changed just to hep you is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that." This was exactly what happened -- and if you went through it all, you know that -- but I don't expect you to admit that.

You have found our discussions "extremely frustrating"? Is that why you're here writing that I'm a big problem and there was nothing wrong with what Biofase has done, and that an admin should consider blocking me? C.O.I. WP:BATTLE

I have found our discussions extremely frustrating, too, especially when you kept trying to say that a lack of consensus meant that a slag was supposed to be included in a BLP, even when I kept quoting policies that made it obvious that the exact opposite was true. -- Rico 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico, please stay calm. Exploding Boy wasn't evaluating or acting on your request, he was just leaving a comment for the evaluating admin to consider. Writing long rants like this isn't helping your cause; the more you write here, the less anyone is going to want to read it. And this sort of back-and-forth "I know you are, but what am I?" in your comments like "you make rapid fire edits" is unconstructive and irrelevant to this discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know it is uncommon to issue blocks for wars that involve talk pages. Nonetheless Biofase has technically broken 3RR by undoing the actions of other editors four times. I am leaving a notice for Biofase that, if they will agree to stop changing others' comments on this page, even moving them or formatting them, they will not be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rico has made numerous personal attacks against me and Zachary Klaas. He has accused Zachary Klaas of lying and conning people (us). It is not uncommon for off-topic (and inflammatory) edits to be removed entirely as per WP:TALK. Rico insists on discussing other editors (derogatively) in a section about another topic so I moved all that to one section, Rico claims I "can't just take these liberties with other people's content" but has himself removed my comment entirely telling me "why don't you reinsert it". He claims I have no right to move his comment which he inserted in the middle of my post after he did the same to another user's post which I had to reinsert.

His main point is that I "can't just take these liberties with other people's content" when I move it to the appropriate section after he deleted it and I actually restored it. He has accused me of trying to WP:OWN a policy and when I pointed out that this can be considered an attack as stated in the policy he continued with the attack statement. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I respectfully request some time to examine the edits provided before I comment on this. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[243] I was merging sections which can be considered related. I did not consider this a revert.

[244] I will concede that this is technically a revert due to that I remerged the section again.

[245] I will concede that I remerged the section again. I did not however remove his text as he had claimed as I must have duplicated it accidentally (it's still contained in his section heading as can be seen at the bottom of the diff) so I consider this simply undoing my own mistake.

[246] Technically I did remove his edit here as he didn't give me enough time to complete my edit before reverting it himself. A Mistake on my part.

I can see that I technically made 3 reverts here, nontheless I will agree to your request and stop (have stopped) until there is consensus for the merge. Biofase ^flame| stalk  18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Closed with no action, with the understanding that Biofase will not move or reformat any comments by others on this page unless consensus is obtained first. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What about User:RicoCorinth's personal remarks about other users as mentioned by myself, Exploding Boy, and Zachary Klaas I believe. Constructive debate cannot take place among this and he should be warned to refrain from WP:ATTACK. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Enemymakes2 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: PP)

• Page: Henry Louis Gates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Enemymakes2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [247]

• 1st revert: 07:34, July 29, 2009
• 2nd revert: 07:39, July 29, 2009
• 3rd revert: 07:51, July 29, 2009
• 4th revert: 07:54, July 29, 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

User is seeking to add a mugshot to a BLP, replacing another, more neutral image, wherein the subject of the article - an eminent scholar - was arrested before the charge was dismissed within days. There is something rather ugly going on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note – It looks like Hands234 may be a sockpuppet of Enemymakes2. Hands' first edit came just 5 minutes after Enemymakes' last edit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Already protected. by Ronnotel. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon reported by User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus 2nd attempt (Result: 24h)

Please ignore first post. Saved in error. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Doug Holyday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: GoldDragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [250]

• 1st revert: [251]
• 2nd revert: [252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254]

• The contentious phrase that GoldDragon keeps removing is "In 2003, Now Magazine cited this voting pattern in naming Holyday Toronto's worst councillor.". Other text was also added by this user that is not currently contentious.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [256]

I have warned the user on his talk page and started a discussion point on the Doug Holyday talk page but GoldDragon insists on reverting even though I have asked him/her to desist while the discussion is open. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours His first revert in the 24-hour period is technically not a revert, but since he has edited the page before, the first revert is indeed a revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: Malformed)

• Page: LGBT parenting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the second time I am reporting Destinero for plagiarism. The first time -since he was a new user - he was warned by an admin. Nevertheless, repeated plagiarism is continuing. See the Talk page for LGBT parenting.Tobit2 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Please provide diffs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: editing sanction for both reporter and reportee)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Page: Template:People by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Subpage: Template:People by ethnicity/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Page: Template:People by nationality‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Template:People by ethnicity as of 2009-06-09 19:38:22

• • Previous version reverted to: Template:People by ethnicity/doc as of 2009-06-09 20:45:30

• Previous version reverted to: Template:People by nationality as of 2009-06-09 19:40:41

