Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive106

User:Michaeledean reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [1] Good faith placement of cleanup tag by apparently uninvolved editor.

• 1st revert: [2] removal of tag by user with known WP:COI with the article in question.
• 2nd revert: [3] another editor had restored the tag, he removes it again
• 3rd revert: [4] and again
• 4th revert: [5] and again. Warning issued after this revert, and a few minutes later:
• 5th revert: [6] reverts again, clearly after being warned for violating WP:EDITWAR.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] left before revert #5 above.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 07:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:69.65.224.246 reported by Scheinwerfermann (talk) (Result: 24h )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Honda Accord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.65.224.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 23:58, 31 July 2009 (edit summary: "Accord is english word")
2. 00:10, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "vehcile isn't sold in Japan, and Accord is an English word")
3. 03:08, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305556389 by Scheinwerfermann Reverted 1 edit by Scheinwerfermann identified as vandalism")
4. 03:30, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305568411 by Sinneed (talk) no explantion given for keeping Japanese text, discussion is no longer active.")

• Diffs of warnings: here, here, here, here, here, here.

• Diffs of attempt to engage user in discussion and guide toward consensus-building: here, here, here.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This coming from the editor who assumes control and ownership of the headlamp article. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to add I don't consider removing Japanese text from the Accord article to be vandalism even if a couple editors obsessed with consensus claim otherwise. None of those editors are involved in automotive articles and I believe in reality the are vandalizing the page by merely parroting off other similarly obsessed editors and running about defending each other. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h: Regardless of ownership issues, you mustn't edit war. Use talk pages to discuss issues, and if needed use the dispute resolution process. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:drag-5 reported by User:jgp (Result: 31h)

• Page: Talk:Kamen Rider Decade (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: repeat offender: drag-5 has been previously blocked for 3RR on another fringe move request of his, and he's admitted elsewhere that he knows the rules and is continuing a constant pattern of disruption to fulfill a personal vendetta

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Read the content of the above diffs; what he's reverting is the closure of a talk page discussion several days old where near-unanimous consensus is against him.

drag-5 is reverting the closure of a move discussion where near-unanimous consensus is against him, and claiming "no consensus" even though only one other person is on his side. The move discussion is days old, and there was volumes of discussion before a formal move began, which consisted of everyone else presenting volumes of evidence against his fringe move. jgpTC 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:InternetMeme reported by User:Fvasconcellos (Result: 24h )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [13]
• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: friendly note, warning
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Propofol/Archive 1#"Abuse" is POV. Extensive discussion.

User has been reverting to his preferred version(s) for days, refuses to wait for a consensus to be reached, and has not responded to notes and warnings. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:76.127.241.68 reported by User:Ravensfire2002 (Result: 31h )

• Page: Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | [[Talk:talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 76.127.241.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none] There are several other users working to revert the IP's changes. It's minor (changing the name of a section of the talk page), but it's gotten pretty annoying.

Please look at the history [24] of the page for the sheer determination of this IP. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:83.41.235.163 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

David Rohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.41.235.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 17:38, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Doug Weller deleted what I had written in counter to the extremely biased interpretation of my research. Wikipedia cannot afford to be biased against truth.")
2. 18:07, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "The changes are not unsourced, they are referenced. And I am entitled to counter the bias of this article.")
3. 18:18, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Idiot! What isn't original research?")
4. 18:23, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "These are consequence and is absolutely in line with the theory.")
5. 22:04, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Deleted sentence because this reference does not in any way refer to the argument of the previous sentence. References need to be relevant"

• Diff of warning: here

More pov edits in the last couple of minutes but I won't include them here. 2 other editors have warned this IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

24h; 3rr plus incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan reported by 162.6.97.3 (result: semi)

• Page: Rebecca Quick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: [12:41, 20 July 2009 162.6.97.3 (talk) (4,028 bytes) (undo)]

• 1st revert: [KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 303123748 by 162.6.97.3 ]

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

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

KeltieMartinFan has engaged in unprofessional edit-warring for at least three days, firing hostile complaints across the Wikipedia landscape. Rather than a real interest in sourcing, and absolutely no interest in the facts, KeltieMartinFan repeatedly demonstrates some odd, anti-Wikipedia agenda about the biography entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2009-07-20T13:49:54 Syrthiss (talk | contribs | block) m (3,945 bytes) (Protected Rebecca Quick: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: killing off the sockfest of ips ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)))) - does that help? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackoreo reported by Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} (Result: On hold)

• Severe edit warring violation on

Miss Universe 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Jackoreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent and unrelenting edit warring despite reverts and deletions of content from numerous other editors, pleas to take it to the talk page in edit summaries and a warning on user's talk page.

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

1. 23:00, 27 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 01:22, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 12:21, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 23:51, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 03:39, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 10:09, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 10:31, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 12:28, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 00:26, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
10. 02:19, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
11. 08:33, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
12. 09:12, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
13. 09:24, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
14. 09:42, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
15. 11:21, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
16. 12:00, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
17. 12:02, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
18. 14:22, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
19. 22:16, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
20. 00:50, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
21. 00:58, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305375461 by 122.53.124.176 (talk)")
22. 05:28, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
23. 23:39, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
24. 02:37, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
25. 02:57, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305566126 by 99.148.166.91 (talk)")
26. 05:47, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
27. 05:53, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
28. 23:22, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
29. 11:41, 3 August 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note – User has not reverted after the warning. Keeping this on hold to see if the behavior continues. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll look at the diff of the warning above, I left the user a custom, non-template message (citing the edit warring policy and warning about the consequences) at 05:57, August 2, 2009, after which two additional reversions occurred. It was only upon filing this report that I left the standard template message. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:GoRight reported by Raul654 (Result: warning)

GoRight is a frequently disruptive user who has been to AN multiple times. He is currently edit warring on Fred Singer:

• Rv #1
• #2
• #3
• #4

Also note that his edit immediately prior to #1 was this edit in which he restored an edit made by user:A Complete Fiasco, a Scibaby sock. The fact that A Complete Fiasco was a scibaby sockpuppet was explicitely noted in the edit history prior to GoRight's edit. GoRight has a history of meatpuppetry on Scibaby's behalf, and has been warned a number of times not to do so. When notified of his violation of the 3rr, his response was to wikilawyer.

I think a substantial block is in order. Raul654 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a few minutes to gather a few diffs and I shall make a response here. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page for a week, since more than just two people are involved in this. I don't know if any further action should be taken or not. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about GoRight's disruption, including his ongoing flagrant violation of the meatpuppetry policy, than I am about disruption to the article. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Addressing the bits of this that are actually related to this noticeboard, if you closely examine the actual content involved in the diffs provided by Raul above, the content being asserted in #1 is the funding sources of UCS whereas in the last three the content being asserted is the activist nature of UCS. These are clearly not the same content. To the extent that these four edits all share a single word, liberal, I suppose that a wikilawyer could make an argument that I have technically violated WP:3RR here, although I clearly have not violated the spirit of it ... even partially.

Prior to my having been made aware of this report by User:William M. Connolley, I had already indicated on my talk page where the issue was being discussed by the parties involved that (a) if I had made an oversight I was more than willing to self-correct it, and (b) that I felt we needed to move on to an RfC to resolve this issue. Despite Raul's assertion above that I am trying to wikilawyer my way out of this, I specifically denied having the need (and therefore the desire) to do so.

I regret that I need to needlessly disrupt this board with discussion unrelated to WP:3RR violations but Raul's inclusion of unfounded sock puppet accusations merits a response. To the extent that the prior history between Raul and myself is relevant to your decisions, please see this and the on-going discussions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop.

Specifically regarding this the history clearly shows that my intention was to support the position being argued by User:John G. Miles when he was being confronted by what I perceived at the time to be a WP:TAGTEAM. To my knowledge this user is not a sock puppet of Scibaby. If he were I am quite certain that Raul would have blocked him well before I made that revert, or at the very least by now.

So, I leave it in the hands of the impartial observers here to decide whether my actions above warrant a block, especially given that I have no further intention of reverting and will be pursuing an RfC as the next step. --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] (copy from GoRights talk page)

You went above 3RR (btw. weren't you promising to only do 1RR at some point?) - here are the 4 reverts: #1 clearly marked as revert, #2 partial revert to a scibaby edit (rewritten somewhat), #3 revert and marked as such and finally #4 revert marked as such. That comes to 4 reverts within ~22 hours by my calculations. (nb. you had another edit - but that wasn't a revert - but introduction of text that was reverted by others) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who created this complaint, but instead i notified GoRight on his talk that he had (probably inadvertently) broken 3RR. I now find that he is trying to lawyer his way out of it, instead of just accepting it, so therefore my comments here. What really ires me here, is that GoRight (and Abd on GR's talk) aren't just accepting that it was a mistake, and that its simply a content dispute, but instead are insulting everyone else by calling it "tag teaming". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My outside opinion: protecting the page, as J. delanoy did, was definitely the right decision here. All parties are reverting one or another like crazy, and while it may be true that there are more editors against GoRight's additions than for them, this stuff still needs to be dealt with at the talkpage rather than through edit warring. Furthermore, if it is true that GoRight has agreed not to continue this edit war (as he claims), I see no need for a 3rr block just yet; yes, GoRight has a long block history so we should be strict, but at the moment I don't see how a block will improve the situation.

As for the report itself...both the first and fourth "reverts" listed are not actually reverts. The first is, as far as I can tell, the first time GoRight inserted that particular text into the article (although he may have edit warred previously over other bits of text; if that has happened, the report needs to give clear diffs for it), and the fourth one is not a new revert, it's a copyedit that came right after GoRight's previous edit (which was a revert). That leaves 2 reverts here (3 counting the one that restored A Complete Fiasco's edit from before), not 4, so 3RR doesn't apply and the general edit warring problem has been dealt with for now through page protection. If GoRight's overall behavior is a problem, it should be dealt with somewhere other than this report (although personally I don't see a clear reason for blocking, sanctioning, or whatever; while Raul is an experienced and trusted user, he also appears to have at least a little bit of history with GoRight, so these allegations would have to be looked into more closely). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that my revert diffs were in error. Please refer to the 4 diffs Kim listed above. Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, after looking more closely, I guess it's four reverts when everything is included: restoring A Complete Fiasco, [25], then three times restoring his 'liberal' edit: [26][27][28]. (note, though, that the first of these was not a machine revert: it actually inserted different sources and different text than what GoRight had inserted before, so who knows, maybe we can call it half a revert.) Those reverts were against four different editors, at least, so a block would be appropriate. (Not currently necessary since the page is protected, but if J. delanoy thinks it's ok then the page could be unprotected and GoRight blocked if he shows any signs of starting this again.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if User:Kut or Bait Fish is a sockpuppet of GoRight, that's one more revert in there. (Kut or Bait Fish is obviously a sockpuppet of someone, at least—note his first couple of edits jumping into ongoing disputes and using alphabet soup, and hitting the same articles as GoRight and Fiasco: Kut or Bait fish-A Complete Fiasco; Kut or Bait Fish-GoRight.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kut is a sockpuppet of banned user Scibaby. Scibaby and GoRight are not the same person, although GoRight has on multiple prior occasions meatpuppetted on Scibaby's behalf, and has been warned not to do it again. His edits here are a flagarant violation of the prohibition on meatpuppetry. Raul654 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw at least three users on both sides (no one else came close to 3RR, afaik), so I decide that protecting the page would be most appropriate. If you do not think that the edit war would continue without GoRight, by all means unprotect the article if you wish. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I'm seriously not seeing how this revert ("In the 1990s Singer worked together with a number of industries whose interests matched his views on controversial issues, notably on global warming and on the effects of tobacco smoke and ozone on human health.") has any relationship whatsoever to the other three edits ("which has been referred to in the media as an activist group generally regarded as liberal") provided by KDP from a completely different section of the page. For the purposes of WP:3RR how is that revert even relevant here? It is from a completely separate section and shares no content whatsoever with the other three. Please help me understand how you are counting this as being a revert of the same or even partial content related to the other three reverts? I'm not arguing here, I simply want to understand the details of how you are counting things so that I can avoid misunderstandings in the future. --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't say that all the reverts have to be reverts of the same thing for the rule to apply. The rule is just that you shouldn't make 3 reverts to a single article, no matter what those reverts are. Reverting one bit of text three times, or reverting three bits of text one time each; it's all the same.

