http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gothic_rock_bands&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJS59 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:RJS59 popped up and began [[1]] deleting sourced material from the article after this IP [[2]] was banned. I do not believe this is a content duspute, but more of POV pushing. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - tag-team reverts/edit warring : 4twenty42o, BalthCat, RepublicanJacobite. RJS59 (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal of sourced material, with no edit summary, and not talk page discussion, looks like plain vandalism to just about any editor. When the IP made the same edits multiple times, and still made no explanation other than insults and foul language, it seemed even more likely that he was a vandal. He was warned and then blocked. RJS59's account was created, along with that of Tathbreaker, shortly after the IP was blocked, and both began protesting the reverts and the block. Something seems fishy here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing on the Waterloo Road (TV series)-related articles is traditionally from anonymous editors who SHOUT to assert their edits, and call people 'STUPID'. One is edit-warring by insisting that a fictional character should have their qualifications after their name; as far as I know, we don't display abbreviations like this.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert

I'm not going to break 3RR over this. I've attempted to communicate with the user/(2), although the varying IP addresses is making it difficult. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected for a few days to prevent ongoing un-sourced vandalism. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NancyHeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Leadwind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 15:00 Nov 14

This is an ongoing content dispute. The content has been discussed since at least the first week of October and has already prompted the open RfC WP:Requests for comment/NancyHeise

• Leadwind adds POV tag [3]
• Johnbod removes tag [4]
• Leadwind restores tags [5]
• JohnBod removes [6]
• Leadwind restores tags [7]
• NancyHeise removes tags [8]
• Leadwind adds tags [9]
• NancyHeise removes tags [10]
• Leadwind adds tags [11]
• NancyHeise removes tags [12]
• Leadwind adds tags [13]
• NancyHeise removes tags [14]
• Afterwriting reverts NancyHeise because her revert had removed other copyediting changes; this restores the POV tag [15]
• NancyHeise removes the POV tag, leaving the other changes [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There have been numerous warnings on Talk:Catholic Church warning against edit-warring over this content.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see also most of archives 36-38) [17][18] [19]

Comments:
Leadwind is the most recent editor to tag this section as POV, but it has been tagged off and on since the beginning of October. There has been repeated edit-warring since then to have the tag removed. Examples of the discussion: 25 Oct and Oct 26 2009 Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While I was in the process of filing this request, another administrator blocked NancyHeise. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I protected the page since multiple editors were involved in the edit warring. I think if Nancy got blocked then Leadwind should to, but the main point is that edit warring is not, and never has been the way to go. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had only reviewed the past 12 hours or so at the point I decided to block Nancy. Looking at the full 24 hours, it's pretty clear that they were both edit warring, but I have a bit more sympathy for someone who's trying to put an NPOV tag on a section, because unless it's really, really obvious, the removal of an NPOV tag is more likely to be vandalism, and hence 3RR-exempt, than its addition. But, if someone thinks that Leadwind should be blocked as well, I don't have a problem with that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Leadwind reverted against two other editors, and it was being discussed on the talkpage, so this is more content dispute. In addition WP:EW] says that "adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" from EW rules. And since I see that Leadwind has been warned of these things in the past, I think it is sauce for both goose and gander here.--Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The "discussion" seems to run along the lines of "we already settled this, you're vandalizing, go away". That's why I've been hesitant to block Leadwind myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, edit warring wasn't the way to handle it for either party; no matter how "right" somebody is. Which means we don't attempt to judge "right/wrong" unless it is "obvious vandalism", BLP, etc which this specifically isn't. Like I said, my initial preference was to go the Page Protection route and leave them both unblocked. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cody7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Reverts of November 14, 2009:

• 5th revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]

Reverts of November 6, 2009:

• 2nd revert: [24]

Reverts of November 5, 2009:

• 1st revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Same topic, but different issue with another case of edit warring.

Reverts of September 14, 2009:

• 9th revert: [28]
• 8th revert: [29]
• 7th revert: [30]

Reverts of September 11, 2009:

• 6th revert: [31]

• 5th revert: [32]

Reverts of September 10, 2009:

• 4th revert: [33]

Reverts of September 9, 2009:

• 3rd revert: [34]

Reverts of September 8, 2009:

• 2nd revert: [35]

Reverts of September 5, 2009:

• 1st revert: [36]

Comments:
The reverted material at issue has long ago been settled by several parties and it was agreed by all that the info box content would be removed as it was too controversial and could not be agreed upon. Cody7777777 has been the lone detractor on this issue and refused to listen to the overwhelming consensus. There has been an option of creating a "Byzantine legacy" article in place of the infobox content as a compromise, but Cody7777777 has refused to go along with this, still insisting on inclusion of the controversial infobox content.

Cody has a history of long term edit-warring (See September edits above) against several users and he being the lone dissenter of the issue. He has stalled discussion and asks repeated answered questions in violation of Wikipedia's 3R Policy.

Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. Dinkytown (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) (Statement of original complaint)

The edits on September, are about a different issue unrelated to the current (and I was simply restoring there a mention supported by sources, which had been part of the article for nearly two years). Regarding, the November edits, I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, and as I had posted on article's talk page, I actually agreed to remove that successors list, but only if it will be replaced there by a Legacy sub-article instead (with a link to this legacy sub-article in the infobox successor section), although I don't understand what are the reasons to remove that infobox successor list, and I have not seen any explanations on the article's talk page why it would be controversial to include in the infobox successor section a list of states which are described by sources as successors/heirs of that empire, while removing that section could make the infobox look weird, especially when compared to the infoboxes of other historic states, even giving the impression that this state had no successors. However, since after several days the users who wanted to remove the infobox section have not actually started the legacy sub-article to replace it, I attempted to restore the infobox successor section until that sub-article was done (and I had already posted these intentions on the article's talk page several days earlier, and no one claimed to oppose there, and as far as I know silence on talk page means agreement), but two users simply started edit-warring, and have refused to explain their reasons on the article's talk page (only invoking an unclear consensus, although Wikipedia is not run by majority vote). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus had been reached and well documented. All agreed the the infobox content was too vague, not informative, controversial and all agreed to remove it. Discussion lasted for weeks and consensus reached with you as the lone detractor. You chose to edit war against consensus. Dinkytown (talk) 13:34, 16 November 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. That said, the fact that User:Cody7777777's edits are being disputed by multiple other experienced users clearly shows that their additions don't have a consensus (also see WP:BURDEN), and if Cody continues in this vein, a block for disruptive editing and edit-warring may be applied, even if WP:3RR is not breached. So I strongly suggest that the user discuss and develop consensus for the additions before editing the infobox. Use WP:DR, if necessary. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Liquid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Logger9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

No need to wait for 3 or 4 reverts. User Logger9 has shown in the past that he will revert again and again.

Implicitely done in change log lines.

Talk:Liquid

Comments:

We had the same problem some weeks ago; 3 R, page blocked. I attempted to settle the issue on the talk page. Logger9 almost agreed with my proposal, then he posed an additional condition. After some hesitation, I accepted that condition. However, Logger9 never came back to the discussion page. Instead, he tried to insert his material under other lemmas, like Solution.

In order to get Liquid unprotected, I asked on WikiProjekt Physics and WikiProhect Physical Chemistry for other users to express their opinion. So far, only one did: a very clear verdict, calling Logger9's text incomprehensible and unsalvable. Upon which User:Tedder unprotected the page. Upon which Logger9, ignoring the talk page completely, re-inserted his abstruse 40k text. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protected (by User:Kevin). Abecedare (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:72.200.208.58 has gone beyond 3rr, repeating adding an entry with no wikilinks, just an external link. I added in my edit summaries why this wasn't allowed, with links to guidelines on this. Anon continues to rv (has now added 5 times) and also vandalised User:Boleyn, my page. When I was checking this out, I realised I've accidentally rv 4 times, so sorry, and if I am banned for a short time I would understand, although I am not interested in pursuing an edit war. Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only see 1 revert by Mr/Ms 72.xxx? Unless it's been redacted or something (I wouldn't know). They haven't been around for 3 hours so they may have just given up for the night. I assume this[37] is the talk page thing, which I do admit is pretty weird. I suppose someone should ask about your use of apparently 3 different users, but I'm going to assume you have a deal set up, and you're not abusing their existence any warring or harassment. Any more info you have might be helpful. That or I'm entirely missing a huge conflict somewhere, which is why an admin get to pick this up. To admin: IP only has 3 total edits and only 1 is a revert. Boleyn's RRs seem to be in good faith and summaries were detailed. This might have been a 1-evening thing for them. A 3RR warning was added, change it to user page vandal warning and call it a night? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be the same as User:12.74.176.195 and User:12.74.177.8; certainly exactly the same addition was being added with very similar edit summaries. All three seem to clearly be the same person.

Regarding my accounts, they are legitimate as very similiarly named so as not to mislead and following the advice on WP:Sock puppetry, Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages. Having more than one account is not banned, editors are just advised to use them carefully. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation on Philip Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Allriskinrev (talk · contribs), also editing as 77.86.124.20 (talk · contribs), 94.72.194.208 (talk · contribs) and 87.102.42.116 (talk · contribs) Four wholesale reverts of the same material in 23 hours, despite a warning, and after announcing in advance that he intended to do it.

• Version reverted to 19:00 Nov 12, note the third paragraph of lead: "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."

• 1st revert: 08:02 Nov 16, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."

• 2nd revert: 12:36 Nov 16, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."

• 3rd revert: 02:11 Nov 17, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."

• 4th revert: 07:03 Nov 17, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."

Comments[edit]

User:Allriskinrev announced yesterday that he intended to revert any edits I make to the third paragraph of the Philip Larkin lead, with the edit summary "Mac edit," and that he intended to do that in lieu of further discussion about it. [38] He has since then reverted four times in 23 hours, once with his account and three times as an anon IP address, but they are clearly him as they use the "Mac edit" summary, revert the same material, and come from the same area. After his reverts, I have been compromising, rewriting, and trying to find a lead that's acceptable e.g. [39] [40] but he continues to revert to exactly the same version.