Template:People by ethnicity

• 1st revert: Revision as of 2009-07-21 23:23:34 (remove redundant sentence) (remove unbased requirement) (english)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-22 21:05:05
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-23 12:40:17
• 4th revert: revision as of 2009-07-24 15:10:21

Template:People by ethnicity/doc

• 1st revert: Revision as of 2009-07-21 23:17:43 (remove "fully" as unbased and potentially racist) [sic]
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-22 21:06:47
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-23 12:41:21
• 4th revert: revision as of 2009-07-24T15:10:12

Template:People by nationality

• 1st revert: Revision as of 2009-07-21 23:24:26 (remove baseless instruction) (remove meaningless sentences) (English)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-22 21:05:15
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 2009-07-23 12:43:33
• 4th revert: revision as of 2009-07-24T15:05:10

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (→edit warring on ethnicity and nationality templates: new section)

• No Talk comments for ethnicity or its /doc

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257] (→Query: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence)

These templates parallel the long-standing (over 3 years) policy and practice. All agree the language is well known: "Which we all know." The templates exist for category descriptions, so that folks adding articles to the categories can clearly see the appropriate contents.

As administrator Aervanath says on the policy page: the burden is on the editors proposing a change to establish consensus; see WP:BRD. Debresser has not done so.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd only like to make a few simple points. Please excuse the telegram style

1. My edits were spaced by more than 24 hours each, and my first edit was not a revert at all, but a regular edit. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I made several constructive edits to these templates, with instructive edit summaries, which have been reverted by User:William Allen Simpson without any explanation whatsoever. In my understanding, the editor who does not seek to explain himself is almost always "wrong", because consensus is Wikipedia's central pillar.
3. These templates worry several editors, and do not have community endorsment. I could bring several diffs to show this, including from the same Aervanath mentioned above. BTW, Aervanath's words have been ripped out of their context.
4. I warned User:William Allen Simpson yesterday (sic!) not to start an edit war. Today, I added to that a warning not to try to wp:own these templates, see User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#Nationality_and_ethnicity_templates. It is meaningfull that the "own"-warning reads "Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing." Debresser (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverse report.

Please see Template:People by nationality, Template:People by ethnicity, and Template:People by ethnicity/doc that User:William Allen Simpson has violated the three revert rule (in 1 of them within 24 hours, and in 2 of them playing with the hours a little). This is not the first time: he has been blocked for this before, see User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I could add to this a recent 3rd level warning for Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and the fact that this editors likes to "shlep" people to wp:ani and other places like that without justification. This is just another example, where he is in violation, but tries to wikilawyer his way out of it here. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) See also User_talk:Aervanath#Request where we are again worried that this editor is trampling consensus under his feet. I recommend an extended block for this disruptive editor. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Debresser. WAS produces material which seems to bodge together phrases from different and generally irrelevant policy documents to give these 2 templates a spurious gravitas (supporting his own idiosyncratic POV on heritage and nationality categories) and then reverts anyone who dares to alter the wording. And then WAS compounds the offence by reporting legitimate edits to ANI. Occuli (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He continues reverting at Template:People by nationality. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanction

The edit war between you two is obviously getting out of hand. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't particularly care what the templates say, or what the naming conventions for categories are. I do care that this doesn't get further out of hand. Therefore, I'm going to place the same restriction on both of you: as of now, you both are restricted from editing any page that the other has edited in the last month, excluding discussion forums (talk pages, noticeboards, deletion discussions, etc.). Any edit to a page in which both of you have an interest must be performed by a third party, after a consensus on the appropriate talk page. Violations of this sanction will result in a block. This sanction will last as long as I deem necessary, or until a consensus of editors determines that it should be repealed or modified.--Aervanath (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this an arbitrary decision, which does injustice to the nature of this conflict. I have written so in more detail on User_talk:Aervanath#Really.3F. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifically:

1. User:William Allen Simpson has violated the three revert rule - I have not
2. I engage in disucussion on talkpages (in previous cases of conlict with User:William Allen Simpson, not in this case), and add explaining edit summaries - User:William Allen Simpson does not
3. Other editors make the same reverts of User:William Allen Simpson's edits as I do and support my version (in this, as well as in the previous conflict).