As an aside, for someone who claims to be uninterested in WikiLawyering, your comments such as this are just that; nitpicking over whether you 'met' or 'exceeded' 3RR, and whether or not your reverts are 'related', is hair-splitting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

"nitpicking over whether you 'met' or 'exceeded' 3RR" - To the extent that 3RR establishes a bright line, taking note of whether one has crossed that line, or not, should not be viewed as "nitpicking".

"whether or not your reverts are 'related', is hair-splitting" - OK, I have just reviewed the current text of WP:3RR. It reads differently now than I remember it. It now states "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period ...". I don't recall the bolded part but perhaps it just did not stand out at the time I last reviewed the policy. I had previously thought that "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" was interpreted to mean of the same content or portions thereof which is why I thought I was not in violation (i.e. since there was no content overlap in the case of KDP's first edit.

If the rule is being interpreted as "any reversion of any thing any where on the same page without respect to the content involved" then I can understand KDP's complaint and it was, indeed, inadvertent on my part based on a misunderstanding of how things were being interpreted. So is this how reverts are now being counted? If so I shall endeavor to be more careful in the future. I honestly have no desire to violate the policy as it will obviously get me blocked if I do. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update Per the messages above and J.delanoy's permission, I suggest unprotecting the article; GoRight's edits seem to be one user against the consensus of multiple users, so the reverting by other users there, though not great, was at least understandable. I'm hoping that GoRight understands now not to edit war at this or other articles, and that if there is a consensus against his additions (as evidenced by multiple editors objecting to them) he should suggest changes at the talkpage rather than editing the article.
As a condition of the unblocking, I would want GoRight's assurance that he will not continue edit warring at this or related articles. What that means, GoRight, is that for the immediate future you will not make controversial edits without discussing them first on the talk page—being BOLD is ok, but anything that could be construed as a revert (even ones like your edit today where you withdrew the stuff about UCS's funding and replaced it with stuff about their liberal activities—while technically different information, it still is at least restoring a similar train of thought). If you do make a controversial, revert-like edit, you will be temporarily blocked (since you have technically violated 3RR already today, you technically could have been blocked already; personally, though, I don't see the use in any blocking if you don't start reverting again).
If you understand this and agree not to continue edit warring, GoRight, please respond here and I will unprotect the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

During a previous AN discussion, GoRight promised restrain himself to a 1rr. [29] It was a lie designed to put that thread to rest. I don't see why he won't do it again now. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so that certain other highly placed administrators don't attempt to use "immediate future" against me by interpreting it as effectively "indefinitely" since it is ill-specified, could we please state an actual time limit on this? If I had actually been blocked today what would the duration have been? "immediate future" to be interpreted as that same effective timeframe? 2X that timeframe? Is that OK? (And I am not trying to wikilawyer here nor do I intend to be disruptive, I just want things to be clearly defined for obvious reasons.) I am otherwise OK with and shall honor your stated constraints. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Raul: That post was nearly a year ago, and besides, if GoRight does turn out to be 'lying' this time it will be easy enough to block him the moment he does another revert; I know many people are watching this.

@GoRight: it means for the duration of the current dispute over these wording that you were edit warring over; since you have already reverted more than 3 times over that stuff, you can't really do anything other than start a discussion at the talkpage, and if you perform another revert at this article while such discussion is going on then you would be edit warring and could be blocked accordingly. Whenever that discussion is over (say, for example, a week from today) then you probably won't be blocked for a single revert anywhere, but your history of edit warring still means that you would need to be cautious in reverting and that admins would be willing to block you pretty quickly if you started edit warring; remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, and editors can be (and have been) blocked before they hit it.

As for time frame, 24-31 hours is typical for a 3RR block and is what I would have given you if I were blocking right now. Some people might make a block for you longer since you have been blocked in the past; it depends on the circumstances. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now unprotected the page, with the understanding that GoRight should not continue edit warring there, and should suggest controversial edits at the talkpage before making them. I don't know anything about other behavior issues or history between GoRight and Raul, or about the ongoing ArbCom case, but I think what has been done so far is all the action that is necessary for this article. If there are general behavioral issues or ongoing problems that need to be dealt with, they should be dealt with at a noticeboard other than this one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the appropriate noticeboard for reporting meatpuppetry? Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably ANI, I wouldn't know; certainly not here, though.

Like I said above, I am not familiar with the history behind this editor and the various ANI threads/ArbCom cases that have happened or are happening, so I don't presume to know all the background. (Personally, my first impression is that GoRight has been here for over a year and a half and seems to be a real editor; he may be a POV-pusher or have a history of conflicts, but that doesn't automatically mean he's a meatpuppet—but again, I'm not in a position to judge this.) Anyway, I'm only here to resolve the edit warring at the article that was reported, not to make rulings about meatpuppetry. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a sockpuppet (an alternative account) with a meatpuppet (someone who edits on behalf of another user). Meatpuppetry on behalf of a banned user (in this case, GoRight reverting to Scibaby's edit) is prohibited. Regardless, thank you -- I'll take this up elsewhere. I didn't realize that meatpuppetry wasn't considered here. Raul654 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not confusing them, just saying that I see no damning evidence that GoRight is acting as a meatpuppet. (WP:MEAT defines a meatpuppet basically as a banned editor's RL buddies who show up on Wikipedia to support him; just happening to agree with a banned editor, on the other hand, does not automatically mean you are working for him. It may be a POV-pushing problem or a behavioral problem, but I don't know if it's meatpuppetry.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ban , and specifically "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted. WP:SOCK defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. " In short, restoring edits from banned users is generally not permissible, and repeatedly doing so is grounds for a block. Raul654 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI covers meatpuppetry as well as socking. Black Kite 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've kicked this thread over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Rracecarr (Result: 48h)

• Page: List of common misconceptions‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: edits are all deletions, which are reversions by definition.

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Information-Line reported by User:Jeroen (Result: 48h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 20:03, 1 August 2009 (but please take a look to earlier revisions, it's much more complicated)

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

• This user reverts religion statistics that have a valid neutral source (Indian census 2001). He increases the amount of Sikhs from 16,1% to 56,1%, although the census of 2001 clearly is saying 16,1%. He didn't provide any source for his reverts. When you look to his user page and talk page it's clear that he is pro-Sikhs/pro-Punjabi. To be clear: I'm completely neutral in this issue, I just follow the census source, someone else did put there.

• This user is already warned for similar cases. Please check his talk page (please be aware of the fact he deletes things on his talk page, like this).

• No I didn't solve it on the talk page, because that is not needed. The source is 100% valid and this user tries to push his POV very clearly. I told the user about his POV in the edit summary, but the only thing he does is accusing me of POV in the edit summary.

• Please give this user a last warning or block him, because these kind of one issue users are a huge problems on the English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, Jeroen (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (from the Dutch Wikipedia)
  P.S. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Punjabi people and User:Information-Line. --Jeroen (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is vandalism, not 3RR, but I've blocked him for it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:75.56.207.148 reported by User:bonewah (Result: talk)

• Page: Jason Leopold‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 75.56.207.148 (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

The edits in question here arent really malicious, just of low quality, in my opinion. Material being added is of dubious note and redundant with other things on the page. I have not tried to communicate with this user as the bulk of his edit history[39] has been to vandalize this page example example 2. The IP's talk page is filled with warnings [40] so I didnt bother with one more. Leave me a note on my talk page if you feel I should try and work this out with the IP or if this is too trivial for attention. Thanks in advance Bonewah (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you or anyone else has tried to talk to this person, other than putting templated warnings on his page. Please at least try and engage them, then come back if that fails William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Piotrus (Result: No vio )

• Page: Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]
• 5th revert: [46]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–1939)

While diff #5 can be, with good faith, considered an attempt to compromise (even if it is removing part of the same paragraph that was completely removed in the preceding 4 edits), the first four diffs are reverts, with controversial spelling change and the same para being repeatedly removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• No violation I only see three reverts, the other edits in the 24 hour period were not reverts. I believe it'd be courteous to warn/notify the user about 3RR. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Future MD 217 reported by -- Banjeboi (Result: 24h)

• Page: Coming out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Future MD 217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 68.42.244.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

The page history seems pretty clear; user keeps adding some non-notable blog content against consensus as seen by multiple editors reverting them and even explaining why; they have been warned on their talkpage. I can spell out diffs if really needed. They previously edited there as 68.42.244.36, or that IP made the identical edits prior to the account doing so. -- Banjeboi 06:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Add 98.209.145.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. -- Banjeboi 08:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. SPI case opened on the two IPs. -- Banjeboi 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the WP:3RR rule

A user using the IPs Special:Contributions/128.206.82.56 and Special:Contributions/99.195.196.136 has violated the WP:3RR rules on the Java (programming language)‎ article, even after numerous warning from various other editors (see User_talk:128.206.82.56). He was previously (some days ago) warned for WP:POV, nonconstructive editing, and WP:OUTING (see his previous nonconstructive behavior). He has also recently (today) edited my user page, which I consider as vandalism, judging by his recent behavior on articles. Please note that I have not engage myself in edit war, various editors have returned the article to its original version after his many reverts.

Some of his reverts are (3rd August):

• 20:26
• 20:41
• 20:46
• 20:55

Hervegirod (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cr*p report, but 3RR so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgrittani reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 31h)

• Page: Anne Hathaway (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mgrittani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]
• 5th revert:

[52]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [54]

Editor has repeatedly replaced a good image with one that he took of himself with Anne Hathaway (actress). Besides the fact that it is uncroppable to remove the fan, the image is an extremely unflattering image, taken with the camera extremely close to Hathaway's face, causing her features to be distorted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-08-04T18:30:55 Jauerback (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mgrittani (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KevinOKeeffe reported by Chuthya (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Natural born citizen of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KevinOKeeffe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 09:53, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */ The Arthur & Obama cases remain in contention; they are not settled facts of history as yet.")
2. 14:06, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "*Revert* I noticed you only removed the reference to Obama, not to Arthur. Yet they are equally in question. Let's strike for a NPOV, shall we?")
3. 19:54, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "The word "apparently" acknowledges that it is widely believed they were born in Vermont & Hawaii, while taking into account that such beliefs represent a POV, hence not weasel wording.")
4. 00:02, 4 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "If you can find a source that proves these persons were born in Vermont & Hawaii, then cite it. This section exists precisely because there exists a controversy about where they were born, after all.")

Your proof that the first rv is a rv doesn't work for me (otherwise, nice report, thank you) but edit warring / POV pushing is clear enough: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnosisquest reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: warned)

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

For more than two months, Gnosisquest has been adding fringe POV text to Aisha. It's basically the same edit in a number of different forms, but there is a clear consensus on the article that the text does not warrant inclusion. Multiple editors (including myself) have tried to explain to Gnosisquest why the text shouldn't be added, but they keep adding it anyway. Gnosis is, in my opinion, an SPI who's really just here to keep pushing a POV on Aisha.

Reverts: The following six diffs are basically the inclusion of the same text over and over.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

These three are the inclusion of different text, but it's more of the same POV.