After the third revert, I left a warning on his page about 3RR at 03:05 Nov 17, [41] but it made no difference. I also started a discussion about it on talk at 03:02 Nov 17, [42] but he did not respond, and continued to revert. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours have also semi-protected the page for a week so that the user does not continue to revert while logged out. Will also leave on note on user talk page to explain expected conduct once the block ends. Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)result

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He is evading the block, signing off Allriskinrev, but editing as 87.102.4.203 (talk · contribs) [43] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked. User block extended and warning added. Abecedare (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted: Misbehaving user was enacting what was the talk page consensus almost-instinct 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Meieimatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

• I didn't warn until after the 4th revert, however on his talk page he emphatically stated during a previous discussion with another user that he knew what 3RR was, so I see no reason why a warning would be necessary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

• I've only reverted this editor once myself. The reason I find myself here is because when I brought the edit warring between this and another user up with him I was myself accused of edit warring because of my one revert, and I see no signs that this user believes that his 4 reverts aren't somehow justified by being "right". See for instance his responses at his talk page. If he actually self-reverts as I suggested I think this report should be disregarded or considered moot.PelleSmith (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'll also warn User:Shii for edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ásíyih Khánum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.135.242.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 14:30, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 14:38, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Wikilink for Baghdad is related but wikilink about khanum is not? Hmmm. Makes so much sense for ignorants.")
3. 14:47, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 326350700 by MARussellPESE (talk)")
4. 15:10, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
5. 15:14, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "You are a vandal. Now there is a separate page just about Khanum. Telling you what it is. Irrelevant? No! confusing? No... what is your excuse now?")
6. 15:22, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Put the accent on a and you'll see it. Just click on the link.")
7. 17:45, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I didn't make the wiktionary entry, it was there. How about this? It's just a footnote with a link to wiktionary. Any thoughts?")
8. 18:49, 17 November 2009 Another one
9. 19:37, 17 November 2009 And another one

• Diff of warning: here

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Page semi-protected for 2 weeks as well. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Taekwondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 660gd4qo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Worth noting: I've been accused of a "3RR violation" even before submitting this, but I stopped at 3, specifically leaving a note "To admin" that I was at 3 and backing off. Not sure how much more I could have done to make sure I was alright.

Previous version? This[51] please, as it's the last before anyone at all involved in this touched the article yesterday.

Description: It's... an edit war? Huggle kept screaming about this article and figured I'd go look since no one seemed to be going to edit. I saw a long-standing consensus, and for the past 3 days or so the same user coming and reverting every single change. After looking through the diffs, well, I always have to wonder why someone who is claiming someone is POV pushing is reverting 3 different editors with entirely different points of view of the article. I know no involved party, I don't care what happens to the article, but I will not be bullied as a result a patrol stop. User has attempted to declare 3RR amnesty, saying they were protecting the page. I'm not qualified enough to know everything about the article, but "reverting long-term consensus" isn't usually "protection".

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

Had to add that last one on an edit. I was literally baited[58] into revert this so I would have actually violated 3RR. The version I suggested at the top is still the last clean one from what I can tell.

1. Note: 5th revert(&oldid=326340763) and 6th revert(&oldid=326340763) are same URL. User:Datheisen try to cheating admin.
2. 2nd revert(oldid=326331357) is not revert of 1st (oldid=326318595).
3. 4th revert(oldid=326338309) is not revert of previous. it is add note and add doubious tag.
4. And, all of changes are "reference" changing. Not main article change.
5. The Shindonga magazine reference is a copyvio case.Talk:Taekwondo#copyvio_references Reverting copyvio is a exceptional case of 3RR. not counting 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

--From 660gd4qo (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning: [59] ...this was before I did anything, even. I'll send another, I guess? I can just copy and past off my talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Same as above; I actually waited until the 5th RR to do this because user had not allowed me to speak with them yet and I wanted a chance to just because of this part. After carpeting 10 messages on my talk page, I give up. Make that 11. 12? It's a lot[60]. Only some of it is insulting! It's not in my interests or worth my time to put anything on this User's talk page.

Comments:

There's probably a listing for me on this page by now. I'll chuckle, given this was an AGF page patrol for me and how much I really hate filling this out.

Thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is content dispute. not edit war. This is completely wrong 3rr.

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason. Especially, reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point. Misuse of reversion in these ways may lead to administrator warnings or blocking.

Well, Unlike him, I did numerous discuss at here. Talk:Taekwondo But, daTheisen NEVER join any single discuss before revert. I did not change article without "improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion".

Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

1. Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
2. Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

He "claims" I reverted 5th. But, 2th, 4th, 5th was not revert. It was add some note.

My edits was "improving", "add", "changing". it is improving article "bit by bit" than whole revert.

It was Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.(See Talk:Taekwondo#copyvio_references) And this case Exceptional case of 3RR. It is not count in 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

biased or poorly sourced controversial material is also exceptional case of 3RR. It is not count in 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

i already suggest he join in discuss. User_talk:Datheisen#WP:CULT.3F Becasue this is a content dispute. not edit war.

--660gd4qo (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion, after never using a talk page, that going against total consensus with a fringe view, that you're immune from 3RR? Okay. This is what admins are for. Give up on the personal attacks too, please. You're free to file a complaint to the socks notice board, if you'd like. I will still suggest you drop your post below, since it really, really isn't a 3RR violation and an admin is not going to be amused. They also dislike having regulations repeated to them. They know them. See WP:DTTR. You're not worth my time at this point, to acknowledge further, sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. You add 'difference cases' in 3rr. you reports 6 cases. but, 3 cases are not "revert".
2. according to wikipedia definition, 3rr violation is "Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor rather than improving upon them". Certainly My edits are not reverting, and accept improving and changing.
3. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR And i changed copyvio references. copyvio, biased and controversial material are Exceptional case of 3RR. It's are not count in 3RR.
4. Actually, It is not a main article changing. below small references changing.
5. Your problem is... that article continually improving by discuss.Talk:Taekwondo It is not whole reverts war. (except for one single user, User:Reinosuke, this user just revert without any single discuss & reason) It ceratinly improving "bit by bit" than whole reverts.

--660gd4qo (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This looks to me like POV-warring by 660gd4qo about the national origins of Taekwondo, mixed in with implausible claims about copyright violations that (if true) would conveniently support his position in the POV dispute. I've asked 660gd4qo to promise to stop edit-warring on this article, on the theory that such a promise might help him to avoid a block. I suggest waiting a few hours to see if he responds. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is content dispute. But i NEVER claims my My POV Pushing only. Actually, edits chaging bit by bit. I'm a Neutral. Just avoid some Heavy POV Pushing. copyright violation is cleary true. edit-warring will stop until reach agrrement. ---660gd4qo (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, This is not 3rr vio. Some POV quotes should be moderate in discuss page before article change.(remeber, this is not main article change, below references change). so if JJL and User:Reinosuke(anyway, this user is a really annoying, just repeat reverting without any discuss) agree this, edit war will certainly STOP. I think we need much discuss for reach agreement. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like EdJohnston metioned my page, "you could agree not to edit the article for a week. If you do so, you may be able to avoid a block.". If article protected at here[61](removed controvercial quotes until dispute solve), then i will discuss at talk page only without main article change. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That article already moderated 2 years ago. [62] Most editors disagree JJL. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 users problems. JJL and User:Reinosuke. JJL's content dispute already end at here[[63]]. User:Reinosuke, is problem. this user just keep reverting without any singe discuss. Admin must give warning to this user,User:Reinosuke. I will report this user later.--05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours. My offer to 660gd4go was not clearly accepted, so I went ahead and blocked for 31 hours. Since I posted on his talk page, he went ahead and edited the article one more time, removing a sentence about the claimed Japanese origin of Taekwondo from the article. There may be a legitimate question about the national origins of Taekwondo, but WP policy does not tolerate edit-warring in pursuit of any one view of the matter. If you wait for a Talk page consensus before making controversial changes, you should never get any trouble from admins. I caution this editor that his view of our copyright policy is completely wrong, and if he continues to revert out short quotations from good sources he may be blocked for a longer time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours

Page: Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tombaker321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]
• 4th revert: [67]
• 5th revert: [68]

The present dispute between this editor and myself is about integrating a "personal life" and "career" section into one whole article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

• Result - Tombaker321 was blocked 24 hours by User:Gwen Gale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009

Page: World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Peter Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mario Roering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71] Note: not actually reverted to, but this is the diff before everything started between these two users...at least recently

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]
• 4th revert: [75]
• 5th revert: [76]
• 6th revert: [77]
• 7th revert: [78]
• 8th revert: [79]
• 9th revert: [80]
• 10th revert: [81]
• 11th revert: [82]
• 12th revert: [83]

(there's a lot more, but I think you get the point...)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] and [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] Not I, but User:4twenty42o who brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#World_Genseiry.C5.AB_Karate-d.C5.8D_Federation where I attempted to give them a hand in the absence of anyone else who took notice of it.

Comments:

• Each blocked for 24 hours. Normally I would just warn here given that the reverts stopped after the warning, but the extreme edit war combined with extreme incivility pushes it over the edge. I strongly encourage both participants here to civilly discuss the issue, or engage in dispute resolution. Next time for this type of conduct will likely be much longer than a day. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Ramtha)
User being reported: Mindgladiator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original Version

• 1st revert: 23:07 15 Nov 2009 (undid revision without justification)
• 2nd revert: 23:55 16 Nov 2009 (undid revision, but justification provided was inadequate; further comments on his justification were not addressed)
• 3rd revert: 18:25 17 Nov 2009 (undid edit without providing further justification)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mindgladiator

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:J. Z. Knight

Comments:

• Result - This is a valid complaint about edit warring by Mindgladiator. In lieu of admin action, the latter has accepted a voluntary restriction. He has agreed not to edit the J. Z. Knight article for 30 days. This expires at 18:23 UTC on 20 December, 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Ramtha)
User being reported: Jujimufu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&oldid=326359116 [addition of content to article with extreme anti topic views]
• 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&oldid=326236863 [nature section used to publish users own personal views on Ramtha and teachings]
• 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&oldid=326358950#cite_ref-chandler_14-0 [user added off topic information to page]
• 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&oldid=326355900 ["added skepticism", this is not helping the topic to be factual or helpful to the reader, this user seems want to sway opinion towards hi or her own]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._Z._Knight[link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._Z._Knight [diff]

Comments:

We have both halted editing the page and we are currently in the process of trying to understand the reasons behind each person's Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

its and reverts. -Jujimufu (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to "skepticism [...] is not helping the topic to be factual or helpful to the reader", I would like to point out that refusal to look at the skeptic or critical side of such a controversial topic when such a side exists is complicit behaviour to the promotion of Ramtha's claims regardless of their validity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cult-gathering/converting place, and should thus present such extraordinary claims with the least respectable amount of skepticism and critical thinking they deserve. That includes skeptical scrutiny that these issues have undergone in the past and by acclaimed authors, scientists and skeptics who have written so in their publications, which deserves a mention and a highlight in the article. Please correct me if you believe something contrary to what I just said, or provide evidence/support that Ramtha's claims have been scientifically acclaimed and supported by experimental information published in peer-reviewed journals, which would in turn warrant the criticism and skepticism around the issue null and deem their place in the article useless. But unless such information is provided, I believe the skeptical side should appear in the page.