Point 3 indicates my version constitutes consensus. This, together with point 1 and 2 shows that User:William Allen Simpson is the disruptive editor. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I might butt in, I have recently (rather by accident) come to have dealings with these two editors, and I can hardly believe that an equal sanction for both of them is the appropriate action. WAS, though undoubtedly caring about WP's quality, seems to display classic page-owning behaviour, frequently reverting others' edits multiple times with no explanation, rarely engaging in talk page discussion, typically being insulting and unconstructive when he does. Debresser always seems to me willing to discuss politely, to listen to others' arguments and change his position when they are persuasive. I can well imagine that after protracted dealings with this other editor, Debresser may have given up trying to engage in normal dialogue with him, since it is often impossible to do so. The matter of WAS's incivility has been raised multiple times at User:Aervanath's talk page - I'm grateful for the time and action this admin has taken to keep this dispute under some sort of control, but at this point I think it would be more appropriate to address this real underlying issue than to try to tar two editors with the same brush. --Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with D and K above. WAS is technically a highly competent editor but seems to consider himself more equal then others. WAS's replies (if any) consist of copying and pasting reams of irrelevant policy (often initially written by WAS) rather than replying in English. The talk page of Template:People by nationality is a good example, or many cfd discussions, eg about Tamils. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In the temporary absence of Aervanath, and in light of the above comments, would it be appropriate to apply the "until a consensus of editors..." clause in the notice of restriction, and (for the moment at least) repeal the restriction on Debresser? --Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This 3RR report, as originally filed, shows a real conflict between these two editors. I would have no objecting to lifting the restrictions if the two editors would agree to some kind of a deal to avoid future conflicts. Let one or both of them make a proposal. Even a specific idea for WP:Dispute resolution might be a sufficient response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ed, I've been busy/traveling, and had no idea this report was continuing to see activity. Updated this old report with continuing 4RR by Debresser. Also, Aervanath is clearly an involved editor (based on the User talk activity reported here by Kotniski, where the conspirators have been coordinating).

The conflict can be stated fairly easily: There are explicit long-standing policy requirements, there are a few editors that don't like the policy (as that causes them to lose the argument at Categories for Discussion), so they attack the policy collaterally by removing the policy language from the related templates and category descriptions. My defense of these templates against changes against policy is explicitly condoned under the (pre-existing) WP:3RR – "Enforcing certain overriding policies."

In this case, Debresser has repeated changed the templates and /doc, and refused to follow WP:BRD, by ceasing changes and initiating discussion. Note that BRD is only supposed to be used for "keeping discussion moving forward." It is Debresser's responsibility to convince hundreds or thousands of editors that the policy should be revised (a gang of 2 or 3 or 4 is not enough). The policy has been upheld repeatedly at CfD, and these templates were created following a series of recent CfD.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets stop the rhetoric at AN3. This is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion. The editing restriction can be appealed at ANI, the conduct can be dealt with at RFCU and content at RFC/medcom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: Page protected)

• Page: LGBT parenting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Revert of plagiarism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=304926429&oldid=304925742

This is the second time I am reporting Destinero for plagiarism. The first time -since he was a new user - he was warned by an admin. Nevertheless, Destinero's plagiarism is continuing. The last Talk page entry on Talk:LGBT parenting provides details of most recent incident, including information about the warning which was given to Destinero. Earlier entries on the Talk page document other cases of Destinero's plagiarism that were handled under the previous warning. Tobit2 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Seems very fine line to me - I agree with you that you have attempted to adjust the copied sentence so as to show that the sentence can be modified so that it meets our what is not plagiarism guidelines. The trouble in my view appears to be with your word "well-being" and the original quote of "emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment". I am left wondering whether your simplified version covers these aspects well enough. That said Destinero by simply returning the quote is showing disregard for attempting to form consensus is dangerously close to being blocked for edit-warring. Perhaps the only way forward is to fully protect the article and force consideration as to how to move forward. I intend to do that now for 1 day so that all editors can calm down. Parties should carefully read the aspects of WP:plagiarism and perhaps WP:copyright during that time. If it is required that a further and longer protection is needed in the future please feel free to come to my talk page directly.

--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagarism#What is not plagiarism: "some examples where attribution is generally not required: Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Editors who claim that the phrasing at issue is plagiarism must show that there is an alternative phrasing that does not make the passage more difficult to read. If a proposed rephrasing may impair the clarity, or flow, of a paragraph, they must propose a rephrasing that avoids such side-effects, possibly by rephrasing content preceding and following the disputed passage, or even the whole paragraph." Once again and loudly: One short sentence presenting facts followed by references is not plagiarism. And if somebody think so, he should be able to rephrase perfectly or suggest quotation. It would be more constructive approach than was going here and complain. --Destinero (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Daa-gamma reported by User:Ratel (Result: )

• Page: Suicide bag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Daa-gamma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daa-gamma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first inserted a joke image of a teenager fooling around with a plastic bag on the page Suicide bag as an anonymous IP, and when reverted he created an account and re-inserted the image again and again. I have nominated the image for deletion, but in the meantime the new user is in full flight. Sorry, tired, off to bed...► RATEL ◄ 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thikkamasala reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24h)

• Page: Shayan Italia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Thikkamasala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [258]

• 1st revert: [259]
• 2nd revert: [260]
• 3rd revert: [261]
• 4th revert: [262]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Thikkamasala--no diff, since there are plenty of attempts; see also edit summaries in article history.