• 7
• 8
• 9

Warnings:

• 1
• 2

At this point, I (and the other editors) aren't really sure what to do, hence this post. After two months, it's getting to be a bit much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I consider myself "semi-involved" as I've been aware of this slow motion edit war for several weeks, but only recently bacame directly involved. I performed an informal analysis (in my head, not using tools) of Gnosisquest's Contrib History and found this: since registering the account just over 4 months ago, he/she has made just under 300 edits, and 90% - 95% have related directly to the topic of Aisha's age. I found only two edits to articles unrelated to Aisha, which gives a very strong impression that this is an SPA account. As evidenced by the diffs above, Gnosisquest has repeatedly attempted to insert FRINGE material from questionable sources, against a strong and continued consensus that the material is not appropriate. In light of this pattern of tenditous editing, admin intervention seems appropriate. Doc Tropics 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The source which I intend to add is peer reviewed --Gnosisquest (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Gnosisquest is a definite single purpose account. He/she started editing the Aisha article on April 1, 2009, and has made virtually no edits outside of tendentiously editing in material about Aisha's age. The only lapses in his long pattern of edit warring were during the period when the page was protected due to his edit warring. Otherwise, it's been nothing but a series of reverts to preferred versions and slight alterations in tactics peppered with bouts of discussion on the talk page in which he ignores what everyone else has to say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection ?I was new that time,I admit I made a mistake.I do not ignore what you have to say, I have been using different sources.I usually discuss on the talk page before performing edits .I do not ignore what others have got to say.--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[refactored own comment as out of place]--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your belief does not change facts.I wrote a comment on the talk page of the article where you failed to respond (for 5 days)spellberg colinturner doubt the age mentioned Adil Salahi clearly states that she was older there are many scholars who support my viewpoint (in foreign languages) this is not a fringe theory --Gnosisquest (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the top of this page, it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page." As such, this is not the place for discussion like this. Take it back to Talk:Aisha. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. There is literally months worth of discussion at the talk page, and the consensus is quite clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason for which the material was reverted by helloannoying was that he considered it as a synthesized statement.This was corrected soon afterwards after talking on his userpage.I asked those who reverted my edits to comment on the talk page of the article (they did not do so for about a week or so (I had to edit the article since no one objected to it and did not provide any valid arguments )I'm trying my best to be a good wikipedian .The reason for my edits was because other editors choose to remain mum on this issue ,did not give any valid reason for reverting my edits . As for the edits 7,8,9 provided by helloannyong. I was trying to add what Colin turner exactly writes of the bedouins of that time, not the biased view .None of m y edits are present on the page All the edits on the page are the result of discussions on the talk page with people of different views. --Gnosisquest (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Our policy does not recognize any right to endlessly reinsert material that is rejected by consensus. I think we are close enough to WP:Disruptive editing for an admin to issue a warning against any repeat of this behavior. Gnosisquest could still pursue WP:Dispute resolution if he thinks he can get the consensus changed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ED I wont revert edits on that page unless it is apt to do so .--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of the promise above, I've given Gq a final warning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:MishMich reported by Avi (talk) (Result: Self Reversion occurred; report withdrawn)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MishMich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:38, August 3, 2009

• 1st revert: 15:07, August 4, 2009
• 2nd revert: 17:13, August 4, 2009
• 3rd revert: 18:31, August 4, 2009
• 4th revert: 18:51, August 4, 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: MishMich is an established user, but for the record:
  • Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMishMich&diff=306098102&oldid=306050991
  • Response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MishMich&diff=next&oldid=306098102

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Circumcision#Long series of changes

-- Avi (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1st revert - is not a revert, it is my editing my previous edit reduce text and adjust format of an image that was agreed as preferable on the talk page.
• 2nd revert - is not a revert, it is my placing quotation marks around text, following discussion on talk page that the text for the EL had to be a quote from the link's home page.
• 3rd revert - this is my 1st revert - of Avi revert of the editing made since his revert 26 hours previously
• 4th revert - this is my 2nd revert - of Avi 2nd reverting of my editing

All other changes to this page were either insertion of new material, or alteration to material in a way that accommodated comments made by other editors on the talk page.

This is an incorrect WP:3RR warning, as I rarely revert, and have not done so more than twice in a day on an article since I learned the WP:3RR rule. I would counter this false accusation with a counter-claim that Avi has breached this himself by engaging in three reverts in a 27 hour period (which transgresses the 3RR rule in principle if not within 24 hours exactly), and it was his reverts and premature warning that are edit warring, not my edits.

• 4th revert - 23:34, 4 August 2009
• 3rd revert - 23:27, 4 August 2009
• 2nd revert - 21:11, 3 August 2009
• 1st revert - 20:50, 3 August 2009

I came to this article in response to an RfC, and the techniques used to prevent insertion of material contrary to a certain POV intrigued me. My edits commenced after the first of Avi's reverts listed above, so I do not take this personally, although it seems from his pattern of editing that he (although not alone in this) has WP:OWN issues with this article, and this involves using policies and guidelines to restrict other editors ability to make positive contributions to this article - contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia, and limiting the potential for improving the article (especially when limiting editing in a way that excludes material relevant to the topic of the article). This erronious accusation highlights this, and seems an inappropriate response to a fairly experienced editor who is new to this article, and who has spent five years engaged in doctoral research into issues which include non-consensual genital surgery of infants. Mish (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Version of MishMich's reverts as reported by Coppertwig:

• 1st revert: 10:21, 4 August 2009 adds link to norm-uk.org which had been deleted 00:14, 4 August 2009
• 2nd revert: 20:53, 4 August 2009 re-adds paragraph about David Reimer which had been deleted 19:11, 4 August 2009
• 3rd revert: 22:31, 4 August 2009 Again re-adds David Reimer paragraph
• 4th revert: 22:51, 4 August 2009 Again re-adds David Reimer paragraph This last revert has been self-reverted here

Plus yesterday reverting against 3 other editors to increase the number of external links in the article.

I've struck out Avi's list of reverts since my list is essentially the same thing in what I think is a better format (diff links rather than history links). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My preceding comments were compiled while the above was inserted, and so I have left them intact to show that the original accusation was unfounded - these pages take a long time to load, so it takes some time for me to review the links. I will now attend to the revised accusation, and hope that nobody decides to change that before I have finished.

• 1st revert is inaccurate. I was told on the talk page that because the editors had limited ELs to five-a-side, if I wanted to insert another EL (in this case to the only UK-specific pro group) I would have to replace one of the existing links. Through discussion on the talk page, it seemed that the entry that dealt with the effects of male circumcision on female sexual pleasure was of dubious relevance to the core subject of the article, so as explained on the talk page, I did this. I later found a balancing EL for a UK group promoting circumcision, and so I added back the link on female sexuality I had removed, and added the counter-balancing link to a UK pro-circumcision org as well. Both links (for and against) were medically sound.

• 2nd revert is inaccurate. In discussion on the talk page, I was informed that this was inappropriate because of guidelines about medical evidence - I had inserted it in the medical section. I am still unclear why details of a circumcision that has appeared in hundreds of books and papers in peer-reviewed journals (including medical, psychology, sexology, sexuality and feminist texts) should be seen as 'anecdotal'. However, in response to the discussion, I created a new section 'Circumcision in the media and academic discourse', to avoid the way this legitimate material was being prevented. This is the most well-known case involving a botched circumcision, with the story of David Reimer and the events surrounding the loss of his penis featuring in one book about him, two UK BBC documentaries, documentaries in the UK, as well as being used by Milton Diamond in his critique of the work of John Money.

• 3rd revert - this is the first revert of the revert by Avi which incorporated all the edits made over the previous 24 hours, including those modified as a result of discussion on the talk page.
• 4th revert - this is the second revert of the second revert by Avi which incorporated all the edits made over the previous 24 hours.

Again, there are two reverts here - both in response to the reverts of a serial reverter who appears to use reverts to block material he does not like going into the article, and accuses editors who resist this of edit-warring inaccurately. Mish (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I second this editors actions, they seem to be on the level and in good faith. This is premature and obvious attempt to drive Mish away from Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article edit history, one can see Mish attempting to make wholesale changes, changes that have been disputed on the talk page. Continued disregard for multiple requests to discuss the matter on the talk page by making wholesale changes to what was at least a semi-stable version of the article is classic edit warring. In general, and especially on controversial articles, massive changes should NOT be made without a full discussion on talk. While there are those who may applaud the edit warring, it is edit warring nonetheless. -- Avi (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He has not made massive changes, merely a series of small changes, mainly involving organization, format, and structure. Remember it takes two to tango so if he's edit warring so are you. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, Gary, Mish's reversions of Me, Jake, and C-twig indicates from whence the edit warring comes. Regardless, we shall leave that up to the closing admin to decide. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only reverted your reverts. To show my own good-faith, I have reverted my last revert so that you can constructively discuss these changes on the talk page - TBH, there are other articles I am more interested in, but this one does seem to have some problems, as there is no place to include relevant material the way it has been structured, and there seems to be a tendency to bully out editors who seek to make changes - as your premature warning and accusations illustrate. Mish (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Self reversion occurred, report withdrawn, discussion will continue on talk. Avi (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MishMich. I withdraw my part of the report too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jkjhkjdhfkjdsfy reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Christopher Columbus High School (Miami, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jkjhkjdhfkjdsfy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 22:27, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306073845 by 98.248.32.178 (talk)")
2. 22:36, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306096892 by 98.248.32.178 (talk)")
3. 22:44, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306098475 by 98.248.32.178 (talk)")
4. 22:49, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "These alumni come directly from the school magazine, alumni, ect., who is changing this?")
5. 23:06, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306102194 by Barek (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The user was blocked 24 hours by C.Fred (talk · contribs) for edit warring & violation of the three-revert rule. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: warned)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:50, 3 August 2009

• 1st revert: 19:39, 3 August 2009
• 2nd revert: 05:55, 4 August 2009
• 3rd revert: 14:00, 4 August 2009

• Previous version reverted to: 16:26, 4 August 2009

• 4th revert: 16:46, 4 August 2009 – just to note, second part of the sentence is sourced to a Krugman's own blog and its appropriateness as a source was never disputed; it was included a month ago after discussion at talk in which Lawrencekhoo participated

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Lawrencekhoo is an established user. Also, a month and a half ago he broke 3RR on the same article but since he was engaged in a discussion at talk page I just warned him [55] and gave him a chance to self-revert (which he didn't do).

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] one of our discussions

-- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR vio, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake I guess. Sorry. Lemme go look at the page history. I have been doing some heavy editing on that article, as far as I know, according to consensus. I didn't think about 3RR. BTW, isn't there a 3RR exception for removing undue negative material from a BLP? Anyway, I won't touch that article for a while. LK (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the last revert I did, the person I reverted left this message on my talk page in response:

Oops I hadn't meant to add the bits about Krugman encouraging the housing bubble back in. I think I may have been working on an older version of the article in one of my edits. Sorry about that. I see you've taken it back out. [57]

Anyway, sorry about forgetting 3RR. LK (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr3003nights reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 3 weeks)

• Page: Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mr3003nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think that from article's history is obvious that Mr3003nights is edit waring against several editors. He insists that sentence "the overcoming of wage labor became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" should be included in the article. [58] Because that is the same edit that User 99.2.224.110 tried to introduce several times [59], and because they almost only edit Wage slavery, I believe that Mr3003nights and 99.2.224.110 are the same user. 99.2.224.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already blocked for edit waring on this article several times, and this is becoming disruptive even though there is no 3RR violation. -- Vision Thing -- 08:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the same person. Clearly disruptive, and repetitively so. Three weeks. -- tariqabjotu 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan reported by 162.6.97.3 (result: semi)

• Page: Rebecca Quick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)

Despite a new effort to engage this individual in an appropriate talk discussion -- based on new sourcing and other editors' input, KeltieMartinFan is choosing to reignite an edit-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk • contribs)

Semi William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 72h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:28, 5 August 2009

• 1st revert: 15:43, 5 August 2009
• 2nd revert: 17:48, 5 August 2009
• 3rd revert: 18:11, 5 August 2009
• 4th revert: 19:23, 5 August 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Scribner has already been blocked four times for edit warring, last time on the same article.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to resolve dispute both through article's [60] and user's [61] talk page.