I feel I have already addressed issues with respect to your claims of "addition of content to article with extreme anti-topic views", "[addition of] off topic information" or "own personal views on Ramtha and teachings" in the article's discussion page. My replies on these claims have yet to be addressed, yet it seems User:Mindgladiator is keen on removing any information that contradicts the belief that Ramtha is a real entity, which is at least debatable (as the scientific community and skeptics around the world have shown - all of which are referenced clearly and precisely in each and every one of my edits). "Irrelevant information" includes an analogy between Ramtha's core teachings and a list of common messages by channelers by Russell Chandler (in his "Understanding New Age"; the extract I quoted from the book follows a conversation particularly about Ramtha). I do not see this as "off-topic information", but rather on-topic elements which contribute to presenting the claimed channeled entity Ramtha in a more balanced way.

Again, none of the issues I addressed in the talk pages has been addressed, and if they are to be addressed I would like to ask a coherent, logical, and grounded reply like the one I provided. I will not settle for quasi-new-age beliefs and excitements from other members due to having watched (highly questionable and of dubious validity) videos from Ramtha's website to counter a scientific approach to investigate this issue (which -if it has not been stressed enough already, in this reply and in my replies in the article's talk page- are not my investigations, but investigations by other scientists, skeptics and authors who have published their views and whose writings I quoted, referenced and cited in every single one of my additions).

I hope I am being understood, and if not, please ask and I will try and clarify my stance better.

-Jujimufu (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed some very dubious ELs in this edit [87]], but they were restored again by User:Mindgladiator here. The user seems to have very poor grip on WP policies despite several attempts being made to ppoint him at them. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

While Mindgladiator may seem inexperienced with Wikipedia, he already knows how to file complaints at WP:RFPP and the 3RR board. I've left him a very specific warning about edit wars and invited him to respond here. The J. Z. Knight article seems to be almost his only interest on Wikipedia since his account was created in August. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello.. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am learning very quickly about how to do things. I have used wikipedia for many referencing reasons in the past and then decided to look at the JZ Knight page. I was shocked to find that anyone was saying whatever they liked about this person, the teachings of Ramtha and the School of Enlightenment. I do have an interest in the article I have had experience of the subject matter. What I find worrying is that I have used wikipedia for other reasons and trusted the information so that is what people will also be doing with this article. Some users seem to just use this page to push their own opinions pro JZ or anti and I dont agree with either. Now I dont have as much to say as Jujimufu in my responses within these chat and discussion pages but I do value wikipedia and do not wish to see it devalued it this way. My critisism of Jujimufu has been clear, this user does not seem to take a neutral line..

I will learn fast and start referencing and following protocol correctly. As I said to Jujimufu I am happy to work together to make sure we both discuss and remain neutral with posts, that offer still stands. My only interest is to make she its not all one sided, Jujimufu talks about there being no scientific back up for various points in the article, I put on a External link that shows a discovery by the scientific community that does relate to Ramtha's teachings and Jezhotwheels removes it!! So what do you want, references and linking to relevant information or not? It may be that I am just referencing etc in the wrong way, well in that case help me to understand, by showing me how you would include the link and its information into the article... I am willing to learn and not about to go away..

Mindgladiator (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The ELs removed were links to Knight's Ramtha websites or news articles which did not follow WP:EL. The only one which could remotely be considered "scientific" is a newsletter written by Knight citing a photograph sent to her by an alleged scientist, Sonia García Ramirez, who appears to be a post-graduate student in Colombia.[88] This is not a WP:RS for anything and does not meet the criteria of WP:EL. The subject of the photograph has nothing to do with "Ramtha", except in Knight's unreliable synthesis. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided about the "scientific foundings" which "support" some of the claims by Ramtha came from JZ Knight's own website, with no external source, and thus is dubious at best. If you find an article in a published scientific journal that shares the same results and which has been shown to support Knight's claims, then go ahead and put that article in.

You keep shouting and throwing in words, but you still have not summoned the intelligence to provide a clear-cut argument against my neutrality on the nature of the article. The article would only be "devalued" if we were to take whatever Ramtha's website says at face value without looking into the reality of things. And the reality of things shows that Ramtha has troubled quite a few scientists and skeptics, which have expressed their opinion in their writings. Which I referenced and sourced.

I still fail to see how this is irrelevant, or compromises the "value" of the article.

There's a difference between us, but it is not how familiar you are with the WP protocols or regulations: it is the fact that, when you read the article you saw that "anyone was saying whatever they liked about this person", whereas when I read the article, I saw that it is an article without a grain of skepticism, and an article which definitely requires a good dose of some.

Skepticism of Ramtha exists abound in the relevant texts (which -surprise, surprise- do not include Ramtha's own websites), which has been relevantly sourced in the article.

If the article was once one-sided, that was before any additions were made, when it contained only links, readings and articles from Ramtha, or Ramtha's website. Is that one-sided enough for you?

-Jujimufu (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jujimufu.. I see you are now enjoying the freedom to reference many anti references to this article, is that one sided? I think so.. Many of your references are to what people have thought about Ramtha and the teachings at his school but negative, why then can I not link to positive references?

It seems that editing this article is restricted to those who want to dis-credit and add skeptisim, thats not right.. You have linked to the Glen Cunningham video, and then removed the video link to students card reading... why? Because you think he is right and the card readers are dubious.. Well that stinks. There are many videos, and places on the internet where people talk about and demonstrate their wonderful experiences at RSE, if I refernece these will you leave them there or report me for pushing promotion material.. In many cases there is no scientific back up for some of the things happening at the school, but is there any scientific back up to Glen Cunningham or other peoples 'published' thoughts about jz, Ramtha or the school? No. This is where the article becomes unreliable and you become hypocrytical.. Like you I will now gather up lots of references to Ramtha, the school and JZ which are positive. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me, because you have done exactly the same but the negative.

I have sat with students who have read through a whole pack of cards with the face turned downwards, see the future consistantly and move objects with only their mind. Now was there a scientist there at the table who could publish the findings, no.. That is coming, 2 students are currently undergoing extensive test and experiments with a well know US institution, into their abilities to read through solid objects consistantly. This is not my opinion, this is what is happening and I intend to reference this material / videos into the article. I think it comes down to you not believing that these things are possible, and maybe they are not for you, but other people are doing it as a result of JZ Knight and Ramtha's teachings and this article should have some reference to that.

A couple of weeks ago Derren Brown had a television program on in the UK where he had the whole UK population doing a remote view, over 30% did this successfully. Then the following week he had a program about how he can win the roulette wheel by predicting numbers acurately. The first of the series he and a group of UK citizens acurately predicted the lottery. Unless you have your head in the sand you can see that these things that Ramtha teaches his students to do, are going on all around you all the time. There are students at school who do predict half of the lottery numbers correctly all the time now. This information is available to anyone who wants to know... However it cant be included in this article because you think it is dubious, what does that say about the way you see your own possibilities?

Once again I say, I am happy to curtail my enthusiasm about the subject and create a neutral article but please dont be hypocrits and tell me not to post pro references when you are doing the same the other way.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindgladiator (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, you don't seem to be able to understand, so I now state that I am not going to argue any further. A consensus has been reached between me and the rest of the people contributing in this dispute that your edits are against wikipedia's basic principles, and you have been warned with a 3RR warning. You seem unable to understand basic principles of encyclopedic approaches to a subject, and furthermore you seem heavily biased towards Ramtha and his teachings, by being in close contact with students of the School and by showing instant belief for every information taken from Ramtha's website. If you want to find support for Ramtha's claims, then you are very welcome to do so - but not from self published sources (as was mentioned to you in the article's talk page), and when it comes to extraordinary claims, you need to provide the relevant extraordinary evidence. You can't just use a dubious (not because of its origin, but because of the way it's shot and presented) from Ramtha's own website to support Ramtha's own claims.

Your additition of a "Praise and Accolade" section has no place, as this is not a site to praise certain figures, but to provide as much information about them as possible. "Praising" is personal, while "Controversies and Criticism" is not. If Ramtha doesn't like that section in the article, he can go to the critics individually and prove to them his existence.

Your reference to Derren Brown in your previous response seems to have a clear misunderstanding of his nature: Derren Brown is an illusionist, a magician and 'mentalist', who tricks people but acknowledges that he does so publicly. He himself said "I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game." (Brown, Derren (2006), Tricks of the Mind, London: Channel 4, ISBN 9781905026265) (also, Derrek Brown gives a fantastic interview here with Richard Dawkins, where he discusses cold reading and other similar skills).

As I said, I am not going to argue any further with you - so far you have shown no adequate ability in argueing coherently, meaningfully and/or clearly, so until you do that I will undo any meaningless edits on the page, and keep reporting you, if necessary.

-Jujimufu (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jujimufu..

Seems your endless bias is working for you and the article is becoming more and more biased.. your way .. Am I really the only person who can see how biased you are with you edits????

The changes will continue and increase with accurracy and reference. I do not and will not agree that you should be able to say what ever you want, then backing it up with some hashed together evidence from a disgruntled ex employee (for example).. You will always be able to find plenty of that sort of entry on the internet with this sort of subject..

How can you also say "Praise and Accolade" is personal, while "Controversies and Criticism" is not. That is absolute bull.. This is a one sided approach which I clearly see you are not willing to change.

I really thought that the administrators of wikipedia would warn you against being so biased but that also seems to be missing.