I've tried to clean this article up, letting the main editor (who also seems to be unaware of WP:OWN, see edit summary) know each time what I was doing and why. (Note: first series of edits I made at work, as an IP.) I've left plenty of messages, but editor only communicates in the occasional edit summary. Editor keeps on reinstating non-encyclopedic, unverified material, a bunch of MySpace and Twitter links, information on the subject's family, etc. Most importantly, there is only one single reliable source in the article, but editor keeps reinserting 'references' to entirely unreliable sources. Given that this has now turned into something of an edit war, I'm taking it here, but since there are more issues, I would appreciate any advice you all can give me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours. Editor has been working on this article for two weeks, adds promotional material, ignores feedback and warnings, removes cleanup tags, and has never responded on Talk. His behavior (and the tags on the uploaded pictures) suggest a possible COI. Block can be lifted if he will agree to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: warned)

• Page: Talk:Hollie Steel (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [264]

• 1st revert: [265]
• 2nd revert: [266]
• 3rd revert: [267]
• 4th revert: [268]
• 5th revert: [269]
• 6th revert: [270]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

It appears that User:Radiopathy wishes to keep comments about the notability of the subject and the possibility of a merger into the series article off of the talk page. User:Colonel Warden has also removed comments as stale and inappropriate topics. within 12 hours of posting. [273] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor is referring to the talk page of a BLP article. He has been disrupting for several days now, adding comments that either have nothing to do with improving the article, or are just downright uncivil: [274].

I addressed his opinion about deleting/merging the article here, and explained that the talk page was not the proper venue for a protracted discussion on notability.

He's been notified about all of these issues on his talk page.

Radiopathy •talk• 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see here i warned User:Radiopathy however that got dealt with swiftly here referred to as "trolling" , after i had initially warned in this edit summary. You may not have liked what was said, you did in fact remove one of your own comments, but that does not give you free reign to continue reverting after a warning. Uksam88 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) You also did edit a comment by editor who reported you because it backed up a point you deleted one of your own posts. I'd suggest you both step away from the talk page, because neither of you appear to be backing down any time soon. Uksam88 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Warned [275] This must be the third edit-warring report about a talkpage in so many days. Anyway, Radiopathy's first removals of a discussion session were inappropriate, which was obvious. Since then, though, the talkpage discussion has descended to the point that it's not very useful anymore either way. Radiopathy, it's not appropriate to remove other people's comments if they were meant to be constructive (Jezhotwells' first post was a good-faith attempt to discuss the article's status), and dismissing them as "trolling" are not appropriate; we have all seen trolling before, and this is not it.
I'm going to restore the original discussion that was removed, and hope the rest of the fighting here will end. The bottom line is that people shouldn't be removing other's posts, Radiopathy was wrong to do so, and hopefully there's nothing left on that matter to discuss. If the thread is removed again Radiopathy will be blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WRONG The user came to the article to disrupt in the first place; there already was a tag at the top of the page with links to all three deletion discussions. His continued trolling was inappropriate.

This is the talk page of a BLP article; my actions were totally justified. It's not like vandalising a user's talk page.

You need to reverse your warning and give a more balanced comment. Radiopathy •talk• 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there have been other deletion discussions doesn't preclude a user from offering his opinion as well. Again: you might not agree with it, but that does not mean he's being disruptive. I suggest you read WP:Disruptive editing, because you do not appear to understand it.

I've made my warning and won't be "reversing" it. All you need to do is understand that removing good-faith talk messages is not appropriate. If you continue doing so, and disruptively accusing editors of trolling, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Barack Obama and tell them what you've said here and see what kind of response you get. The people who WP:OWN that article make sure that nothing is discussed that they don't want to hear about - not the same thing that I'm doing. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Powergate92 (Result: agreement)

• Page: Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger
• User: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Ryulong was warned for edit warring / 3RR warning back in 2008 so i did not warn Ryulong for edit warring / 3RR warning as he knows about WP:3RR. Powergate92Talk 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours (Ryulong and Drag-5) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This was a stale report where the reported party had self-reverted. Can you take another look KoH, and perhaps lift the blocks? –xeno^talk 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked both parties. Please check your email as well. –xeno^talk 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was afk the last two hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow reported by 70.253.80.212 (Result: Nice try, no cigar)

• Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Tennis (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:23, 30 July 2009

HalfShadow reverted contributions to the discussion page of this article 13 times in 28 minutes, as follows:

• 1st revert: 21:36, 30 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 21:47, 30 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 21:52, 30 July 2009
• 4th revert: 21:53, 30 July 2009
• 5th revert: 21:56, 30 July 2009
• 6th revert: 22:01, 30 July 2009
• 7th revert: 22:05, 30 July 2009
• 8th revert: 22:05, 30 July 2009
• 9th revert: 22:08, 30 July 2009
• 10th revert: 22:10, 30 July 2009
• 11th revert: 22:11, 30 July 2009
• 12th revert: 22:16, 30 July 2009
• 13th revert: 23:04, 30 July 2009

His last reversion occurred after he was warned:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:54, 30 July 2009

70.253.80.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nice try, no cigar. Thanks for the extra proxy IPs that need blocking, though. Black Kite 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow reported by 70.253.80.212 (Result: sock blocked)

• Page: Talk:List of ATP number 1 ranked players (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:06, 13 July 2009

HalfShadow reverted contributions to the discussion page of this article 11 times in 27 minutes, as follows:

• 1st revert: 21:36, 30 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 21:58, 30 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 22:03, 30 July 2009
• 4th revert: 22:03, 30 July 2009
• 5th revert: 22:05, 30 July 2009
• 6th revert: 22:05, 30 July 2009
• 7th revert: 22:07, 30 July 2009
• 8th revert: 22:09, 30 July 2009
• 9th revert: 22:11, 30 July 2009
• 10th revert: 22:16, 30 July 2009
• 11th revert: 23:03, 30 July 2009