• Note: Scribner was reverted by three different users [62] [63] [64], and two admins later confirmed that there are no BLP reasons to remove the content [65] [66]. -- Vision Thing -- 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:128.206.82.56 reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: AB 48h)

• Page: Python (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 128.206.82.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]
• 6th revert: [73]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

User has just come off a 3RR block, so is aware of the process.

Already blocked King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead reported by User:Ravensfire2002 (Result: warned)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81] (Note that this was created by Inurhead, but in a hostile tone to attack those that disagree, not discuss)

Inurhead is a SPA account that only edits this article, and actors who have been in this article. From the wording, I suspect he's involved with the film in some manner. Inurhead is hostile towards others that disagree with his views of the article, demonstrating WP:OWN. His edit summaries are aggressive, hostile and accusatory towards others (see the diffs of reverts and users contributions). He also tends to flag all his edits as minor, despite requests not to do so [82] and being told that any such edits will be reverted [83]. This probably can go to either here of WQA, but I figured this is as good as any. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ravensfire2002 is likely a sock puppet or buddy of Ckatz, who also enlisted Impala to do the same. Ckatz is a malicious wiki contributor who has recently gained some administrative powers which need to be immediately taken away from him. Together, this tag team of potential sock puppets has tried to instigate an edit war where none was necessary. If you look at what they are reverting, it is all meticulously referenced. Ask yourself why they are attacking this film, per se. Perhaps it is because it is a successful film about a controversial subject. Who knows? Why this page in particular? But their deletions are malicious and not encyclopedic and do not help Wikipedia. Please block all of them for trying to tag team instigate a 3RR, which I did not do. Contributions are made as "minor" often because Ckatz monitors the page and deletes anything without consideration to its benefit to the page. Most additions are minor anyway. Like box office updates, etc. Thank you. Inurhead (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned Not going to do any blocks just now; all parties in this dispute have conducted themselves poorly. Inurhead is clearly a single-purpose POV editor and his edits to the lead are clearly inappropriate. But Ravensfire made no real attempt, as far as I can tell, to engage in discussion to explain why this was a problem (beyond reverting and leaving edit summaries). The "diff of 3RR warning" on Inurhead's talk page is not a 3rr warning, it's an inappropriate vandalism warning issued by a user who has been doing some pretty stupid edits himself (and I gave him a warning as well). Likewise, the "diff of attempt to discuss things on the talkpage" was made by Inurhead, not Ravensfire or others, and Ravensfire seems to have ignored it.

All of you guys need to get to the talk page and stop screwing around with reverts. I agree that Inurhead's edits were bad and should be undone, but the bottom line is everyone has acted poorly, and the 3RR report was not filed correctly so I will not block anyone. Go to the talk page and explain to Inurhead why this edit must be undone. If Inurhead keeps edit warring after it, now that a warning has been made appropriately (I am sending him a warning just after this), then he can be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:216.226.176.142 reported by Tim Song (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Alabama Department of Public Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.226.176.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [84]

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

1. 18:05, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 13:43, 5 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 16:17, 5 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:48, 5 August 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (N/A). See below.

This article was AfD'd on July 30 b/c almost all of its contents come from an ADPH guide, potentially constituting copyvio (per WP:C, state government works may be copyright protected. That AfD was withdrawn on the understanding that the article would be stubbified. An admin subsequently removed the potentially infringing material from the history [86]. 216.226.176.142 however, apparently restored the material from scratch. I reverted those edits, noting very clearly that copyvio remains a concern. (diff [87]). (In any event, the material was promotional and unencyclopedic to the extreme.) He has subsequently reverted my and others' reverts 4 times in a 24 hour period. After his third revert, I warned him, but he reverted again. Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jpc4031 reported by User:Oreo Priest (Result: 24h)

• Page: Brussels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Jpc4031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His only contributions to the Brussels article have been repeatedly adding pictures which don't add much to the article, and keeping adding them once they're taken down. [88]

At this point, he has deleted a useful picture, with an edit summary showing he's just trying to make a point. [89]

• Warning: [90]

• Admittedly, we haven't discussed this on the talk page, but the issue I think is more the vandalism than the reversion.

• This may not be blockworthy yet, but I of course trust any admin to do the appropriate thing. Any questions, let me know. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism / edit warring: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon Rose reported by Verbal (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Clayton College of Natural Health‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 17:09, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "Removing unecessary sections and statements by COI editors just for the purpose of descrediting the institution. Refs are mere opinion pieces,pls. see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations")
2. 18:03, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */ Removing information that belongs to the Gillian McKeith and not here. Also, info is sourced from a mere opinion piece but presented as if it is a fact violating WP:RS")
3. 18:20, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "Removing information that belongs to the Gillian McKeith article and not here. Also, info is sourced from a mere OPINION PIECE but presented as if it is a fact violating WP:RS")
4. 19:09, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306448176 by Artw (talk) Rv unexplained edit by another possible sock")
5. 19:31, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306454519 by Artw Please use the edit summary to SUMMARIZE your edits. Rv. unexplained revert of duly-explained and qualified edit.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Verbal chat 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the related WP:ANI thread about this editors behaviour, including accusations of slander, bad faith, sock puppetry against multiple established editors, etc etc. This is long term editwarring, and the editor has been previously blocked for this behaviour, which hasn't reduced the disruption. Warnings and talk page discussion have failed to stop the continued blanking of well sourced and pertinent information. Verbal chat 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:SharkxFanSJ (Result: prot)

This user is edit warring on Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Of particular concern are the six reverts of the "Beer Summit" section heading despite a clear consensus to keep this title. This user is also gaming the system as it relates to 3RR as demonstrated below.

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

• Original versions:

Beer Summit Heading -- [91]

Gates Booking Photo -- [92]

Obama/Gates Quotes -- [93]

From 8/4 10:03 until 8/5 01:29

• 1st revert - 8/4 10:03 - Beer Summit Heading - [94]
• 2nd revert - 8/4 22:43 - Gates Booking Photo - [95]
• 3rd revert - 8/5 01:29 - Beer Summit Heading - [96]

Edit warring warning:

• 8/3 16:52 - [97] - user deleted this warning from his talk page, the accompanying comment regarding "you're six hours late" supports my gaming the system claim above

From 8/3 02:42 until 8/3 10:43

• 1st revert - 8/3 02:42 - Beer Summit Heading - [98]
• 2nd revert: 8/3 08:44 - Beer Summit Heading - [99]
• 3rd revert: 8/3 10:43 - Beer Summit Heading - [100]

From 8/1 22:14 until 8/2 00:22

• 1st revert - 8/1 22:14 - Gates/Obama Quotes [101]
• 2nd revert - 8/1 22:24 - Gates/Obama Quotes [102]
• 3rd revert - 8/2 00:22 - Beer Summit Heading [103]

Discussions on talk page:

• Beer Summit Heading - consistent consensus against Viritas' edits - discussion started 8/2 - poll completed 8/4 01:35 (result 10-1 against Viritas)
• Gates Booking Photo - no consensus yet - discussion started 8/3 23:07 - current dicussion revolves around where the arrest photo belongs in the lead, arrest section, or at all
• Obama/Gates quotes - discussion started 8/1 21:50 -ongoing discussion

--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-08-05T03:46:51 Tedder (talk | contribs | block) m (39,489 bytes) (Protected Henry Louis Gates arrest incident: Edit warring / Content dispute: use the talk page, please. ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)))). Note: this looked messy, and I didn't get far enough into the diffs to have an opinion of which side, if either, was at fault William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.217.0.23 reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: 31h)

• Page: Opium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 68.217.0.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]

Warning on user's talk page: [109] (Reverts continued after warning.)

These edits were obvious vandalism, not a content dispute.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:86.133.101.139 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Protection)

• Page: Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 86.133.101.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116] [117]

Same editor previously blocked twice for disruption on this article as 86.150.146.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). O Fenian (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Also as it wasn't clear that their edits were disruptive, you both technically were edit warring. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain reported by User:Andrewudstraw (Result: DR)

Three-revert rule violation. NPOV violation.

User:Cuchullain has been making reverts through edits and actual undos to very reasonable modifications to the article American (word). The two sections at issue are the American in US law section and diplomatic usage of the word American. He has repeatedly edited out or reverted mention of actual US laws in the US laws section, and insisted that Black's law dictionary is the only relevant and notable source for use of the word American in US laws. Further, he has insisted on keeping one out-of-context and misleading quote Bill Clinton made in Latin America after a natural disaster as evidence of how American is used diplomatically. Clinton used the phrase "we are all Americans" as a soothing rhetoric to say that the United States stood with them in their pain. The French used the same "we are all Americans" phrase after 9/11. It was therefore patently misleading to make edits indicating this use of the term American that way was used in diplomatic usage, and that therefore diplomatic usage varied. He refused to allow examples from State Department websites using the term American and American Embassy in all of the countries where people purportedly are against the terms, and stated that use of the term American by the Secretary of State in her overseas diplomatic duties was not notable. He edited out the fact that the State Department website has no reference to any country objecting to use of these terms. User:Cuchullain edited all reference to the State Department and Secretary Clinton out. His unreasonable defense of these actions can be found on Talk:American_(word) page, at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewudstraw (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• You are encouraged to seek dispute resolution to settle this content dispute. Start by talking on the article's talk page or the other editor's talk page. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ActingEditor‎ reported by User:MuZemike (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [118]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]
• 5th revert: [123]
• 6th revert: [124]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125] (page blanked afterwards)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User does not seem to respond to any warnings given or otherwise blanks the page every time he's warned.

Edit-warring over adding valid cleanup/unsourced BLP tags on the abovementioned article. User has a clear conflict of interest with the subject. MuZemike 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rd232 reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: Protected)

• Page: Paul Krugman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rd232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:32, 5 August 2009

• 1st revert: 13:41, 6 August 2009
• 2nd revert: 17:14, 6 August 2009
• 3rd revert: 07:06, 7 August 2009
• 4th revert: 10:12, 7 August 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127] [128]

-- Vision Thing -- 10:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? VT has been edit warring against consensus on two separate issues, which is perhaps why he has got the two mixed up above. The "1st revert" is on one issue, the other 3 reverts on the other. And I'm not reverting to the 5th Aug version, as he implies - I've made a variety of other edits and so have others. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely, you're aware that the fact that the reverts are on two separate issues is irrelevant, right? Four reverts still violates the three-revert rule. In any event, without making too much of a judgment on that, it's quite clear that there's a lot of reverting going on on that article (and not just from your end). I've protected the article for five days. -- tariqabjotu 11:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes and no; for 3RR enforcement (which I don't do much of) I've always leaned a bit towards focussing on the issue rather than the page, where that seems to help focus on edit warring behaviour, which 3RR is an imperfect measure of when there's a lot going on in a short period. And for myself I tend to lose track overnight of reverts on separate issues when there's a lot going on, I'm also doing other things on the page, and the reverts get buried in a complex page history. Anyway thanks, protection's clearly the best thing, to cool things off. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Magazinul de produse reported by Anonimu (talk) (Result: indef )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Magazinul de produse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 03:48, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "corrected, as it was factually wrong")
2. 09:35, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306363030 by Dahn (talk)")
3. 12:33, 6 August 2009 (edit summary: "About a quarter of the population lives on less than US$ 2 a day - that's BS")
4. 01:19, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "any revert must be discussed first on Talk Page")

• Diff of warning: here
• Note that he continues to revert to a version of the article written by User:Over Bruce, a blocked sock of noted sockmaster User:Bonaparte, so it wouldn't be a surprise if the user above was just another sock.