Mindgladiator (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Mindgladiator has quite a problem with understanding the WP concept of neutrality. This diff [89] shows him removing information cited to WP:RS. He really should be blocked for this, in my opinion. He has had sufficient warnings and refuses to discuss this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am watching this case, have discussed things with Mindgladiator, and may close the issue soon if no other admin gets to it first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User Mindgladiator has gone a step further with their extreme edits: his most recent edit on the J. Z. Knight-related content is in the article's talk page, in which he removed all evidence of previous conversations on the topic ( diff ). -• jujimufu ^(talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No action. This case is a complaint about edit warring by Jujimufu. (See a related complaint about Mindgladiator just sbove). I do not see edit warring by Jujimufu, but I caution him to make full use of the Talk page before making substantial changes to the article. Although you've been reverting some POV edits, such reverts are not an exception from the WP:3RR rule, so please be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: State Guard Association of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Todd Gallagher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

<New to Wiki, I have made every effort to be objective and limit my eidts to small increments. However, user: Todd Gallagher keeps using the "undo" command to wipe hours of editing. He continues to selectively cites old sources that are archived on a third-party site and deletes current links on the organization's. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 22015va (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) -->

A Wikipedia Editor has intervened and I believe with his assistance we will be able to reach a consensus with this article. A discussion paragraph has been added to the articles discussion page22015va (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- Both parties warned. There has been a very sharp dispute, but there are no edits by Todd Gallagher since 17 November. The submitter of this complaint seems to be affiliated with the State Guard Association which is the article subject. Both parties are warned that they must follow Wikipedia policy, and I urge User:22015va to read the WP:Conflict of interest guideline. If revert warring starts up again, both paries risk sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User being reported: Doctorfluffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Edit war A:

Page: Kimber Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100]
• 5th revert: [101]
• 6th revert: [102]
• 7th revert: [103]
• 8th revert: [104]
• 9th revert: [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below for explanation.

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

• Edit war B:

Page: J. Wellington Wimpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: 16:40, 19 November 2009
• 4th revert: 19:01, 19 November 2009
• 5th revert: 06:28, 20 November 2009
• 6th revert: 16:16, 20 November 2009
• 7th revert: 20:27, 20 November 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Wimpy

Comments:

User is currently engaged in multiple edit wars over fictional character articles. User in question has been warned for edit warring elsewhere and has a history of engaging in long-term edit warring that while perhaps not technically always being 3RR in 24 hours, nevertheless goes well beyond 4 reverts total and will continue to do so despite being undone by multiple different editors. Another recent example of an edit war warning can be found here. In most of these cases, the user in question redirects fiction/popular culture related articles and the undoes anyone who challenges his redirects. He has again, been doing so for months now and should know better. Other examples I recall were [110], [111], [112], etc. or [113], [114], [115], etc. or [116], [117], [118], [119], etc. Another long-drawn out edit-war from this user is the following: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], etc. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another admin blocked 55 hours. See User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Update.--chaser (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has breached the three revert rule and thus should be blocked. He consistantly adds historically inaccurate pictures to an article when a consensus has been reached against them.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Fastily. JamieS93 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Maverick16 (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]
• 5th revert: [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here, and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: editor's sole "attempt"

Comments:
This is a contentious article anyway. Unilateral action is strongly discouraged on such articles. Warring editor made no attempt to discuss action even after it was suggested that s/he attempt to gain a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

• Result - Toddst1 blocked Maverick16 for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 03:05, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; Unless this is discussed on the talk page first, do not change. (TW)")
2. 03:29, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; WP:LEAD as long as info is in the body of the article the lead/infobox does not require citations. discuss on the talk page first. (TW)")
3. 04:39, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; Seek administrative action if you wish. My actions are within policy. (TW)")
4. 10:44, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by NeilN; The source itself is not the issue. talk page discussion uses allmusic in addition to other sources. (TW)")

It should be noted that most of these reverts came from myself and another editor who were adding sourced genres to the page. It appears as if Bookkeeperoftheoccult just didn't like how reliably-sourced genres were listed. Possibly a little stale, but I was just now made aware of this, and I think action should be taken.

—Chase wc⁹¹ 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The last revert was over 12 hours ago, so I have warned rather than blocked Bookkeeper. NW (Talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision

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

1. 17:53, 9 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Name for the Frederick Ayer Mansion")
2. 18:11, 10 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Link")
3. 16:29, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This is the official name; we can't change the official name unless there's an error. Also changing alphabetisation: C before Y")
4. 03:33, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "These aren't names of properties on the Register")
5. 13:07, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deviance from the Register's formatting is at variance with the policy of WP:NRHP and at variance with WP:V")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments:

User Nyttend is reverting proper formatting of ship names/linked article titles to match the ALL CAPS style found on lists provided by the National Register of Historic Places. Other users are attempting to use consistent styling, in accordance with WP:ALLCAPS. Nyttend did not specifically mention the reversion in the first two reversion edit summaries and those reversions were included along with several other copy edits. The last three diffs show a 3RR violation beginning at 16:29, November 17, 2009 followed by two further reverts within 24 hours. The edit summaries provided by Nyttend indicate that names are being changed which violates the "policy" of the WikiProject WP:NRHP and result in unverifiable material. In fact, only the capitalization and use of periods within names of ships are being changed, the names are obviously correct and unchanged. N.B.: The article contains several dozen images and over two hundred {{coord}} listings, and as a result may take some time (up to 10 seconds) to load diffs.

—Sswonk (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There has been no action on the above post for 12 hours, other than a relatively mild suggestion at Nyttend's user talk, which has received no response.[140] However, shortly before that post Nyttend did delete[141] the {{uw-3rr}} notice with the summary "I'm not in violation of 3RR, and you've done at least as many reversions." I am just learning that 3RR violations occur at the fourth revert in 24 hours; however, I have never done more than two such reverts on this or any article—the edit summary presents a falsehood. Irrespective of Nyttend's sysop status, which should not have any bearing here, his actions are disruptive and contrary to the consensus formed at the article talk page. I am adding this comment to draw attention here, Nyttend apparently has not learned anything from a similar block incident from five months ago.[142] Something more than a deleted template and unresponsive behavior is expected. No acknowledgment and outright unsupported denial is tantamount to declaration of the right to behave disruptively on Nyttend's behalf and should be addressed further. Sswonk (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- No action. Nobody has tried to change either to or from the all-caps style since 18 November, so for the moment there is no edit war. If it resumes, it will present a puzzling situation. Since Nyttend is an admin, we assume that he knows how to negotiate to get a consensus for his change. I had hoped he would reply to this report, since he has been properly notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Black Hawk Down (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 74.12.221.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

• 1st revert: [144]
• 2nd revert: [145]
• 3rd revert: [146]
• 4th revert: [147]
• 5th revert: [148]
• 6th revert: [149]

A "new" IP has started reverting: [150] And again: [151]

It'd be nice if an Admin would actually pay attention when I make a report. No idea why I bother with these. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Comment: A sock-puppet investigation (or CU) may be prudent. Despite these being his/her first edits, the user sure is oddly familiar with lots of Wiki-policy.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fourth so-called "revert" above was not a revert at all, but me attempting to incorporate (and here too) into the body of the text the fact that a third film critic also considered the film above to be racist (instead of including a huge chunk of text with the word "niggers" in it like Crotchety Old Man kept reverting to). On the other hand, Crotchedly Old Man's three edits (first, second, third) were all reverts; take it for what it's worth. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've now gone over three reverts & I apologize for this. But what is happening on the article is that one user has added an opinion from a film critic that was published on a website that describes itself as a guide to "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and this opinion on the film above contains racial epithets as well. How on earth is this acceptable? 74.12.221.125 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that is so disingenuous. My IP changed because I switched off the computer dude, nor have I pretended anywhere to be a different person. You have reverted twice too -- just as many times as I have; only you did not even bother showing up once on the article's discussion page to discuss things over with us. Had you done so, you would have known that consensus had been reached. I was even pointed to the reliable source noticeboard, where I then posted [153] and the editors there also agreed with these changes. I wasn't "vandalizing" but editing the article according to what everyone else agreed on! You, on the other hand, reverted me without even so much as once bothering to join in on the discussion although I even explained to you that consensus had been reached after you first revert. The fact is, you twice reversed my changes without having the benefit of consensus or general agreement on your side, or even attempting to acquire it through any reasoned discussion, whereas I had both which is the only reason why I even edited the page again. 76.69.231.153 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't defend the reverting actions of the accused, but there are two other parties involved in this edit war, and at the time of writing the accused is the only party who has made any attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The "accused" is the only one who violated 3RR, which is why this report was initiated. And funny that you now make your way over here, given your edit-warring history on the very same page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never broken 3rr. When I was involved in a dispute on the article my reverts were always accompanied by further discussion on the talk page and clarifification of policy on various noticeboards. That isn't edit-warring, that is editing through consensus because I was attempting to advance the debate at all times. This is not dissimilar to the dispute I had over sources which is why I feel sympathy for the anon IP. I can't seriously believe that this sources stands up next to the sources we currently have, and I also don't understand why you think it's ok to plagiarise a massive chunk of the review when both other reviews had the racism critcism briefly summarised. I also don't see how a 'professional' critic can be considered credible when he uses the word 'niggers' in his review. It would helpful and courteous if you could at least explain your stance on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. The arrival of the second IP, also from the Montreal area and with identical views, does suggest sock editing. I note that some editors (including the sock) seem to have been acting as a force for restraint, trying to find good sources for the suggestion of 'racism' and trying to limit the extravagant language. Probably nothing for us to do here, since the Talk page needs to decide that issue. Crotchety should file an WP:SPI report if he thinks that one of the registered accounts on this article is the same as the two IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Michael E. Mann (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Michael E. Mann|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WVBluefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

• 1st revert: [155]
• 2nd revert: [156]
• 3rd revert: [157]
• 4th revert: [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Having been previously blocked as User:BluefieldWV for edit warring, user knows about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. User restoring private email to talk page.

Comments:

• to the reviewing admin please bear in mind that this "private email" concerning the subject has been reprinted in whole in several WP:RS's and the case made for wiping out the talk page is spurious at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a freaking talk page people, and the editors removing the material I added were doing so without reason, which is a violation of WP:TP. The private email in question was reproduced by a reliable source. The question on the talk page is directly related to numerous reliable sources reporting some interesting news about Mr Mann. WMC should really watch himself here because he has a direct WP:COI with the subject as they both blog together. WVBluefield (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: warnings re 3RR were removed incivily [159]; also note that a number of the reverts in question falsely allegenge vandalism, e.g. [160] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing article talk page threads for no good reason is vandalism. And speaking of irony, you shouldn’t talk about other people's incivility[161]. WVBluefield (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The threads were removed for a good reason. You were told of those reasons. You have repeatedly removed any references to this from your talk page, e.g. [162] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You and your little crew can edit anywhere you like .. just not on my talk page. Get it? On a side note, the last time I reported you for a 3RR, one of your buddies came quickly to your rescue, and didn’t block you even though you violated 3RR. I wonder if they will give me the same courtesy seeing as how the edit warring over your rude and intemperate removal of my talk page comments has now ceased.