His last reversion occurred after he was warned:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:54, 30 July 2009

Note this user's long history of being blocked. Also note his bragging about his edit warring prowess while engaged in the above: "I'm fully capable of doing this all day. If you think you can 'wear me down' you don't know me. All your doing is adding to my edit list." 70.253.80.212 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like HalfShadow was reverting edits by the IPs of blocked user Chidel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Which according to WP:3RR is not a violation of the policy. I also suspect this IP is a sock of Chidel's. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked by User:Black Kite. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pantepoptes reported by User:meowy (Result: 7d)

• Page: Erzurum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Pantepoptes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to: [[276]]
• 1st revert: [277]
• 2nd revert: [278]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279]

• Page: Anatolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Pantepoptes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous version reverted to: [280]
• 1st revert: [281]
• 2nd revert: [282]
• 3rd revert: [283]
• 4th revert: [284]
• 5th revert: [285]
• 6th revert: [286]
• 7th revert: [287]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288]

Pantepoptes has been edit warring over multiple articles. As well as the above two articles, also see Accession of Turkey to the European Union. He has recently been given two topic bans for edit warring on Anatolia and Accession of Turkey to the European Union: [289], [290]. He refuses to engage with any editors in the articles' talk pages, and he is abusing edits summaries by placing offensive messages in them rather than explaining his edits, see [291] and [292] for examples of this. On his talk page I warned him warned about his editing style [293] but he simply deleted my warning. He also deleted both his topic ban messages, and gave the edit summary comment "death to cockroaches" [294]. I think this editor should be placed under these arbitration restrictions: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement and given a topic ban for the Anatolia and Erzurum articles. Meowy 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days by User:EdJohnston. Black Kite 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Lvivske Reported by User:Fire_55 (Result: No vio)

He has continually reverted edits (not only mine) that make Alexei Ponikarovsky page show a canadian flag. Alexei IS a Canadian Citizen, but his explanation is that you have to play for team Canada. First, that explanation doesn't make sense because you can only represent one country under IIHF rules plus he ignores the fact that Steve Yzerman and Brett Hull have to flags yet have only played one one national team. I've tried discussing it on his talk page (link here) by saying either show me where is the rule that nationality is what country you represent, but refuses to respond to me and just reverts my edits.--Fire 55 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the report before because he started to talk about it, but he was told by User:MrDolomite "FYI, as of this time, the automatic flag icon is part of the nationality and nationality2 fields in the template. User:Lvivske is having issues with it on individual articles, (see these talk page sections: here, here and there) and I have suggested he come back here to resolve them (he never came back)." (The link to the disscussion here). He tried to change Steve Yzerman's nationality too, but got turned down and doesn't edit ear against it. this user is of Ukraine decent and I think that's the reason behind this. Just to add I really don't care about blocking users all I want is this user to stop reverting an edit he knows himself that is right.--Fire 55 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR, report malformed - suggest dispute resolution or third opinion. Black Kite 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:A Werewolf (Result:Stale)

When I placed some images from Wikimedia Commons of the Unified Task Force troops on the article Unified Task Force, Middayexpress reverted them, claiming they were "unrelated", though I'm not sure how, since I don't think they could possibly be more related in that they directly depicted the article's subject. After Middayexpress reverted the initial addition,User:Sherurcij reverted back, and it went back and forth and back and forth and I suspect it will continue to do so. I have not become involved in the editing since I posted the original images but based on Middayexpress's talk page these two editors have a history together of some kind, and Middayexpress seems kind of protective of the article. I don't know what the problem is, nothing was ever explained to me and my minimal comments on the article's talk page went unanswered. I guess User:Sherurcij has become a revert warrior too.

• First revert: # 08:02, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "rmv unrelated images")
• Second revert: # 16:51, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303960642 by Sherurcij (talk)dishones appraisal of situation by bad faith editor")
• Third revert: # 16:59, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303963313 by Sherurcij (talk)dishones appraisal of situation by bad faith editor")
• Fourth revert: # 17:47, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303967967 by Sherurcij (talk)dishonest appraisal of situation by bad faith editor")