—Anonimu (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely Due to sockpuppetry/ban evasion. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history reported by User:K.Khokhar (Result: TW Revoked)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [129]

1. 10:06, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "added Bhai Roop Chand ji as well, because they are notable Khokhar of the 6th Guru, now intermingled with Tarkhans.")
2. 10:12, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "added Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar")
3. 10:16, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "link")
4. 10:18, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Sir Denzil Ibbeston reference")
5. 10:20, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Quick-adding category Tarkhan (Punjab) (using HotCat)")
6. 10:20, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Quick-adding category List of Tarkhan clans (using HotCat)")
7. 10:24, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "changed around. Important because Kshatriya, is a much older term than rajput.")
8. 10:28, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "changed headings around")
9. 10:48, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Arains and Churahs according to Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan")
10. 15:02, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "reintroduced deleted refrences. Refrences deleted for no reason.")
11. 15:59, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 6 edits by K.Khokhar identified as vandalism to last revision by Sikh-history. (TW)")
12. 16:15, 7 August 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by K.Khokhar identified as vandalism to last revision by Sikh-history. (TW)")

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

The user is actively involved in edit warring on behalf of a User:Information-Line who has been reported on the ANI and further details are also vailable there. Khokhar (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle access revoked ([132]) for inappropriate use of rollback. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

K.Khokhar reported by Sikh-history (Result: 12h to both)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [133]

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nd revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]
• 4th revert: [137]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138] and [139] and [140] and [141]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

This user managed to report me and in effect WP:GAME the system before I could report him. Please look at his behaviour and my attempts to reconcile with him.--Sikh-History 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties blocked 12 hours for edit-warring. I counted four reverts by K.Khokar and three by Sikh-history. It is unfortunate that they got off on the wrong foot with each other, since they both appear to have relevant knowledge. K.Khokhar had previously made extensive contribution to the Khokhar article but he may have a problem with WP:OWN. The charges of vandalism made by both parties in the edit summaries are wrong; this is a content dispute. If you can't reach agreement, take it to WP:Dispute resolution. Continued edit warring may lead to longer blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Socceraficionado reported by User:btaholla (Result: Warn)

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

• Correct/Original: [143]

• Revision: [144]

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]
• 6th revert: [150]
• 7th revert: [151]
• 8th revert: [152]
• 9th revert: [153]
• 10th revert: [154]
• 11th revert: [155]
• 12th revert: [156]
• 13th revert: [157]
• 14th revert: [158]
• 15th revert: [159]
• 16th revert: [160]

Here is a photo of the cup being awarded to the Timbers [161]

Time to just ban the sounders customer from editing wikipedia at all.

Btaholla (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I added matches involving the Sounders as per the guidelines of the competition. I included the necessary citations. Other users undid those changes, so I reverted. I apologize if I violated any rules.

Socceraficionado (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned This is a new user, let's not try to WP:BITE them. They may not know that 3RR exists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jjjjess reported by SpaceFlight89 (Result: Protected)

• Page: Jordan Palmer (social activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Jjjjess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [162]

• 1st revert: [163]
• 2nd revert: [164]
• 3rd revert: [165]
• 4th revert: [166] (revert made after 3rr warning)
• 5th revert: [167] (revert made after 3rr warning)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168] 04:25 (UTC)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordan_Palmer_%28social_activist%29#Kentucky_Secretary_of_State

The material being added by User:Jjjjess is in violation of BLP; questionable sources used are zoominfo.com and portfolio.com. —SpaceFlight89 05:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pianoplonkers reported by User:Karljoos (Result: Already blocked)

• Page: Steinway Model D-274 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Pianoplonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

It is not easy to do this, as the user makes changes step by step over several edits and makes difficult to follow the flow of changes, not using the "revert tool".

• 1st revert: [169]
• 2nd revert: [170]
• 3rd revert: [171]
• 4th revert: [172]
• 5th revert: [173]
• 6th revert: [174]
• 7th revert: [175] this version (last one) includes all the original unreferenced material that has been chagenged and deleted by editors.

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

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Steinway Model D-274 and [176]

Please have a look at the article Steinway Model D-274 and see how user user:Pianoplonkers and possible puppet user:Rachmaninoffrus have reverted changes made to unreferenced, subjective and promotional stuff from myself and other users without providing proper explanations on engaging in discussions. --Karljoos (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No violation Consecutive reverts count as only one revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi King of the Hearts and thank you for taking time to make an assesment. Please see the complete history: User:Pianoplonkers (who has been blocked for 24 for sock poppetry) reverted at 17:22 [177] my 17:22 changes [178], at 14:48 [179] did the same (using puppet user:Rachmaninoffrus) with 14:48 Binksternet's 12:52 changes [180] and 20 hours before did the same at 16:27 [181] to my 13:10 changes [182]. Please see the history of Steinway Model D-274. I request you reconsidere your assesment. Thank you for your help. --Karljoos (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that he has been using sockpuppets, please report it at WP:SPI. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

The puppet user has been blocked. I would be grateful, though, to read your comments about what I wrote. Cheers.

Already blocked Checkuser block by Versageek. I forgot to check the block log. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:A Quest For Knowledge reported by User:ArXivist (Result: No vio)

• Page: 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [183]

• 1st revert: [184]
• 2nd revert: [185]
• 3rd revert: [186]
• 4th revert: [187]
• 5th revert: [188]
• 6th revert: [189]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

A Quest For Knowledge has reverted the edits of at least four users and ignored multiple requests from at least two users to discuss the issue on the talk page. When warned about his/her disruptive behavior, instead of using the talk page, s/he says "Ok, report me." [192] It is clear that the user is not here to discuss with other users and create a reliable encyclopedia, but to stubbornly push his/her own views. ArXivist (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did tell ArXivist to report me because these accusations are totally unfounded and I am confident that other experienced editors will agree. As I've tried to explain that in articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed present the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly present all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to present that viewpoint as well. In a case such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are few (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

We can and should have detailed debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories as that's what reliable sources have done and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. So far, some of the best, most detailed and most reliable sources I've found include Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet and BBC News Conspiracy Files.

Me and several other editors attempted to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Undue and WP:Fringe several times including the following: [193], [194], [195]. But unfortunately, we've had no luck. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether you disagree with multiple users on policy issues, that's clear. The issue is whether you've engaged in an edit war.

"Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes."

There is considerable evidence that A Quest For Knowledge did not intend to reach a consensus with other users, and was using confrontational edit reverts to push a POV:

1) In response to my question in the talk page on why s/he deleted my comment, s/he repeated the edit summary. I replied by explaining that the talk page was there to go in depth into your reasoning so that both users can discuss and reach a consensus and asked him/her to explain his/her revert in depth. His/her response was to link to the policies. (I.e. See WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe). Its quite clear that this user wasn't interested in discussion.[196]

2) I specifically ask three times what I can do to improve the edit so that it is includable and AQFK avoids answering all three times. Avoiding a clear question on how to improve an edit and negotiate to reach a consensus can only be described as a "confrontational tactic to effect content disputes".[197]

3) AQFK reverted several edits by multiple users without using the talk page despite specifically being asked to use the talk page by myself and WLRoss several times on our edit summaries. [198][199][200][201][202]

4) AQFK has reverted mundane obviously correct edits. E.g. s/he reverted WLRoss's deletion of a superfluous mention of "Popular Mechanics". S/he also reverted an edit in which I deleted material not supported by the references. [203] WLRoss's edit starts at "Published reports by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology and articles in the mainstream media have all rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories". Mainstream media includes Popular Mechanics. My edit starts at "One theory is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the World Trade Center on September 11." S/he reverted this to "One of the most popular theories is that" without a reference. Again, from such clearly unsupported edits, we see "confrontational tactics to effect content disputes".

5) Instead of simply going to the talk page to discuss the edits when warned not to edit war, AQFK says "Ok, report me." If that does not reflect a confrontational mindset, I don't know what does. [204]

ArXivist (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I can't deny this request but I will note that this pretty clearly not a 3RR violation. Of the edits provided, no four consecutive edits are within a 24 hour period. Additionally, if someone could figure out which banned sockmaster is operating ArXivist (talk · contribs) I would be grateful. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Result - No Violation. The reverts that are listed above don't fall within a 24-hour period. I have no answer to Ice Cold Beer's question about possible socking by ArXivist, but I do notice that he jumped into editing hotly contested articles right after his account was created on August 3. In less than five days on WP he has already showed up at both WP:AN3 and WP:RSN with his issues. ArXivist's user page offers a critique of unfairness on Wikipedia. I encourage him to do more negotiation and less crusading. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing this after only three hours is premature. I point out that AQFK deleted several revert comments so that they appear to be normal edits which may account for the low number of reverts. He made reverts on August 7 at 11:53, 11:57, 12:39 and 09:10 on August 8 which is four reverts in 21 hours. I actually have no problem with 3RR unless it evolves into edit warring which is what is happening here. AQFK is not cooperating to improve the page. For example I made an edit to conform to the source and remove POV implications there is no dissent, my comment said: "This version is supported by the refs and avoids the previous problem of apparent POV implications. Use talk if you have a problem". The original article text said Civil engineers state that and I changed it to Civil engineers generally agree that. Instead of discussion as requested he reverted it with the comment "Of those legitimate scientists who've examine CDCT, the voice is unanimous" which is clearly WP:OR. I changed it back with the comment "Revert OR&POV pushing. The souce says:"As generally accepted by the community of specialists" which is obviously pretty much what my edit said. AQFK reverted twice more with the comments: "Various fixes" and "Restoring a couple things" with the revert text deleted which I am assuming was because he was mass reverting multiple smaller edits by several editors. Several other edits I have made have been reverted by AQFK without anything in the comments to explain why even after my modifying the edit to comply with his original reason for reverting. I feel this attitude indicates an unwillingness to work with the community which is extremely frustrating. At the least he should be advised to use the talk page more often and use it more constructively than he has been. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two of the edits you provided are consecutive and therefore amount to one revert. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does that matter? I was blocked for violating 3RR with three consecutive reverts. Even if we count those two as one it still leaves three reverts in 21 hours.
I would also point out that AQFK is now escalating by using false claims in his revert comments which is a violation of the 911 ARBCOM. IE: (Various fixes, per NPOV, WP:Fringe and WP:RS). As you can see there is no indication this was a revert, his version is a violation of POV because he is deleting what the sources say and replacing it with his own OR. There is no violation of Fringe as the edits are supported by RS and there is no violation of RS as the sources are Bazant, Zogby and the FAA. Wayne (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked because between 02:14, 26 November 2008 and 01:13, 27 November 2008, counting only edits where there were intervening edits by other editors, you made 4 (including consecutive edits as one) reverts. And we don't use Wikipedia articles as sources, I'm surprised given your number of edits that you don't know that. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zara1709 reported by User:wdford (Result: Protected)

• Page: Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Zara1709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Zara1709 is disrupting the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy yet again, has now openly declared on the talk page an intention to initiate an edit war and has challenged the admins to respond. See [205] I put a warning on her talk page, together with an invitation to seek consensus, and she simply deleted it. [206] Please could a neutral admin assist us here. Wdford (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There was certainly an edit war however. Regardless page protected by another admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Socceraficionado reported by User:btaholla (Result: PP 1 week)

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

• Previous version reverted to(continuation from warning received above): [207]

• 17th revert: [208]
• 18th revert: [209]
• 19th revert: [210]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

-Btaholla (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• 20th revert and removal of reference to 2009 competition format as agreed to in April: [213]

As I said before, "Time to just ban the sounders customer from editing wikipedia at all." He will never agree to the Timbers winning the cup and will continually delete all references to it, no matter how many different people fix his revisions.

-Btaholla (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• 21st revert and removal of eight (8) references to the Timbers winning the 2009 competition. Continues to revert to non-referenced opinion: [214]

-Btaholla (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• 22nd revert [215]
• 23rd revert [216]

-Btaholla (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• 24th revert [217]

-Btaholla (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protected Protected for 1 week. Socceraficionado did indeed violate 3RR, but so did a lot of other users on that page. Remember that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. The reason we block (rather than protect) for 3RR is so that innocent users can continue to edit the page. However, this is a multilateral edit war, with little activity occurring on the page other than edit warring. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Socceraficionado is the only one continually editing with his opinion without providing references. The other 15 editors are are fixing the article to represent the news sources that are referenced.