NOTE: WMC never once gave an explanation for the removal of talk page thread ... not a one. WVBluefield (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh: a glance at WVB's talk page history will show him removing multiple warnings and explanations. Apparently he requires all editors to give him the same explanation, whilst, apparently, not posting to his talk page at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If by multiple explanations by many editors you mean one explanation by one editor, then yes you are absolutely correct. And considering that your last post to my talk page, aside from today, was a persoanl attack [163], you will have to forgive me I don’t appreciate you blanketing my talk page with multiple duplicate template warnings. WVBluefield (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: the incivility continues [164] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Listen, I’m out of here for the weekend, so do whatever you want, but if the purpose of a 3RR block is to stop an edit war, its not needed as the edit war ended once Onorem decided to do something rational. If the block is meant as a punitive measure for my 3RR transgression or to punish an edit war, I hope the blocking admin will take into consideration that the other editors involved never took the time to explain their deletions to an article talk page (cant stress that one enough) and the one editor that did, gave me a link to a policy and had obviously not read the talk page material themselves. WVBluefield (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The combo of edit-warring over this kind of material and fierce personal attacks is too much. Yes, we're all about prevention, and as facing no consequence for this kind of behaviour encourages it, this block is preventative. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: John Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Degreeoftruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

Comments:
Because of this edit [174]. I have suspicion that this fellow is the same person that has been banned previously for vandelism of this article and a few others. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fred_Ridge for that history. I also suspect that he may be the same person that made an anonymous IP revert during this same period[175]

TallMagic (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned The user hasn't reverted since you [s/]he was left the second warning. I've left the user another ... hopefully [s/]he'll get the message. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your attention to this matter. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Pages:

• Chaoshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kuai (dish) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• La mian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paigu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ren Guang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sashimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shantou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Soba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Umami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yazheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yejong of Goryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yu (percussion instrument) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zhou Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zhou Xiaowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zhuihu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zhu Jianer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zhu (percussion instrument) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users being reported:

• GraYoshi2x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Ongoing dispute discussed in May'09 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/May_2009#Naming_convention_for_Chinese_foods_and_usages_of_Wikitionary, and in Oct'09 at User_talk:Badagnani#Your_revert_warring.

I vaguely recall other discussions on this, but cannot find them.

See also User_talk:Badagnani#Your_edit-warring_with_GraYoshi2x, User_talk:GraYoshi2x#Your_edit-warring_with_Badagnani, User_talk:GraYoshi2x#Lamest_edit_warring. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned both users that I would block them if edit-warring continued, as edit-warring across so many articles is quite disruptive. I had been informed of this before the AN3 report was open, but if anyone else thinks more action is needed then feel free to look into it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest in my editing. I edit with our articles, and our users, foremost in my mind. The other editor is a long-term stalker who devotes often more than 50 percent or more of his/her edits to undoing my own, no matter what the subject, on a consistent and persistent basis since March 2009. I note that this report was made after the other user had undone every single edit of mine, getting them the way s/he wanted them. Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you want your edits restored, the proper way to do so is to start a centralized discussion (for example, at WT:CHINESE or WT:WikiProject China) and get consensus for doing so. If GraYoshi's editing is a problem, you can start a thread at WP:Wikiquette alerts. Making unexplained reverts across tens of articles is not the right way to resolve any of these problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Result - Both warned. If reverting continues, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the first-cited discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/May_2009#Naming_convention_for_Chinese_foods_and_usages_of_Wikitionary, it had consensus against GraYoshi's mass deletion of wiktionary linking of characters, with nobody supporting his position. When someone continues mass deletion against policy agreed by consensus, how can one stop this without being accused of edit warring? --JWB (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider making a list of some articles that ought to have Wiktionary links. Then propose the list at WT:CHINA and see if other editors support your adding the links. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kapi'olani_Medical_Center_for_Women_&_Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zaferk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 00:43, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 01:11, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327028548 by PhGustaf (talk)") 1st revert
3. 02:24, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327033588 by Tarc (talk) nobody said it was fact, thus usage of the term 'claimed'") 2nd revert
4. 02:32, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327042551 by Guyzero (talk)") 3rd revert
5. 03:00, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327043084 by Guyzero (talk)") 4th revert

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 24 for the vio, and an extra 24 for the fringing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: I Am... Sasha Fierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Gagayonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original version

• 1st revert: 2:10 21 Nov, User tries to more album covers despite copyvio
• 2nd revert: 2:52 21 Nov, User reverts the removal of the additional album cover
• 3rd revert: 2:53 21 Nov, user modifies own edit
• 4th revert: 3:14 21 Nov, despite recieving polite message on user's page, user proceeds to re-add content
• 5th revert: 3:16-3:23 (5 edits take place) user re-adds content despite recieving warnings and continues to modify the article.
• 6th revert: 3:27 user re-adds content once despite an independent editor removing the content and despite recieving level 4 and level 4im warning.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Gagayonce

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: although no formal discussion took place on the talk page, plenty of warnings were given on talk page.

Comments:

The user has show complete disregard for the rules. With the first warning i provided a detailed explaination of why these covers are not allowed on the page. In rapid succcession the user continued to add the content back to the page. I could have probably stopped trying to revert his/her edits but as far as im aware i did the correct thing by remaining calm and using an appropriate warning template. Please can someone intervene. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Pole shift hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

• Vsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ckatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

• 0st revert: [177] user:Dougweller
• 1st revert: [178] user:Dougweller
• 2nd revert: [179] user:Vsmith
• 3rd revert: [180] user:Dougweller
• 4th revert: [181] user:Ckatz

The page prior to edits and after edit by user:RJHall: [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User_talk:Vsmith#Pole shift hypothesis
• User_talk:Ckatz#Pole shift hypothesis
• User_talk:Dougweller#Pole shift hypothesis

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User_talk:Vsmith#polar shift reverts
2. Talk:Pole shift hypothesis#"See also" links

Comments:

A mediator has been requested. This request is an elevation of earlier requests to temporarily stop reverts until consensus is made. It appears that everyone involved is more-or-less equally qualified as far as the topic of this page goes. Earlier requests for discussion have been abruptly rebuffed. I honestly do not believe that any further discussion will result in a constructive discussion or serve as a benefit to the page. It appears that positions are being taken and a trained mediator is now needed to defuse everyone involved. [183]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs)

My reverts were on the 14th, the 18th and the 19th. We have Granite07 and 2 IP addresses that link to Stanford University continuing to add this disputed material, with a high probability that they are the same person (including a comment from one of the IP addresses " I had planned to eventually write a section on the deluge aspects and the links were for my own future reference.". Granite07 is aware (see the talk page) that other editors are opposing this, but wrote ":You are correct Bob, but Wikipedia:Consensus only applies in this frame if the opposing editors are not acting in collusion and are acting in good-faith, we have not established this. That this many formal editors would have such a strong opinion on a fairly obscure page is suspicious." Granite07 has replaced the contested material after yet another editor, not named above, reverted him diff. Yes, there does appear to be edit-warring going on, but when it is (pretty clearly) one editor against 4.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets place Granite07's comments in context (and your [Dougweller's] thinly veiled threat to wield admin power to shake me to my bones!

It's generally considered a bad idea to template the regulars. It is particularly a bad idea to warn someone of 3RR who had only made 1 revert in 24 hours, and 3. And combine that with using 2 IP addresses to replace the same material and ignoring the objections of 4 other editors, plus accusing them of acting in collusion -- not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC

Granite07 has agreed that the IP addresses are his diff "I think it is 3 IP addresses if you look closely, two are nearly identical, differing only in the last few digits. This is not deceptive only non-stationary. The templating is per the instructions for protocol. The 'if not for' rule applies here. If not for four editors appearing to act in collusion, (two are obvious friends) and two are typically vandalism reverters, your non-collusion claim looks thin at best." Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I believe that Granite07's decision to file this report was ill-advised, and I can only presume that he mistakenly initiated the action through an error in judgment. For my part, I state categorically that my edit to the pole shift article can in no way be considered as anything even remotely related to 3RR. I am also disturbed by the editor's decision to make unfounded suggestions of "collusion" amongst editors who happened to disagree with him. In future, I would hope that Granite07 demonstrates significantly better judgment than he did in handling this situation, and that he perhaps first take a moment to honestly consider if it is in fact his own actions that are causing the problem. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, please do not suppose an error has been made, human bias is not at fault, cognitive reflexes can be wrong, but not this time. It seems apparent why I have asked for a mediator. Post to User:Ckatz discussion page:

I very much disagree with your [Chatz] opinion on your edits to the polar shift page and removal of the edit warring warning. You clearly became a contributor to edit warring with your revert. You engaged after discussions had began on the talk page, a request for mediation had been submitted, multiple requests had been made to stop reverts without discussion and it was clear your edit would only contribute to this escalation without any possible benefit. You should not be surprised you were named as a contributing editor to an edit war. In addition as noted on the discussion page you infrequently contribute to the page and those contributions (as important as they are) are confined to vandalism and other deductive edits rather than true contributions. You are free to modify (hide) your talk page any way you want. Granite07 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again I'd like to ask for a suspension of this edit war until a mediator is available. I think my reasons are obvious Granite07 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an Administrator. No, I was not threatening to block you, I'm involved in this dispute. In fact, you are apparently trying to get me blocked. I am wondering however if you misunderstand the purpose of this board when you talk about "a request for mediation had been submitted." If you mean this complaint, you are on the wrong board. I note that there are now 5 editors disagreeing with you. This comment " The admins have spun a tale of deception that is shear paranoia || convenience. I understand the tie goes to the admin and that admins hang together and the solidarity of the Wikiadmins, but try to have some discretion and a holistic view on this." here [184] is not at all helpful either. What deception am I accused of spinning? Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was under the impression you had read the material, this is the mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-20/Pole shift hypothesis. I am not trying to have anyone blocked and was unaware that is what you threats were. The edit war posting is only per the mediation suggestion to try other avenues first, it seems to fit the definition of edit warring, and the edit war page advises to post notices to all aprticipants. As you know the definitoon of edit war is sufficintly broad to encompass reverts by multiple editors acting as a group as well as not needing to have a strict 3 reverts critera to be an edit war. Holistically we can all agree it was an edit war. Granite07 (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no one has notified me of any mediation. This page is here to get people blocked for edit warring. 5 editors disagreeing with one editor normally suggests one edit warrior. Your continued personal attacks at Talk:Pole shift hypothesis has lost any sympathy I had for you. And I have not threatened you at any point - please either withdraw the accusation or prove it. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What deception am I accused of spinning? " The admins have spun a tale of deception that is shear paranoia || convenience. I understand the tie goes to the admin and that admins hang together and the solidarity of the Wikiadmins, but try to have some discretion and a holistic view on this." Copying excerpts of conversations is one form of spin, the rest of that post is as follows:

I will not edit the page until mediation makes a decision, so help me God, so you can remove the blocks. And if you read the material and feel it in your heart, revert the edits to my last contribution, then lock it :) Granite07 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Granite07 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No violation. If anyone was going to get a warning or block, it'd be the reporting editor for tendentious escalation of a fairly frivolous dispute. Granite's waiting for mediation now ... so nothing to do here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Federal Reserve System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.237.134.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

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

The IP editor has persistently been trying to add material that is clearly original research and lacking in viable sources. Despite comments from several different editors, trying to point the IP towards the problems, they ignore the main points and latch onto minor issues. This has been happening on the [Federal Reserve System] and [Criticism of the Federal Reserve] articles over the past few days. The same material was added a while ago to the [Legal Tender Cases].

The allegations of original research include accusation that I an the ONLY person in the whole wide world that believes the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional and therefore illegal body. I pointed out that a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=mF4IS4_2N4fvlAfRkrGFBA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBEQBSgA&q=Is+the+fed+unconstitutional&spell=1 even includes a wiki site http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Federal_Reserve_unconstitutional discussing that issue. The objection is TOTALLY bogus and other objections are equally bogus.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of those making the Original Research accusation states in his own talk page that "I know nothing about the issue" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4wajzkd02#Printing_Money_addition_to_Federal_Reserve_System and as wiki does not seem to care much about "accuracy" - see bellow for complaint about "TRUTH" - it is unlikely that this editor will learn much reading a wiki article, which is likely all that he/she did.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]
Original research warning: [191]

And I keep pointing out that it is not original research and the some of the material I was trying to add is even included in another wiki article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#Legality - which starts off with - Some critics argue that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. EXACTLY what I was trying to add to the main Federal Reserve article with an small expansion of WHY people think it is unconstitutional and illegal. The total addition amounted to one small paragraph.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [192] (and all subsequent posts on that page)

Please see the following link where the sum total of Ravesfires contribution to the discussion is summarized - excluding his numerous statements of Origin Research - I have repeatedly asked for specific complaints and he has failed to respond - his attitude shows a total disrespect of wiki CIVILITY policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ravensfire#Your_complaint_of_edit_war_in_the_Fed_articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
This is more for persistent warring than 3RR. The IP is wanting to add WP:The Truth to the article, despite the various problems pointed out multiple times (and ignoring some fairly clear supreme court rulings against said truth). This has been going on for several days, so the IP is a particularly persistently, although extremely polite, advocate.

Ravensfire (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP (me) wants to add a small paragraph to a section called "criticism of the Fed" of the main Fed article so that it includes one of the most widespread criticisms of the Fed. Assuming that wiki has no interest in accuracy (sometimes known as Truth), then it should not advertise itself as on online encyclopedia, but should switch to advertising itself as an online fairy tale.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reopened the 3RR case with Deacon's permission since the IP has continued to revert. Will leave a new warning and see how things go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IP has continued to revert because he sees this issue as a major criticism of the Federal Reserve and that criticism is not original research. This criticism is ALREADY in various place is wikipedia and wiki.answers. Ravensfire continues to NOT respond with specific objections as to what is original research [193] I have asked for specific objections several times and he has failed to respond except objecting about a link. To satisfy his objections I replaced that link to a link to the same material at Yale Law School. He may be suffering the condition described under WP:OWN.[194].

This page in a nutshell: You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

To quote from the discussion page: Yet again - If anyone believes that the addition needs more cites or better cites, wiki provides a neat little feature where you can tag the article with a cite needed marker at the appropriate spot. Please be CIVIL, mark the places where you believe a cite is needed and I will attempt to provide one.

If I cannot provide acceptable citations I have no objection to the deletion of those portions I cannot find citations for. The first step to this process is getting a specific objection as described in above. Ravensfire can't seem to be bothered to make those specific objections and is actig as if he OWNS the article. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)96.237.134.44 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours for edit warring. This user has reverted articles 11 times since his first edit on 17 November. He continues to crusade for an originalist view of the powers of the US federal government in the economic sphere. He has provided many quotes from 18th-century primary sources. Supporters of WP:FRINGE views are advised to work patiently through our system, stick to what can be found in WP:RS, and follow the undue weight rules. I see no hint of any willingness to follow policy or to wait for a Talk page consensus before changing articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

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

Comments:

User Opinoso is edit warring across several articles, including Chilean people, Demographics of Chile, and Brazil (latter recently protected due to severe edit warring). Although he has not technically gone past 3R today, he's clearly edit warring and that's the main concern of this report.

I tried to discuss the issues with him on his talk page and the article's talk page but he seems unwilling to reach common ground and instead resorts to reverting. Likeminas (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Some samples of Opinoso's general behaviour:

Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [201].

Edit warring, blind reversal: [202].

Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [203], but the source is here: [204]. Article ownership.

Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [205]. Article ownership.

Edit warring, article ownership:

[206].

Sheer article ownership: [207].

Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [208].

Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [209].

Edit warring: [210].

Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [211].

Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [212].

Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [213]

Edit warring: [214].

Article ownership: [215].

Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [216], [217], [218], [219], [220].

Edit warring: [221], [222], [223].

Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [224].

Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230]. Ninguém (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) NW (Talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 88.110.76.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&diff=next&oldid=327148131
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&action=historysubmit&diff=327179898&oldid=327174121
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Z._Knight&action=historysubmit&diff=327195697&oldid=327192708

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article's talk page, user's talk page, and presumably this one as well (I have no explicit confirmation as to whether these two users are the same person, and user 88.109.47.240 has avoided answering the question when answered.)

Comments:

There has been a conflict between us on whether User:88.110.76.101's recent additions constitute a violation of the WP:OR guideline or not.

I have reported myself with him because in this situation I feel I may be biased, due to the recent conflict between myself and User:Mindgladiator (see previous edit warring reported by me - might be archived soon). I personally feel his additions constitute original research. I agree fully with the user that Glen Cunningham in his interview agrees that he has lied to students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, but I believe that the conclusion that this somehow compromises his integrity with regards to the comments present in the J. Z. Knight article consist of original research and have no place in the article.

With regards to the McCarthy comments, I believe this is slightly irrelevant biographical information, related to McCarthy and not to Ramtha, and it has not place in the paragraph. Furthermore, the phrasing makes it look out of place, so maybe that's the issue (for me).

As I said, I am not particularly strong on my position on this, and I feel like I should doubt my own integrity on the article, due to the recent and heated conflict with User:Mindgladiator - which is why I am reporting both of us. • jujimufu ^(talk) 11:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. So your reporting yourself? How many reverts have you got? Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One and two - I refrained from reverting the edit a third time to avoid ending up in an edit war, but the reason I am reporting my self is because, as I said, I may be biased due to my recent conflict on edits of similar character on the same article. • jujimufu ^(talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi.. It seems that Jujimufu is not allowing me to make any additions to this article, I have been adding well sourced references and citations but this user is removing them all. I propose that this user takes a break on editing this article and lets other users get involved. The most recent revert made was a well sourced article on J.Z. Knight as a mother. Why this should be removed I cant imagine..

88.109.47.240 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

After writing this above I have returned to the article to see that my addition if a well sourced article about JZ Knight being a mother has been removed by Jujimufu. I dont know what this users problem is with my addition but for now I think I will leave this article alone as there seems very little point in making changes to improve the content.

88.109.47.240 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

and again.. Jujimufu has seen fit to remove my additions. In the chat to me Jujimufu talks about my reluctance to get into a coherant discussion, well I am not that interested in a discussion with this user, I add well sourced citations or links and they are removed, my chat with this user is seems to be returned with a long responses, and I dis-agree with a lot of the statements and do not want to waste time attempting to make this user see my point of view.

88.109.47.240 (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result - Article protected by another admin. Editors are urged to discuss matters on talk during the three days of protection, so they can reach a consensus on the disputed items. Protection may be extended if people start reverting again after protection expires without having made any effort to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Justtobefair (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]
• 5th revert: [236]
• 6th revert: [237]
• 7th revert: [238]
• 8th revert: [239]
• 9th revert: [240]
• 10th revert: [241]
• 11th revert: [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243][244]

Comments:

• New editor, editing with a very heavy POV, has been warned many times in many ways on his User talk: page. Does not appear to be responding, except by further reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by User:Blueboy96. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Edit Warring violation on
• Article Karl Rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Chhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [245]
• 2nd revert: [246]
• 3rd revert: [247]

• User Chhe is reverting without discussing. I believe he's up to four reverts now. Restored material that is questionable as to copyright violation and also restored inaccurate information that had been deleted for lack of citation and untrue. Never makes constructive contribution to page, only comes around to revert all new edits.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -->

In defense, I only undid Malke 2010 twice both of which were quite clear cut the reason why and one of which was because he removed an entire section from the article. He had previously been blocked for having done this very same thing quite awhile ago. You will have to read the archives unfortunately since the matter was quite extensive. As far as the reverts Malke 2010 listed above they aren't even reverts. The 1st revert is me adding a citation to the page after another user said he thought the section needed more citations after a discussion came to fruition after Malke 2010 blanking the section. The 2nd revert is actually one of my reverts and was legitimate as explained in the edit summary. He was removing factual info that could easily be verified so I added it back. The 3rd revert is again not a revert, but me simply adding more citations per another users comment. Also, the matter is currently being discussed in the talk page although I must admit that I find Malke 2010's actions in the past and currently highly indicative of POV pushing. I think this report of his is an attempt at revenge for me previously reporting him here for edit warring on the same page in which he was blocked.Chhe (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

the only section I removed was the copyright violation section which Chhe restored with phony references. The entire section comes from a blog and needs to be deleted. Also, Chhe keeps vandalizing the "Activites since leaving the White House Section" by inserting that Karl Rove was questioned by the House Judiciary Committee regarding Don Sieglman's felony convictions. This is false. I added the House Jud Comm transcripts to prove it, but Chhe reinserted it again anyway. the House Jud Comm has never investigated Don Sieglman's conviction. Rove has no involvement with that. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has, however, upheld his felony convictions.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I write to defend Chhe, whose words above ring very true to me. It's my opinion the entire situation at the Karl Rove article needs attention. Malke2010 was previously blocked last summer for issues concerning the page and his discomfiture with me (his contribs show he is a pretty much a one issue editor) who insists on rapid wholesale changes to the article including splitting it, with little time for discussion or reaction into an (imo) unneeded new article 'Karl Rove in the Bush Administration' (rendering future changes to the split off section invisible to those who have watchlisted the original article), content removal of entire sections (again with little discussion or time for reaction) and talk page abuse, including accusations of vandalism in the most recent edit summary and uncivil language regarding sourcing. I have not had time to look into the actual issues raised, but the action of Malke 2010 in bringing this here gives an impression, as Chhe notes, of a motive of retribution.