—A Werewolf (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the so-called "edit war" A Werewolf mentions above was over almost a week ago. Secondly, those images are unrelated to the respective sections of the article they were included in. One was of a Botswana Defence Force soldier that was added to a section on American involvement in the relief effort. A second was on Nigerian army soldiers as part of a separate initiative called Operation More Care rather than the one actually addressed in the article. A third image was of an Italian tank, which the user that added it (i.e. A Werewolf) then mislabeled a "UN convoy", and placed in a section discussing the United Nation's UNISOM intervention that doesn't even address it. And the final image was yet another gratuitous image of an Italian tank in Beledweyne -- troops and a city that were predictably not again discussed anywhere in the section in question. As can be seen, the images were completely irrelevant and constituted spamming. This, in and of itself, is a form of WP:VANDALISM, as it undermines the quality of the article at hand. And removing vandalism doesn't count as reverting. To correct this, I reduced the images to just two relevant ones: one of the former U.S. president George Bush's visit to Somalia in a section that actually discusses him & U.S. involvement, and another of a German army U.N convoy that is actually labeled in big black letters U.N. (unlike the image of the Italian tank which the user A Werewolf personally identified as a U.N. convoy, though not even the person who originally uploaded the image did as much) in a section which actually discusses the UN involvement. Lastly, I did not answer A Werewolf's talk page post because he only just posted it a few hours ago! To pretend as though it's been sitting there for ages as he has just done actually speaks volumes about his own ingenuity and intentions. If all A Werewolf had been concerned about was my not having responded to a talk page post of his minutes after he had first posted it (which, again, was but a few hours ago), then he could've contacted me directly on my own talk page rather than opportunistically reporting me for an edit war that was over a good week ago. This smacks of bad faith all the way around. Middayexpress (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stale. Suggest dispute resolution. Black Kite 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Yuubari reported by User:MS (Result: Stale)

• Page: Negai Hoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Yuubari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: diff

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

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See below.

I've asked the user to go to the talk page per WP:BRD but they refused to and continued to revert, even after I asked them on their talk via the 3RR message. It is only after their fourth revert that they decide to resolve it, by leaving me a message on my talk. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really know how to use the edit function properly 'til I read up on a little more. 願い星 is commonly translated to Negai Boshi; also there're a lot of articles already on wikipedia with "Negai Boshi" over "Negai Hoshi."--Yuubari (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Duke53 reported by User: 63.88.64.5 (Result: Article semi-protected)

• Page: Dook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [295]

• 1st revert: [296]
• 2nd revert: [297]
• 3rd revert: [298]
• 4th revert: [299]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [300]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - also, we have discussed in the comments of our edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dook&action=history

I have tried to add a legitimate definition of "Dook" (a frequently used slang reference of Duke University), but user with name "Duke53" (the username itself indicates a bias for this article, and therefore I believe he should not be allowed to revert my edits) keeps reverting my edit without providing any legimate reason. He keeps claiming it is "vandalism". Note that earlier in the history of the article, other users have added a similar entry to mine, and the same "Duke53" user reverted those edits claiming "vandalism" and using words such as "childish" and "moronic". That, in my mind, clearly indicates a lack of objectivity. Please also consider the Talk page of user Duke53 - he appears to have a history of invalid edits and confrontations with other users. Now Duke53 is claiming on the Discussion page that this issue has already been discussed at length, even though the Discussion page previously only had one sentence! Wikipedia is about sharing information, and my definition was truthful, so his claim that a decision was made to leave out that definition would go against the spirit of Wikipedia. Duke53 has now threatened me twice about banning me (see my Talk page), even though I see no evidence that he is an administrator, and based on my actions and his actions, I am no more likely to be banned than he is. 63.88.64.5 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)63.88.64.5

• No violation, and the IP is adding unsourced content, so semi-d the article for a week. Black Kite 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY reported by La mome (Result: PP 72h)

• Page: International Baccalaureate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: ObserverNY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [301]

• 1st revert: [302]
• 2nd revert: [303]
• 3rd revert: [304]
• 4th revert: [305]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307]

This is not ObserverNY's first offense for 3RR La mome (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected The four reverts are not all within a 24-hour period. I think you two should work out your problems on the talk page during the three-day protection period. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pantepoptes reported by User:LibStar (Result: 1 week)

• Page: Accession of Turkey to the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Pantepoptes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [308]

• 1st revert: [309]
• 2nd revert: [310]
• 3rd revert: [311]
• 4th revert: [312]
• 5th revert: [313]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [314]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion below Talk:Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#This_article_is_pro-accession

The editor in question has refused to discuss article concerns on the talk page like I have with other editors. I placed the POV tag on the article and proceeded to discuss changes. I asked Pantepoptes to look at the talk page but s/he refused to. Following my 3RR warning, Pantepoptes reverted one of my other recent edits on a different article with a personal attack in the edit summary of [315]. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that Pantepoptes has now commenced discussion on talk page after I raised this 3RR report. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar has been engaged in a number of edit wars in numerous articles. See German-Turkish relations. Pantepoptes (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

that is not relevant to the reporting of you. anyone can see there is zero edit warring in German-Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LibStar (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a personal vendetta issue with Turks and Turkey. Pantepoptes (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

rather ridiculous assertion, why would I then be bothered building up and spending time researching German-Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? LibStar (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No action - Though Pantepoptes is technically at 4RR I think he undid one of this changes, which brings it down to three reverts altogether. I am concerned at the rapid-fire pace of editing, without waiting long enough for meaningful discussion on Talk. Further reverts without discussion may lead to sanctions. Pantepoptes now seems to belatedly agree with LibStar that the article has too much 'cruft', so perhaps peace and harmony are about to break out after all. (His recent edits took out about 40K of a 60K byte article). Please discuss patiently on Talk where the article should go from here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - 1 week. I have replaced my original close of this report. For a while it appeared that Pantepoptes was adjusting to others' views. No longer. After his original edit war on 26 July, where he removed the POV tag more than once, Pantepoptes has returned to the same article. He continues to edit aggressively, with no attempt to reach consensus, and with incivil edit summaries that accuse other participants of vandalism. His new war started right after the expiry of another block for edit warring at Anatolia. His efforts to tilt this article to a pro-Turkish POV are hinted at by a comment he made above to the filer of the 3RR complaint:"You seem to have a personal vendetta issue with Turks and Turkey." EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note I reblocked with talk page editing disabled. Enigma^msg 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