-Btaholla (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but you and the others should engage them on talk pages to sort out a consensus so when the page is unprotected you can edit in harmony. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Attempts have been made to engage Socceraficionado by asking for references to be cited. Problem for him is that there are zero references that he can cite to support his opinion. Once the page becomes unprotected, somebody is just going to change the article to accurately represent the references provided and then he will just revert it back to his opinion. Rinse and repeat. You can't reason with a sounders customer. They are always off in their own little reality. -Btaholla (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Vercetticarl reported by User:Rd232 (Result: 55h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [218]

• 1st revert: [219]
• 2nd revert: [220]
• 3rd revert: [221]
• 4th revert: [222]
• 5th revert: (this time a partial one, without edit summary) [223]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Roberto Micheletti#Interim President? (re interim / de facto President issue, though not the context removal).

I probably would not be reporting this (I prefer to settle by talking, not bureaucracy), but Vercetticarl's evident battleground mentality makes it necessary. Evidence for that: the 3rd revert has the edit summary "vandalism"; my Edit Warring warning pointed out that he shouldn't do this for a content dispute, and then he used "vandalism" in the 4th revert edit summary too, as well as giving me a 3RR warning after one revert (and I hadn't previously been involved in editing in this particular dispute on this page either). I request the admin takes this behaviour into account in judging whether and if so how long to block. Rd232 ^talk 08:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 55 hours For edit warring now and length due to past infractions for 3RR/edit wars. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame reported by User:Izzedine (Result: 10 days)

• Page: Template:Members of the Union for the Mediterranean (edit | [[Talk:Template:Members of the Union for the Mediterranean|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [225]

• 1st revert: [226]
• 2nd revert: [227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230]

This user favours edit warring over discussion. Izzedine (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 10 days Do note that while reporter (Izzedine) didn't violate 3RR, they were also edit warring and should know better due to their block log. You must learn when to stop to avoid further issues in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your advice and please note, my block log is misleadingly crowded due to complications with IP autoblocks, which resulted in numerous entries persuant to resolving. Izzedine (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Franklin Demenge reported by User:Pyrrhus16 (Result: No action)

• Page: Mark Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Franklin Demenge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [231]

• 1st revert: [232]
• 2nd revert: [233]
• 3rd revert: [234]
• 4th revert: [235]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

• Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mark Lester#Paris Jackson

Pyrrhus16 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been adding quality references concerning Michael Jackson issue in response to the claim that the article was unsourced. That is not in breach of the 3RR. The accuser is very apparently an avid and obsessive Michael Jackson fan, and has been trying to suppress anything negative concerning him, no matter how true, by any means. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have accused everyone who tries to remove the information as a "avid and obsessive Michael Jackson fan", or you scream "censorship/your suppressing the truth", even though at least two administrators have also removed the information. You were told that the issue needed discussing on the talk page, but did not listen for quite some time. — Please comment R² 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read 3RR. You have breached it, as the diffs clearly show. You were reverted on numerous occasions by several editors. Yet, without any consensus on the addition, you continued to add the same information, albeit with different references. You ignored a 3RR warning and failed to engage in civilised discussion, branding editors "bias" and accusing them of concealing the truth: [237]. Pyrrhus16 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have made thousands of nothing but pro Michael Jackson edits. You have tried to suppress anything negative about him by any means you can, including this. Editing on Wikipedia should be impartial. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Please provide some diffs for these allegations. Improving Jackson related articles is not the same as being pro-Jackson. Pyrrhus16 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have made thousands of edits concerning Michael Jackson and little else - all of which have been either pro Michael Jackson or reverting anything negative about him. You have been trying to suppress the Mark Lester admission concerning Michael Jackson by any means, despite every news agency covering the very same story. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action. Though the history shows a lot of reverts by Franklin Demenge, the consensus seems to have shifted enough that the basic point of the Mark Lester paternity claim has been accepted in the article. The wording of the claim has been expressed more cautiously thanks to the work of several editors. Since revert warring has stopped, the need for a block is greatly reduced. I'm warning Franklin against any renewal of his edit war. Anyone who is concerned that including the paternity claim violates WP:BLP is welcome to add their own comment at WP:BLPN#Mark Lester. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:IlliniGradResearch (Result: No action)

This user is edit warring on Henry Louis Gates arrest incident. Of particular concern are the seven reverts of the "Beer Summit" section heading despite a clear consensus to keep this title. This user is also gaming the system as it relates to 3RR as demonstrated below.

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

• Original versions:

Beer Summit Heading -- [238]

Gates Booking Photo -- [239]

Obama/Gates Quotes -- [240]

From 8/8 10:03 until 8/9 07:42

• 1st revert - 8/8 21:39 - Gates Statement - [241]
• 2nd revert - 8/8 22:00 - Gates Statement - [242]
• 3rd revert - 8/9 06:08 - Beer Summit Heading - [243]

From 8/4 10:03 until 8/5 01:29

• 1st revert - 8/4 10:03 - Beer Summit Heading - [244]
• 2nd revert - 8/4 22:43 - Gates Booking Photo - [245]
• 3rd revert - 8/5 01:29 - Beer Summit Heading - [246]

Edit warring warning:

• 8/3 16:52 - [247] - user deleted this warning from his talk page, the accompanying comment regarding "you're six hours late" supports my gaming the systemclaim above

From 8/3 02:42 until 8/3 10:43

• 1st revert - 8/3 02:42 - Beer Summit Heading - [248]
• 2nd revert: 8/3 08:44 - Beer Summit Heading - [249]
• 3rd revert: 8/3 10:43 - Beer Summit Heading - [250]

From 8/1 22:14 until 8/2 00:22

• 1st revert - 8/1 22:14 - Gates/Obama Quotes [251]
• 2nd revert - 8/1 22:24 - Gates/Obama Quotes [252]
• 3rd revert - 8/2 00:22 - Beer Summit Heading [253]

Discussions on talk page:

• Beer Summit Heading discussion #1 and #2 - consistent consensus against Viritas' edits-discussion started 8/2 - poll completed 8/4 01:35,(result 10-1 against Viritas) with continued consensus discussion from 8/4 through 8/9
• Gates Booking Photo discussion #1, #2, and #3 - no consensus yet - discussion started 8/3 23:07-current dicussion revolves around where the arrest photo belongs in the lead, arrest section, or at all
• Obama/Gates quotes - discussion started 8/1 21:50-ongoing discussion

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend my support to this report.

Viriditas has actually been reported once before on this page. The decision was to protect the page in response to that report. The page is now unprotected, and Viriditas continues to edit war. Wilhelm_meis has actually created a log of reverts dealing specifically with the Beer Summit section heading. As you can see, Viriditas is the #1 offender in this edit war.

Viriditas has been involved in the various discussions on the talk pages, and it is clear that he holds a minority (if not solitary) view against the "Beer Summit" title. The debate has become repetative, and Viriditas has apparantly decided not to avail himself of the dispute resolution tools that have been suggested to him.

This user has also been blocked five four times for 3RR and/or edit warring, with the most recent block being less than 2 months ago.

Thank you for your consideration.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: Looks like he tiptoes up to the edge. Is that OK? ↜Just M E here , now 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense. There is no 3RR nor any edit warring. This is a duplicate false 3RR report[[254] originally filed by User:SharkxFanSJ, who falsely reported me for 3RR violations at 04:11, 5 August 2009, but the page itself was originally protected 30 minutes before the report was ever filed, at 03:46 5 August 2009. This was based on a protection report that had nothing to do with me. SharkxFanSJ knows this and continues to make false claims. The diffs show different edits based on extensive discussion on the talk pages, many of which were archived and closed without agreement. Users on that page continue to claim that any edit I make is "edit warring" and "gaming the system". SharkxFanSJ originally warned me about an edit I made six hours after I made it, hence the "you're six hours late" comment above; This has nothing to do with gaming the system on my end but rather the observation that you don't make warnings six hours after an edit. The most recent diffs in the last 24 hours (shown above as From 8/8 10:03 until 8/9 07:42 and seen here:[255], [256], [257]) do not show any reverts or edit warring but rather edits that I've made to the article based on extensive discussion. I have neither violated the 3RR nor have I "edit warred", but in fact these editors have been working together to force their non-neutral, BLP-violating version into the article. Every edit I have made has been extensively discussed and justified on the talk page, even though these editors continue to tag team and close these discussions and archive them without warning or agreement. According to these editors, any edit they personally disagree with is "edit warring" and "gaming the system". Clearly, they are gaming the system and abusing the 3RR process to eliminate any editors who disagree with them. If they throw enough mud, perhaps some will stick. This so-called "report" does not document any 3RR violations in the last 24 hours and I have used the talk page to justify every edit that I've made. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's activities are a cancer. He refuses to accept consensus and continually reinserts his edits. A poll was taken so long ago it's been archived - he was the only vote against. The discussion results match that in the poll and have remained consistently against his edits. He's far past the point of reasonable discussion. His arguments typically take the form that he is better at interpreting WP than any of the others and that his interpretation is a 'higher law' that trumps all of us. He continually states that he recognizes no consensus and that it woudn't matter anyway since he's right. He has been directed to elevate the issue for appropriate admin review, he has not done so. He simply edit wars. He has been warned by 3-4 other editors; he erases the comments immediately from his talk page, so it is clear he received these warnings. I would further request that he be blocked from the article's talk page for a period. Manyanswer (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and calling my edits "a cancer" is a personal attack. I've actually tried to discuss these issues with you on the talk page, and you either make personal attacks against, me, reply with fallacious arguments that avoid the topic, or as of late, completely ignore my questions. This is not discussion. The burden of proof is on those adding material to the article, and unless you have good arguments to support your ideas, they need to remain on the talk page. It's interesting to note that there is a lot of edit warring-by-proxy going on here, with accounts showing up to restore versions supported by the above editors, and then disappearing. In fact, some of these accounts are simply SPA, and solely dedicated to edit warring. It's interesting how these accounts support the positions of Manyanswer, and yet he doesn't complain. No, the facts are quite clear. You either use the discussion page to support your proposed edits or you admit that your edits aren't supported. I'm not the one forcing my edits into the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a duplicate false 3RR report

The problem continues despite the closing of the last edit warring report

This was based on a protection report that had nothing to do with me.

What Viriditas is referring to is a seperate report made by Arcayne on RfP. While Arcayne did not single out Viriditas as the primary offender, it is disingenuous to say that the protection had nothing to do with him. My point is that the last report on this message board was closed because the page had been protected, and presumably the "problem was solved."

many [discussions] were archived and closed without agreement

The unresolved discussions were archived because the discussion had been recreated/continued under another section of the talk page. It has been made very clear on the main talk page where one can go to find the beginning of these discussions. This is the first time that Viriditas has complained about the method of archiving.

you don't make warnings six hours after an edit

I made the warning when I noticed it. I'm not online 24 hours a day.

these editors have been working together to force their non-neutral, BLP-violating version into the article

Just because we all agree and he doesn't, doesn't mean we are "working together."

According to these editors, any edit they personally disagree with is "edit warring" and "gaming the system".

Any edit/discussion he personally disagrees with is a "lack of consensus." Bottom line is that Viriditas holds a minority opinion on the Beer Summit title issue. Viriditas' viewpoint has been responded to by several editors several times over. There was a poll on the issue (result 10-1 against Viriditas). Viriditas has been offered avenues where he can pursue his disagreement, yet he chooses to continue to revert a change that he disagrees with.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, this false 3RR report is being used to try and stifle debate. This "report" shows one diff removing the term "Beer Summit" from the section heading in the last 24 hours and adding "White House invitation" and "Meeting" based on my talk page comments, and supported by NPOV. How does that qualify as edit warring? Furthermore, the arguments in favor of using the term "Beer Summit" in the section heading are not supported. You claim that it is the common name, but the Google News archive shows it is a minority term used by very few articles. You are engaging in confirmation bias, and only recognizing the articles that use the term rather than those that don't. Meanwhile, I've made one change to this section in the last 24 hours. Hardly 3RR material Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

this false 3RR report is being used to try and stifle debate

This has nothing to do with stifling debate. You're the only one still debating the issue at this point. Even so, you've been pointed to several resources available to appeal to a wider audience. The issue isn't the debate, it is that you are attempting to push a minority/solitary view point by repeatedly reverting the same material.