As Rove is a polarizing public figure, I would prefer an admin(s) who can genuinely be unpolitical, neither left or right, and judge the situation on its merits. Chhe is reacting with honest indignation, as I see it. As I say, reading the current Rove talk page will be of interest, but to get a complete picture of Malke's issues some study of the Karl Rove Discussion Archive 7 and 8 will be helpful. Indeed, the situation with Malke 2010 grew so ugly last summer that it had a chilling effect on further work on the article. In my view, it unfortunately appears that Malke 2010 didn't learn much from his block a few months back. Study of his interaction with blocking admin Black Kite should also prove instructive. By the way, Malke 2010 made the spurious accusation at that time that BK was a friend of mine. Untrue, both in Wikipedia and real life. Thanks, and sorry to see this back here, Jusdafax 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To the talk page with both of you, since you are both clearly willing to discuss. Next time try that first. Prodego ^talk 04:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

People of the Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ReligionScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 08:10, 22 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "ihave put the discussion in the talk page but yet have received no reason. i am undoing this vandalism and will report "warrior" if he continues to add things. give your reasons in the discussion page")
2. 03:32, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327344007 by Warrior4321 (talk) see talk page or create seperate page not in islam section.")
3. 03:48, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327407699 by Warrior4321 (talk) i am fixing it up, i will add the section.")
4. 03:57, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327409178 by Jeff3000 (talk) why? it was in the correct format. i did not delete anything")

• Diff of warning: here

—Jeff3000 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on the talk page, and a user who seems to be well intentioned, should not lead to a block. Indeed, I find the way ReligionScholar has been treated on that talk page to be far below what WP:BITE and WP:AGF would require. Prodego ^talk 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: My Name Is Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 81.151.103.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This isn't a 3RR, but a long term edit warrior, who is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.143.126.252, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.145.113.100, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.152.153.128 and dozens of other IP addresses who only shows up to revert edits, on this and other articles. User never discusses edits. Geoff B (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.135.0.201. Geoff B (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So how long are we gonna keep this up? Each time the IP is blocked and he is back immediately with a new IP, and we're back at square one because we haven't blocked the entire IP range yet. Eik Corell (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected My Name is Bruce. If you believe the same guy is targetting other articles as well, you can report them at WP:RFPP or open up a WP:Sockpuppet investigations report. It seems the IPs are too far apart for a range block. Perhaps you could start making a list of the IPs in your user space somewhere, that could be filed later if other reports are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Earwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bugboy52.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [248]

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [253] [254]

Comments:

• As indicated in the links above, Bugboy52.40’s repeated deletions have been described as edit warring by at least three editors including me, and I keep adding more sources (total five now, including two medical journals) to support the statement he keeps deleting: that earwigs have been known to crawl into human ears. It’s a surprising subject to generate an edit war, but there it is.TVC 15 (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• If there is any additional edit warring, I will block. However, I hope that ZooFari's edit will stop the edit war, and that discussion will take place on the talk page to resolve the issue. Prodego ^talk 04:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be misleading in the fact that I moved the information, and that it is not removed from the article and the referts stooped after two. See thisBugboy52.4 | =-= 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't misleading. WP:3RR applies to revert actions "of any kind," not just clicking "revert," so the four deletions all count. The deletions definitely removed the information and all five sources from the article. An ungrammatical addition after the third deletion re-phrased using weasel words and restored only one source, leaving out the other four sources (including both medical journals). Three editors (including me) described the repeated deletions as edit warring, and only the deleter disagreed.TVC 15 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words by no means and I didn't no revert in any way, I moved it. I simply rephrased it and moved it to its appropriate section, the article has to be organized in order to pass GA. And it frustrates me that I can't even move a statement and remove unreliable refs (which would not let it pass) to improve the article without being accused of something. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:151.57.205.197

Article Turkish State Railways. I removed some information from this article, to be added to a History of rail transport in Turkey article. At around the same time I added further information, and expanded the High-speed rail in Turkey article.

The above user constant reverts the changes, including removing tags (requests for references) [255] [256] [257] [258] [259]

One of the reasons why the user says they are reverting is that Ottoman railways linked to the article - I created a stub for "ottoman railways" since the redirect is a nonsense - ottoman railways predates the scope of the article - the TCDD did not exist until after the dissolution of the ottoman empire. For the same reason I started the stub article History of rail transport in Turkey to contain the information I removed.

Apart from reverting to original versions the user has been removing tags. In all the current edits the user has not made any additions, or attempts to improve the article, additionally making extra work for me having to reinsert info they have removed as part of their reverts. In addition the section on history is currently tagged as being for potential copyright infrigment, but the user has ignored me an re-adds it to the article.

I have contacted the user on their talk page and thought that we had gained some sort of understanding. However their actions do different. I am finding everything they do currently to be non - constructive.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear from your diffs whether he's reverting or editing, and he seems to be new, so I've left him a 3RR warning, and I'll put the page on my watchlist. SlimVirgin 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ok. I have removed a clear copyright violation from page, and invited the editor to the talk page. I will avoid further edits and movement of text without discussion as this seems to be my part of the problem. I am currently awaiting feedback from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_November_21 about the other text.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12:48, 22 November 2009

• 1st revert: 01:33, 23 November 2009 (3 consecutive edits by Wdford, undoes preceding edit)
• 2nd revert: 10:45, 23 November 2009 (undoes preceding edit)
• 3rd revert: 11:56, 23 November 2009 (again undoes preceding edit)
• 4th revert: 13:27, 23 November 2009 (undoes this edit from earlier the same day)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Aware of 3RR; see own words on talk page and prior warnings.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion at Talk:Medical uses of silver from here on down.

Comments:
Wdford (talk · contribs) was previously topic-banned for 6 months from Ancient Egyptian race controversy for dogged and persistently tendentious POV-pushing. I'm concerned that we're seeing similar issues on a different topic here. As a side note, I see 3 reverts in the same time period from Zara1709 (talk · contribs), but no other clear violations of 3RR; I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide what, if anything, to do there. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note their pending mediation case here - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the 3RR violation, Mastcell. SlimVirgin 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the history, and Wdford and Zara seem to have been reverting each other wholesale, so I've left warnings for both, and I've put the page on my watchlist. I hope that's okay for now. SlimVirgin 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike Slim, I am seeing the 3RR violation, but am uncertain about blocking. It should be noted I have recently returned to Wikipedia after the kerfuffle where he was banned from the ROAE article, thus totally missing all of that, but recent discussions with him have been cordial and constructive, and his take on that matter seems perfectly sane, albeit a little eccentric in minor details. This is of course unrelated to silver in medicine, where I have no knowledge of the content matters at hand and for all I know Wford is pushing total nonsense.

• However, my impression of Wdford is that he is perfectly open to reasoned discussion and will work with quality sources, although perhaps it would be best if someone other than Zara, with whom Wdford has previously had run-ins if I remember correctly, talked to him about this. Blocking for 3RR here would be justifiable, but I am hesitant to do so as the 4th revert looks more like a slip in a complex sequence than anything else, separate as it is from the other 3. It is somewhat more tempting to revert Wdford's most recent edits (if this hasn't been done already), and then protect the page for a week or so. I leave the decision, however, to others. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine with me. If the edit-warring stops, or at least slows down, I'm happy regardless of whether anyone is blocked or not. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 08:23, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Gnomatic (talk) to last version by Atmoz")
2. 21:37, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv: no, per BLP, exactly as before")
3. 21:44, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
4. 22:09, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
5. 22:17, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 71.239.229.241 (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=327185608&oldid=327185229

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phil_Jones_(climatologist)#News_about_Phil_Jones_and_the_CRU

Comments:
Connelley's behavior is extremely unethical, and he has an extensive record of engaging in censorship in gross violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please consider much stiffer penalties than just banning for a day.

Flegelpuss (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I thank F for at least having the grace to include my edit summaries, where I explicitly invoke the BLP examption to 3RR, which I believe applies in this case. I've also started a discussion of this matter at WP:BLPN William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the "attempt to resolve the dispute" is dated 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC), i.e. after all the reverts.