David1982m reported by Jsharpminor (Result: Handled )

• Page: United States Presidential approval rating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: David1982m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update

It seems that DavidM is actually responding to discussion now, rather than just editing his will into the page... but then again, it's already there. I don't know how to properly dispose of this, but it can be done if possible. (I didn't want to just delete it, I don't think that's kosher.) Apologies for raising an alarm too quickly. (Can you tell that I'm kinda new?)

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

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]

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

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [318]

Several editors (including myself) have asked DavidM to stop reverting this page against community consensus. I put several notes in the page about how David's calculations are original research and do not seem to be Wikified. I have stopped undoing his changes because I do not want to be seen as a disruptive editor. Basically, he is taking the high point of approval for FDR and Obama and averaging it with the low point, and posting that to the page as the average -- totally disregarding all points in between and coming up with an average, and sourcing it nowhere but different online math textbooks.

Detailed explanation: If two numbers, 10 and 100, are averaged, the result is 55. If the following set of numbers is averaged: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 15, 100, the result is 20 -- a far cry from the "average" of 55 arrived at by simply multiplying the highest and lowest numbers.

Please help me; I really don't know my way around Wikipedia very well! All I know is basically, if I see something wrong, fix it -- that, and don't get into edit wars. This is the first time that I've ever engaged another user in a conflict, and as soon as I realized that it was a conflict and not a misunderstanding on his part, I backed off and am going to quit editing the controversial material on this page until further advised. I apologize for the un-Wikified 'diff' links, I don't know how to do those either. Thank you in advance for any assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has ever has ever asked me to stop making reverts to either page. I have made a point to discuss it each time. You will notice I clarify each revision and added further explanation that the complimented others opinion. Particularly on the Approval Rating article. You will notice I changed my edits to compliments JSharpminor's sources. Also, as far his definition of what an average is he states that the amount changes depending upon how many ratings we have available. Well, in this case as your source indicates, is that we do not have complete information. My source is stating is that is based upon the information available provide by you and standard math instructions for computing averages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please continue with discussion as you have to resolve. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:190.53.244.15 reported by User:rsheptak (Result: 1 week )

• Page: Honduras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 190.53.244.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [319]

• 1st revert: [320]
• 2nd revert: [321]
• 3rd revert: [322]
• 4th revert: [323]
• 5th revert: [324]
• 6th revert: [325]
• 7th revert: [326]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [327]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [328]

Note, this is a fixed IP address for this user. As you can see from the edit history of Honduras this user has done more than 7 reverts of the same 43 bytes of info, with 3 separate users trying to return the page to its consensus state. That there is a consensus is demonstrated on the talk page at [329] . This is my first attempt at filling this template out, so please forgive errors and help me correct them. Rsheptak (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: An Administrator, User:CJLL_Wright has blocked this user, so the report might be considered moot at this point.

Blocked--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ashe the Cyborg reported by User:Coffeepusher (Result: 24h)

• Page: Michel Foucault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ashe the Cyborg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [330]

• 1st revert: [331]
• 2nd revert: [332]
• 3rd revert: [333]
• 4th revert: [334]

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

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Gamechanger reported by --aktsu ^(t / c) (Result: 72h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kim Dong-hyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gamechanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [336]
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [337]

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

1. 18:33, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Amateur record */ Every fighter has an amateur record, whats the point of showing it ?")
2. 18:43, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Amateur record */ I don't think amateur records should be shown simply beause you want them to lol, there not added anywhere else nor should they be added here.")
3. 18:52, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Amateur record */ Amateur records only count for when the fighter is an amateur lol, and i know plenty of fighters amateur records, theres just no reason for adding them.")
4. 19:00, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Amateur record */ Who says the fight didn't happen ? What does that have to do with showing an amateur record on a professional page ?")