You are engaging in confirmation bias

This has been debated round and round on the talk page, and I'm not going to rehash the debate here. You are the only one that holds this opinion among the editors in the discussion.

Meanwhile, I've made one change to this section in the last 24 hours.

Yes, but you've made seven reverts to this section in the past seven days. That's the issue. You also have shown a pattern of doing exactly 3 reverts per 24-hour period as demonstrated above. Not a breach of 3RR, but an indication of gaming the system.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You say I've made seven reverts to this section the past seven days? I don't see that. I see that I've made many edits to the talk page in support of my contributions, and I've made many edits to the article as a result. What you call reverts are simply edits supported by discussion. You and others are trying to shut your opponents down by filing false 3RR reports. That's a fact supported by the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Viriditas's crusades are entirely within the mainstream of Wikipedian thought, so the net effect is fairly innocuous -- still it'd be sorta cool if he could at least try to fake a demeanor of there at least being a possibility on one occasion for there to exist an issue that he'd made up his mind about as to the application of Wikipedia policies which could nonetheless still benefit from others' input/debate. (But, let's be honest with ourselves, here: Isn't such arrogance very common in academia -- and even at Wikipedia? -- so, What can ya do? Anyway, as an example, I present one of the favorite setpieces Viriditas uses. Enjoy.

  Viriditis: "Show me how such and such is NPOV." Another editor: "I believe it NPOV because blah blah blah." Viriditas: "You have not answered my question! Show me how such and such is NPOV." Rinse and repeat. Everyday. For a week.

  ↜Just M E here , now 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question I asked on the talk page several times and received no answers about was, which is more neutral, "Beer Summit" or "White House invitation and meeting"? When I receive no answers and explain why the term is neither common nor neutral and then make an edit to the page, one of these editors then reports me here. It's ridiculous. There is no 3RR. If you folks can't be bothered to discuss the issue, then you have no business editing the page. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Manyanswer. It may not have reached 3RR (which is a mandatory block) but Viriditas' behaviour is certainly edit warring and gaming the system. Despite the consensus of many editors, Viriditas has keep sticking to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by stonewalling or filibustering discussions, as he repeatedly uses the same arguements which have long been resolved or discredited. Furthermore, because of Viriditas' refusal to drop the issue on "beer summit" header, and Gates arrest/booking photos, editors cannot move onto other meaningful issues. GoldDragon (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're on two weeks now at the Gates page. I forgot to note that when I put my warning on his page about edit warring, he put three retailiatory warnings about edit warring (for reverting his edit one time, just doing my part amongst the other editors - and that's all I've reverted of his), assuming good faith, blah blah. I observed that at least one other editor was on the receiving end of such retailiatory warnings. Manyanswer (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss the topic with you on the talk page, but my comments go unanswered by you. Are you here to make personal attacks and false 3RR reports to shut your opponents up, or are you here to build an encyclopedia? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Manyanswer, as I've also had problems with Viriditas; he often insults other editors on their talk pages and then blanks his own when they try to respond. GoldDragon (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of Viriditas' refusal to drop the issue on "beer summit" header, and Gates arrest/booking photos, editors cannot move onto other meaningful issues. Viriditas has never really specifically answered my talk page posts on sources and one-sided qutoes, aside from Viriditas I don't think that other editors have problems with my end changes. GoldDragon (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The facts show otherwise. The GoldDragon account exists for no other purpose than to edit war, and to that end, has done nothing but edit war on Henry Louis Gates arrest incident, in each case adding material disputed on the talk page: [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263]. Each time the issue is raised with regard to GoldDragon (See Discussion 1, Discussion 2) he ignores the points raised in the discussion and the editors who disagree with him, and continues adding the material back in. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As the filer of this complaint, I wish to address again some of the issues raised. As many of the other editors of the page have indicated, Viriditas has engaged in a course of dialog that is limited to "prove it". And when his requests are answered, his typical reply is "You didnt prove it to my astisfaction". My format of this edit warring complaint followed a previous model as a template, as this is the first complaint I have made, and I wished to both simplify the process while conveying accurate data and presenting my argument in an accepted manner. While we have all worked to remain professional, and I will continue to do so, when I did not agree with Viriditas, Viriditas then began addressing personal issues which had no place on the talk page, such as my user name, my background, and what he considered my lack of Wiki education. This type of discussion does not seem to conform withWP:Civility and is not conducive to good communal collaboration on the talk and article page. As you can see by the support on this page, I am not the only editor who have an issue with Viriditas conduct in this regard.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You aren't the filer of this original complaint. This is a duplicate false 3RR originally filed by User:SharkxFanSJ, and it still appears on this page above. (see here). This version simply has three diffs tacked on to it. You and other editors are trying to use the 3RR reporting system to eliminate opposition to your ideas. On the discussion page, you have completely failed to support your contention that the term "Beer Summit" is a common name, and you've been repeatedly informed that the evidence shows that it isn't, and in fact, it is a minority term that violates the NPOV. There has been no response to this refutation of your claim. Instead, we get you and others repeating the same claim over and over again when it's already been shown to be false. Instead, we get multiple false 3RR reports showing no violations and extensive discussion on the talk page asking you to support your claims. And, I'm still waiting. My satisfaction is not important, what is important is that somebody actually takes the time to examine your claims. I've done that, and I found them to be false, and this seems to match the falsity of the 3RR report itself. The fact is, consensus does not override our NPOV policy, and unless you have good evidence for your claims, we default to NPOV. This has been explained to you on the article talk page and has nothing to do with 3RR. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been commenting and following this and there are many issues at that page, I agree with and support User:Viriditas here, there is a concerted effort there on that page by some editors to get their way, there is ownership issues as well and I feel that there is a bit of an attempt to remove him from the situation as he has been standing up to the situation there. He should perhaps have stood back from it, but if everyone did that then the pack would get there way. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

People there are claiming consensus at the drop of a hat. Looking at User:Viriditas edits he has not even broken the three revert rule, Yes he is close but that is the general situation at that contensious article. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Rob, you yourself have been blocked 6 times for edit warring and similar behavior (the most recent for 2 weeks). Your endorsement of Viriditas' methods isn't very convincing.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

SharkxFanSJ, your continued ad hominem arguments aren't convincing and your ability to actually count the number of times I've been blocked is in error and irrelevant. This is your attempt at a chilling effect, nothing more. User:Off2riorob has tried to defend the BLP policy, but he keeps getting reverted by anonymous IP's and SPA's. Funny, that? Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you've been blocked 4 times, and Rob 6, and none of these seem to be your fault?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, you just said I was blocked 5 times, which is it? And what does that have to do this false 3RR? There was no violation and your claim that there was seven reverts in seven days also applies to the editors in your group adding the term "Beer Summit" into the article while their objections on the talk page. And these objections have not been met by you or anyone else. NPOV takes precedent over any other claims. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas... being blocked even once for edit warring lends credence to the argument that this is your modus operandi. The point is that, no matter how you count it, you've been blocked several times for this sort of behavior. It's relevance is that you obviously aren't getting the message.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do get it, which is why you don't see me continually reverting and adding "Beer Summit" into this article like your tag team. The fact that the edit warring and reverts is coming from your tag team. Your group of editors has reverted every change I've made to the "Beer Summit" section and refuses to address my points on the talk page. That is edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While I respect Off2riorob's opinion, to say a concerted effort was underway would imply collusion. However, discussions have taken place in the on on the talk page regarding the edit, as intended. A different conclusion was reached in consensus than the one supported by User:Viriditas. As is shown on the talk page archives, suggestions were made several times that the issue could be taken to Peer Review, or arbitration as a way to avoid editing and reversions on the article page. this was not the course taken. Again, I would respectfully submit that issue at hand is the editing and conduct of User:Viriditas in the article. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the issue at hand (as detailed on the talk page) is the undermining of the NPOV policy, our core policy, and the attempt to use a poll to override it. Polls do not amount to consensus, and a detailed discussion was initiated. At no time did anyone offer any substantial evidence in favor of the so-called "different conclusion" IlliniGradResearch says was reached, and we have the same steamrolling of the NPOV policy. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale...[They] cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." The facts show that a group of editors have tried to ignore the NPOV policy on Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident by claiming that the term "Beer Summit" is a common name for a White House invitation and meeting event. Google News archive shows the term is not common, and is not used in the majority of articles on the subject. Nevertheless, these editors continue to argue that the section heading should be "Beer Summit" instead of "White House invitation and meeting", which is in fact, the most common and neutral use of the term in relation to the event. These false 3RR reports are being made to distract away from this discussion and to focus on editors objecting to their policy violations. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[TLDR] I'm sure it has been pointed out already that we have discussed this single section heading at tremendous length on the article's talk page, specifically because this one editor refuses to hear anyone's explanation of why it is permissible and appropriate. No one has argued that consensus trumps NPOV, but we have explained six ways from sunday why the section heading is not in violation of NPOV. Viriditas has also been warned several times that edit warring is not the way to get his way, or to make his WP:POINT. We really do have bigger fish to fry, but we can't even navigate our own talk page around all the argument over this one little issue. I myself have offered dispute resolution via WP:NPOVN numerous times, and Viriditas has refused to seek any form of dispute resolution. If he honestly believes the consensus contravenes NPOV, he has no reason to refuse that avenue. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilhem, you know very well that I have not refused anything nor are there any diffs for such a refusal, so your claim is false. I have instead, stuck to the discussion page, but you have not explained why the section heading you keep adding is common, neutral, or accurate, and my objections have been ignored by you and your tag team, the same editors who keep reverting my changes and adding "Beer Summit" into the article against NPOV. Do you see that your constant reversions of my edits without addressing my points on the talk page is indeed, edit warring? It's funny then, that you are here accusing me of your own misdeed. I am not the one constantly adding "Beer Summit" into the article. I have come up with several compromise versions involving "White House invitation" and "White House meeting", all of which have been reverted without explanation. So, Wilhem, tell me, why is your edit warring justified? Because, you claim, consensus overrides NPOV. Gotcha. Meanwhile, I'm not adding disputed material into the article, you are. I'm the one who is getting reverted over and over again. And yet this false 3RR claim is about me? Funny, that. Please explain your revert of my edits. Please also explain why you keep reverting me and accusing me of edit warring while you do it. You know, like the other blanket reverts you made here and here. That sure seems like edit warring to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's a good one, V! You rounded up all 3 diffs of my reversions from 3 different days (not even consecutive days) and you think accusing me of edit warring is going to fly? That's cute. If you have taken the time to review the policy, I'm sure you have seen that a person does not have to actually make 3 reverts within a 24-hour period to be in violation, 3 reverts within 30 hours can be edit warring too, and making the same edit 6 times within 2-3 days and then a 7th time as soon as the page comes off protection certainly is a form of edit warring and gaming the system. You know well enough what you are doing. You also know full well that no one has ever said that consensus overrides NPOV. We have said "Beer Summit" doesn't violate NPOV. If you truly believed it was in violation, you would have taken your complaint to NPOVN. But you still have not. It's just another straw man argument, like your accusation of edit warring. It's gaming the system. Pure and simple. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas is a very experiaced editor and full respect to him for his multitude of beneficial edits to this wikipedia. He has at the end of the day not broken the 3 revert rule, agreed he is standing on the line but there are a lot of things going on on that article. I would suggest all users take a step back from this and leave it alone. Let all users attempt to work with each other, there is no benefit at all in what is this attempt to get a respected editor a worthless block, lets all cool it and chill, yeh? (Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

What I will agree with is that that we need to all step back. We've all made our points. This thread has become obscenely long, and an admin needs to decide how this report will be resolved.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion is that there is an inequity of sorts involved here. Childofmidnight was blocked for commenting on the "Gates-gate" page due to its being under Obama article protection. Yet, under this Obama article protection, the 3 revert rule is not in effect -- instead, rather, there's simply a stipulation not to edit war, without even as many as 3 reverts needing to be reached to trigger this stipulation.
  Nonetheless, it's my belief that this state of affairs was not called to editors' attention much previously [re-edited: (which is to say, the special zero tolerance of edit warring under Obama article probation)--User Justme], so at this point Viriditas and others presently warring on the page over the White House invitation to Gates-Crowley/beer summit should only be warned. However, we should have a zero tolerance for any edit warring henceforth on the page. ↜Just M E here , now 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ↜Just M E here , now 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict edit conflict..I am glad at your comment ShrarksfanSJ. I have seen these reports here before. If there is a clear report the admin is in like a shot and bang you are gone, in this case the quiet is perhaps a sign that we should all calm down and go about our buisness. I imagine Viriditas will stay away at least for a while from the article in dispute and we can all chill, there is no need for admin interventioon her. (imo) ~~ double edit conflict..Well said Justmeherenow, lets give viriditas a warning and and let him know that zero tolerance is in operation from now onOff2riorob (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with User:Viriditas concerning the heading of the section. I haven't taken part in the reverts, but I do agree that "White House meeting" or some such term is more encyclopedic than "'Beer Summit'", a term that is meaningful only to those who already know it. That makes it a bad choice for a section heading. JN466 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I and some others have noted that you have been on the same side as the user and that is fair, but it doesn't change the consensus on the article. I would welcome any comments you have relevant to this report of a user edit warring (rather than the page content). Notably, you originally voted on the majority in the 10-1 poll, and the user was adding his content in after that before your opinion change was voiced. Manyanswer (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to further note that the user in question is repeatedly stating that "these 3RR reports are false", "I have not violated 3RR in the last 24 hours" etc, carefully creating the impression that the accusation is 3RR instead of the actual report - edit warring. Manyanswer (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, the actual report is over Viriditas' behaviour which is certainly edit warring and gaming the system, not over whether he did reached 3RR. Despite the consensus of many editors, Viriditas has keep sticking to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by stonewalling or filibustering discussions, as he repeatedly uses the same arguements which have long been resolved or discredited. Furthermore, because of Viriditas' refusal to drop the issue on "beer summit" header, and Gates arrest/booking photos, editors cannot move onto other meaningful issues. GoldDragon (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• No action Please use the talk page, mediation, or a combination thereof. The edit-warring, if we can call it that, has been insignificant since the release of the protection, and includes a possible BLP claim. Further, the rhetoric above, which appears to exaggerate every action, suggests quite clearly that Viriditas is far from the sole source of the issues with this article. -- tariqabjotu 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ori reported by Nableezy (Result: Withdrawn )

discussion ongoing in talk, reverting agreed to be stopped by all involved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page: Arab Capital of Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User: Ori (talk · contribs) Previous version reverted to: [264] 1st revert: [265] Reverting to showing Israeli flag and removing Palestinian flag (see past 2nd revert: [266] again 3rd revert: [267] again 4th revert: [268] again then [ next edit goes to prior version linked at top 5th revert: [269] 6th revert: [270] Also with battleground mentality evidenced in this edit: A palestinian flag will not show over an Israeli conyroled city (sic). Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Arab_Capital_of_Culture#Flag_of_Israel_or_PNA This was presumably resolved with both sides agreeing with the table format in this edit. nableezy - 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) This is not accurate. The version I introduced on July 10th, was a stable version until yesterday. I did revert article but then was asked not to, and so I reverted to July 10th version, again a full month lasting version. As for my "battleground mentality", please consider my approach on Talk:Arab Capital of Culture on July 10th: "As an act of tolerance I suggest that no flag or entity will show next to the name of the city of Jerusalem. The other option is having both flags with the inscriptions Israel and PNA/Palestine next to it. Politics and disputes are well known to all, as well as the citizenship of the inhabitants of Esat Jerusalem, and who de facto controls it in the present. It is also known that the decision to declare the city as Arab Capital of Culture was taken by one side unilateraly, and for that reason there were no real events taking place. That said, a Palestinain flag disturbs some and the Israeli one disturbs others. Please accept my suggestion. Cheers (sig.)" And indeed, This version remained in article until yesterday, and thus was the long lasting one. Given all that this complaint is unjustified. Ori (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:66.207.170.157 (Result: semi)

• Page: Unmanned aerial vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]
• 5th revert: [277]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user is aware of policy, has previously been blocked for 3rr/edit warring

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user has ignored attempts at consensus seeking on article talk page, choosing to edit war instead of discuss

pretty obvious bright-line violation of 3rr here. 66.207.170.157 (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-08-03T18:00:06 Zzuuzz (talk | contribs | block) m (38,008 bytes) (Protected Unmanned aerial vehicle: open proxy sockpuppets joining the edit war ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Escapeeyes and Purrum reported by OlEnglish (Result: Stale)

Just reporting a ridiculous edit war I came across. User:Chzz stepped in to try to clean the article up a little but the POV-pushing and edit warring continues.

• Page: Ronald Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Escapeeyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Purrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— œ^™ 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [278]

• 1st revert: Revision as of 01:57, 9 August 2009
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 16:38, 9 August 2009
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:55, 9 August 2009
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:38, 9 August 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • 1st warning
  • 2nd warning

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The reverts were of many different disputes, all explained on the talk page: Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

The editor in question claimed that they have not violated 3RR because their four reverts were on two different sections of the article. I gave them the opportunity to revert their last revert but they refused, and stated "better luck next time," a comment that leads one to believe the editor feels this is some sort of game, or a battlefield.

The editor in question reverts any new information added to this article, perhaps indicating a WP:OWN issue. The page is also under article probation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: On Tarc's 2nd revert ever, a friendly notice shudda been put on his talkpage informing him that the page's probation means no edit warring at all, not just "no 3RR." ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever? The editor understands policy and the probation, he's been here since 2005 and is no stranger to making reverts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since he claims to be an expert on the 3RR on his talk page. Blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I got to ask, none of the reverts are on the same piece of text. Each one is a bit of different text and even one is completely unrelated to the others, other then being on the same page? Does this truly fit the policy of 3RR? Was this an appropriate block? Brothejr (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the policy, please; this is plainly stated in the second sentence. -- tariqabjotu 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, then a reading of the rule also means that User:William S. Saturn's actions should be looked into to as there were clearly more then three times he could have stopped and discussed, but instead re-inserted his content. That would also fall under the definition of edit warring. Also, it should be noted that there was no consensus in the discussion to add that content and after the first revert, William should have stopped and discussed. Brothejr (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Tarc made one more revert like this one (02:09, 10 Aug 2009) in a period of 24 hours and 12 minutes after he was offered to self-revert but refused. While, there is no indication that William S. Saturn pursued more edit warring like Tarc. The block is to prevent disruptions, not to punish your opponent out of revenge.--Caspian blue 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc's reversions were valid, as they were removing pointy comments and invalid sources. Saturn's report here is bad-faith, simply an attempt to get Tarc out of the way so he can continue to post bad edits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc seemed to be trying to 'police' the article against bad changes, but our standards don't allow for an editor to make a large numbers of reverts based only on his own opinion that he is preventing abuse. He could have taken these issues to BLPN, ANI or even WP:AE to get more eyes on the problem, if he thought his edits were correcting real policy violations. Removing pointy comments and invalid sources is not an exception under WP:3RR. Bugs, if you think that William S. Saturn and other editors who share his views are making improper edits, consider asking at WP:AN for an admin to track this article for violations of the Obama article probation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All water under the bridge now really, but it is kindof a shame that I never had an opportunity for self-defense here. Tariqabjotu, did you take into account the time lapse here? There was a 7-hour period of time between my last edit cited in this report and Saturn's filing here. Other edits, contribs to an AN discussion and such, and then I was logged out for the night. If blocks are to be preventative and not punitive, why was this issued so long after the fact, esp when I have been here for several years, 5k edits, and a zero block log? Tarc (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith? (result: semi)

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.

• First attempt to archive the active discussion
• Second attempt to archive the active discussion
• Third attempt to archive the active discussion
• Fourth attemot to archive the active discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• First warning
• Second warning

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have been problems here in the past too. Semi for a week to allow it to settle William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
• There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" (according to Wikipedia policies) source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
• User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
• Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
• Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.

comment made by 190.27.96.251 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:76.24.207.43 reported by User:Notyourbroom (Result: 24h)

• Page: Cornell University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 76.24.207.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

IP editor's only contributions have been to push Forbes' college rankings on university pages (not only including them, but placing them in the most prominent possible positions), and the editor has aggressively edit-warred on both Cornell University and Johns Hopkins University despite multiple editors requesting discussion. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added note: After I posted the above report, the IP editor apparently tried to cover up the article talk page messages by deleting them. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Gretchen888 reported by User:DAJF (Result: 24h)

• Page: Kappa (folklore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Gretchen888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [286]

8 August

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]

10 August

• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]
• 5th revert: [291]
• 6th revert: [292]
• 8th revert: [293]
• 9th revert: [294]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [295]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [296] by User:Bridies

--DAJF (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Penneth reported by User:Gpia7r (Result: no vio)

• Page: 4chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Penneth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [297]

• 1st revert: [298]
• 2nd revert: [299]
• 3rd revert: [300]
• 4th revert: [301]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [303]

• The user has insisted that what they post is truth, without being able to provide a reliable source or citation. The addition and arguement (in the page discussion) seems to be based on personal emotions and views, rather than speaking NPOV. Gpia7r (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Only 1R in past 5 days. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mister Hospodar reported by User:RetroS1mone (Result: 30 hours)

• Page: Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mister Hospodar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [304]

• 1st revert: [305]
• 2nd revert: [306]
• 3rd revert: [307]
• 4th revert: [308]
• 5th revert: [309]
• 6th revert: [310]
• 7th revert: [311]
• 8th revert: [312]
• 9th revert: [313]
• 10th revert: [314]
• 11th revert: [315]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [316]
• Second 3rr warning [317]
• Thrid 3rr warning [318]
• warning in edit summary [319]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [320]

RetroS1mone talk 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of thirty hours -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:C.Kent87 reported by User:TownDown (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)

• Page: Second Mexican Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: C.Kent87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [321]

• 1st revert: [322]
• 2nd revert: [323]
• 3rd revert: [324]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]

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

--TownDown^{How's going?} 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The same has been done by User:TownDown. We are in the middle of negotiations, but he will not comment. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, I did not revert you three times. Negotiations? or blanking the page?. --TownDown^{How's going?} 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Per the notice at the top of WP:AN3: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." The examples provided are not in violation of that, and C.Kent87 (talk · contribs) has no blocks on record or any poor interactions with others. See Kent's original ANI filing; this AN3 report smells a bit of bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I should add that TownDown (talk · contribs) has performed four reverts at Second Mexican War, noted here: 21:19, 10 August 2009, 21:22, 10 August 2009, 21:40, 10 August 2009 and 21:55, 10 August 2009. seicer | talk | contribs 01:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why you did a personnal attack to me here, did you say four individual reverts?, or three individual editions [326] [327] [328] and 1 reverted [329]?. --TownDown^{How's going?} 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked in June for disruptive editing. That is not a personal attack by any means, but can be considered a factual statement considering the stack of warnings and notices you've received since your account has gone live. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To say that "I am a disruptive user" is not a personal attack?. --TownDown^{How's going?} 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fifth wholesale revert, with a misleading edit summary (actually, none at all) by TownDown (talk · contribs). seicer | talk | contribs 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• TownDown (talk · contribs) was blocked by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 48h for 6RR. seicer | talk | contribs 03:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Ghosts&empties (Result: No vio)

• Page: Ilona Staller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [330]
• Most recent revision (same) [331]

• Diff of edit warring : [332]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [333]

02:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No violation 1 revert in the last 5 days does not constitute edit warring. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)