The fight in question was discussed at WT:MMA (it was some question whether it was part of his pro or amateur record). It was eventually verified it was part of his amateur record, and added and identified as such in the article. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user's previous block was about removing the same fight. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours SoWhy 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ISWAK3 (Result: Both 24h)

• ISWAK3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user (ISWAK3) keeps violating the "Three Revert Rule". Already been warned by another user. This user keeps putting unsourced, disruptive and rumored infomation as seen in these links, [338], [339], [340], [341], [342] and [343] and [344]. He keeps reverting every edit that another user does. He does not own those pages. Every minute he does this. Please Block This User. Thank You. GMA Fan

• • every edit that another user does? i made the first edit, and you reverted them without explaination. unsourced? really? alta productions is a dubbing company owned by gma? how can a dubbing company develop a tv series? User:ISWAK3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved. Caught this on Recent Changes Patrol. Both users keep going reverting each other. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent reported by user:Faustian (Result: 1RR on the article)

• Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Massacres of Poles in Volhynia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For edit warring and abuse and other issues. He seems to be a Polish nationalist based on the fact that this behavior is directed towards stuff that doesn't fit in with a Poliosh nationalist POV. His edit warring and violation of 3RR here: [345]. I had attempted a discussion here: [346] and was met by abuse such as this: [347]. I tried to start another discussion here: [348] also with no results. This is, moreover, only the latest of his actions on this page.

Prior to these incidents User:Poeticbent had been caught completely falsifying a source. Here was how he changed a referenced statement: [349] (scroll down tot he second green section). He changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches" to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches", with Subtleny as the source. Fortunately the original source is on googlebooks: [350]. The third paragraph on this page states "the authorites ransferred about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." This I suppose falls in the category of "Sneaky vandalism." [351].In yet another incident he attempted blanking info taken a book that had previously been online but no longer was (the book was properly referenced, though, with the title, page number and publisher). The entire conversation was here: [352]. Note the torrent of abuse when this was brought up.

This user has a history of such behavior as seen here: [353].Faustian (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• This report is obviously misplaced. It should have been filed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, dispute resolution is for editors who seek resolution, meanwhile, User Faustian is a committed wheel-warrior with an attitude problem, only beating around the bushes. Many times before I turned away from the article which Faustian – being Ukrainian – attempts to control, called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, written about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian nationalist during World War II. I know it hurts having to accept the responsibility for a genocide – as a nation – but it is a necessary ingredient in the process of future reconciliation between the two peoples. Faustian is trying to make the massacres sound like a military conflict with the genocide victims painted by him as as some sort of regular armed forces consisting of actual troops (these are his citations). What else can I say. --Poeticbent talk 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have clearly been edit warring against consensus. I think everyone should take time off from this article, and when editing the talk page at least use basic civility. Personal attacks don't help anything. Ostap 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Take it to dispute resolution. Yes, there is some recent edit warring, so you both (Faustian and Poeticbent, but also some others users involved in rv there) should consider yourself warned and I strongly suggest you stick to 1RR on that article. Request an RfC on the content if you need, and/or protection on the article if you cannot stop yourselves from editing it; stop assuming bad faith and personal attacks against each other, or more serious admin smacking will start. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He made huge changes without discussion, I changed back and started two discussions concerning those changes. He then engaged in a lot of abuse. He's doing it right on this page, referring to me as a "a committed wheel-warrior with an attitude problem." Please look at the diffs that I posted in the beginning. How is our behavior equal? I am going to reinstate the original order to the article (I haven't edited it in over 24 hours) but will keep the images that another user has added in the meantime. Faustian (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• User Faustian (talk · contribs) has the audacity to come here again just to announce that his edit war conducted in bad faith (wiping out good refs, reinserting bad links and promoting politicized finger-pointing) must continue regardless of everything. And, what do you make of that? --Poeticbent talk 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Faustian (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent did violate the 3RR rule (revert 1, 2, 3, 4), but this edit war is stale now and Poeticbent shouldn't be blocked for that anymore. Some uninvolved admin should finally close this thread now. Please also see the related Arbitration Enforcement thread that needs admin attention. Thanks. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Result - 1RR article restriction. All editors working on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia must limit themselves to one revert of that article per day (WP:1RR). The definition of revert is given at WP:REVERT. Any admin may enforce this restriction by blocks, if needed. Before an editor reports a violation of 1RR to admins, it is good practice to leave a note for the person who you think exceeded 1RR and ask them to take back their last edit. This restriction can be lifted by any uninvolved admin without consulting me provided the admin is supported by consensus at a noticeboard. Any closer of a WP:AE case related to this article may undo the restriction if they think it desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:75.15.180.80 reported by User:OlYeller21 (Result: No vio)

• Page: Bobby Hill (King of the Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 75.15.180.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [354]

• 1st revert: [355]
• 2nd revert: [356]
• 3rd revert: [357]
• 4th revert: [358]
• 5th revert: [359]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [360]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [361] (This section and almost everything below it).

This is not a 3RR violation. Also, there are two users making the same change(one username and one IP) but I believe that they are the same person based on their edit comments (see here). What I believe to be a concensus was reached on the issue at the talk page (3 to 1). To make sure that it's clear, I believe that User:75.15.180.80 and User:Eronel189 are the same person. OlYeller^Talktome 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not a violation of 3RR, but warned nonetheless for edit warring and about 3RR. You should initiate discussion with them on the talk pages to sort this content dispute. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read anything I said? The discussion took place. He's making edits claiming that it's "of the devil." Please pay more attention. OlYeller^Talktome 06:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but yes I've read it and I'm still unsure of what you want done about it. It's not a violation plain and simple and I warned them to get talking. If discussion isn't working there's the dispute resolution process. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)