Note also that anon edit warring continues at Phil Jones (climatologist). It could do with being semi'd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing: 71.239.229.241 (talk · contribs) most certainly has broken 3RR there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Blocked by BozMo. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When an editor cries "censorship", it's a good bet that he's POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More relevant, when one includes heavily negative information based to a blog, WP:BLP applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Flegelpuss was a sockpuppet, now blocked, see [260]. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nigelj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [261] Sock Rv
• 2nd revert: [262] Sock Rv
• 3rd revert: [263] - BLP - moved to and discussed on talk, where I was thanked by original contributor for my politeness - Nigelj
• 4th revert: [264] - BLP - not a revert at all but a normal edit - Nigelj
• 5th Revert: [265] Sock Rv - reinstating sensible material direct from cited source that had been removed by previous edit for no good reason - Nigelj
• 6th Revert: [266] - rm possible first step for a largely irrelevant 'link farm' that added nothing except a link and had not been discussed for consensus -Nigelj
• 7th Revert: [267] - previous edit to 'put why the incident is notable up front' simply gave extra prominence to one POV by taking it out of what was otherwise a balanced para - Nigelj
• 8th Revert: [268] - this one was my mistake, removing two words, due to my not thoroughly reading cited source. Mea culpa. Was corrected later with no opposition from me - Nigelj
• 9th Revert: [269] - BLP - There is nothing in either citation to support the wording added (which was a direct accusation directed at living persons). The Fox cite added nothing to the NYT cite. All this had been explained several times in recent edit summaries by others, but same uncited accusation had been reverted back in again - Nigelj
• 10th Revert: [270] - BLP - There was already a discussion on this on Talk, where consensus was forming that the person's blog item was irrelevant, even if a third-party RS could be found - Nigelj

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

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

Comments:

These took place over 27, not 24 hours but it shows a gross pattern of edit warring with multiple editors to remove material from the article. Not every RV is obvious, but 8 of the 10 cited RV’s make very clear that an edit was “undone”, so please look closely. WVBluefield (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: while this looks like an impressive list, the few I looked at were all reverting edits of banned socks (User:EggheadNoir, User:Tanshai) or explicitly claimed (IMHO, correctly) BLP exemption to 3RR. I think that reporting people for reverting banned socks amounts to disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have identified the 3 (out of10) reverts that Nigelj made against a sockpuppet. It should be noted that this still leaves us with 7rv's in 27 hours and the reverts were made before either of the above two editors were identified as sockpuppets. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You've left in the BLP exempt reverts. I haven't checked that you've got all the socks, either William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry this is stale now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits in which I am accused of edit warring and made brief comments next to most of them above above. I am new to this page and so apologise if that is not the place to add comments. Most of what I know from, and now re-read in, WP:3RR does not seem directly applicable to this case: This was not a 'war' between me and another editor about any particular piece or a few items of content, but a new article that was attracting lots of edits of all kinds from a large number of people at the same time. Many of those people seemed to have a strong agenda that appeared to be to extract the maximum 'blood' from the subject in many ways at once. The subject concerns a delicate legal situation, allegedly stolen copyright material, and potentially serious personal attacks against living people, their careers and their livelihoods. I have been contributing to WP since 2004 and have never come across such a situation before. I happened to have a day off and decided to watch the article for a while - which turned out to be most of the day. At some stages in the day there were several other sensible and experienced editors around on the page and it seemed relatively easy to establish and maintain a legally tenable consensus. At other times I seemed to be be on my own against what seemed at times like mob-rule, with unreasonable edits and attitudes coming from many others at the same time. Many of these editors were unwilling to engage in sensible Talk page discussion no matter how I tried, or to abide by any consensus, or even basic BLP and RS principles.

In hindsight I now regret having spent the day refreshing my watchlist only to find more tendentious edits on this page and its talk page most times. I should have logged off and found something better to do on my day off. It is interesting to see that, if a news item excites enough unruly editors and their sock puppets, for long enough, then the 3RR means that a very large number of sensible editors are necessary on the case to keep a WP article from turning into a legal and policy nightmare. That is something for you guys to work out.

If by my actions and edits yesterday, I have done any harm to the page in question or to the Wikipedia project as a whole, then I am truly sorry. I believed throughout that I was doing the best I could in the circumstances for both. I am very committed to the philosophy of freedom in general, and to FLOSS, GPL, the Creative Commons, and Wikipedia in particular. I hope that what I have experienced in the midst of that edit-storm was not a tiny example of the kind of societal breakdowns that we may see if global warming and resource depletion take a hold and begin to reduce people's standard of living in the West in the decades to come, but I suspect that maybe it was. Either way, I shall be avoiding such situations, where the political right and the climate sceptics may, or appear to, try to take control. I shall avoid them very clearly in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that after edit conflicts, this had already been marked 'stale' before I put my two-pennies-worth in. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279]

Comments:

IP has reverted (two different editors) 4 times within 24hrs. He's been warned on edit warring and asked to please join the discussion at the talk page to no available. There seems to be strong evidence that shows that 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of user Kusamanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please review. Likeminas (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Died down now, please reopen this as and if this resumes. I would also suggest you looked at asking fro semi protection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 09:35, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "restored "exculpatory leak" and threat of violence")
2. 09:39, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 09:41, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 09:44, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638080 by Verbal (talk) per talk, where?")
5. 09:50, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 09:54, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638928 by William M. Connolley (talk) stop removing links and apropos additions.")
7. 10:05, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327640088 by HaeB (talk) explained, and the ip is wikileaks.")
8. 10:20, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641591 by Stephan Schulz (talk) wikileaks is widely cited on the wikipedia")
9. 10:23, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641902 by HaeB (talk)It is indeed directly verifiable, and wikileaks was down not 15 minutes ago per DNS resolution desp")

• Diff of warning: here

These are just the clear reverts, there have been many more such edits but I feel this is more than enough to show that 3RR has been broken in under an hour. These edits are also restoring material that breaks WP:BLP policy and links to illegally obtained copyrighted emails and data. This has been pointed out to the user on the talk page, but they continue to edit war.

—Verbal chat 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The editor has now made two further reverts and indicates that they continue to cause disruption on their talk page. Verbal chat 10:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent report of the same behavior, merged to make one case:

Previous version reverted to: N/A. The going is hot at the article. The user keep re-adding a link to the stolen email archive in violation of WP:ELNEVER to various versions of the article.

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]
• 5th revert: [284]
• 7th revert: [285]
• 8th revert: [286]
• 9th revert: [287]
• 10th revert: [288]
• 11th revert: [289]
• 12th revert: [290]

Arguably, the first is not a revert, but just a plain policy violation, so the numbering may be off by one....

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unneccessary, user has been here for year. Still, there is one at [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Link_to_the_leak_is_apropos..., also see the users talk page.

Comments:

It's a hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment, but this behavior is simply unacceptable.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NW (Talk) 10:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: List of country calling codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lekim74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [292]

Note this is not a WP:3RR report. It is a report of WP:Edit warring.

• 1st revert: [293]
• 2nd revert: [294]
• 3rd revert: [295]
• 4th revert: [296]
• 5th revert: [297]
• 6th revert: [298]
• 7th revert: [299]
• 8th revert: [300]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [301]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [302]

Comments:

On 28 September 2009, it was announced that Abkhazia was going to stop using numbers under Georgia's country code (+995) and start using numbers under Russia's (+7); apparently this offends Georgia.[303] This change was reflected in the article List of country calling codes the same day. On 13 November, Lekim74 registered an account and immediately edited to manually revert this change. Thinking that was an odd edit, I looked into the situation, discovered that the code was recently changed as mentioned above, and made a more thorough changeover to the article. Lekim74 edited to manually undo those edits again three days later, and I reverted; at this point, I would not have reverted again without talk page discussion. Two days later, Lekim74 edited to manually undo the edits again, User:Glenn L reverted and started a talk page discussion, and I posted to Lekim74's talk page to notify him of the discussion. Lekim74 redid his edit again the next day, I warned him that further reverts without discussion would lead to a block; Lekim74 has manually reverted to his preferred version 4 more times since then, and has not once commented to the talk page (or, in fact, made any other edit to Wikipedia or even used an edit summary).

At no point has anyone violated WP:3RR (I suspect this is by accident rather than design on Lekim74's part), but it seems clear from his contributions that Lekim74 is only here to continually revert in an attempt to keep this one bit of information out of this one article. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't in conscience block them right off as they are very new but you have invited them to discuss and if there is further reversions without discussions please leave a note on my talk page and I'll take care of them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 5 reverts after the personal invitation to discussion and 4 after a warning that further reverts could result in a block aren't sufficient? Wow. Anomie⚔ 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [304]
• 2nd revert: [305]
• 3rd revert: [306] removal of citations and sourced allegations of academic intimidation
• 4th revert: [307]
• 5th revert: [308]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [309]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [310]

Connolloy along with several other editors have been edit warring on this article since it was created. Connolloy was not reverting any sockpuppets in the above instances. The short term solution is to block the offending editors and allow them some cool down time. A longer term solution would be to impose a 1RR restriction to limit these kinds of infractions. WVBluefield (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A block doesn't seem to be necessary here, and would likely be counterproductive (unless it is WVBluefield's intent to inflame the situation). WMC's most recent edits were five hours ago; WVBluefield's template warning arrived about twenty minutes ago. Looking at the article history, it appears that a single prolific edit warrior (Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) racked up at least nine reverts of the same material within an hour's span of time. At least seven other editors were reverting the addition of a an external link to a copyright violation; that accounts for two of WMC's reverts above. As soon as Sukiari was blocked, the article calmed down again (such as it is; right now the article in any form probably represents a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Removing links to copyright violations falls under 3RR exceptions. And WVBluefield's templating a regular 5 hours after the fact and then reporting him without further edits (or even any indication that he is online) seems to be hardly appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

5 Hours ago I was still asleep so I don’t see what that has to do with anything, I don’t live here. The way to deal with a user like Sukiari is to report him here, not engage in an edit war with him. Contrary to your claims Mr Schulz, none of Connolly’s edits dealt solely with CW violations are were all related to disputed content. He was using claims of CW (rightly or wrongly) to also revert non CW content. It also goes without saying that since WMC has a significant conflict of interest he should be treading very lightly on this topic in the first place. WVBluefield (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not sure I buy the copyvio argument. The point of WP:COPY is to protect the legitimate commercial and artistic interests of authors of creative content. In this case, it looks like the policy is being mis-used to suppress politically damaging material. I would think a link to the material might fall under an exception to WP:COPY - it could certainly be argued that there is a strong public interest in the material being released. Ronnotel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove it first, argue that there should be an exception after that. Wikipedia leans toward the conservative side on copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think I'm guilty. If it helps, I promise to leave the article alone for the next 24h. To weasel, I think I could claim that [311] and [312] might just sneak in under the BLP or unsuitable-external-links exemption, though I think that would be pushing it. I'll also point out that [313] appears to have been an uncontroversial improvement to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest, Edit warring, repeated incivility in edit summaries and talk page threads and less than consistent use of BLP are grounds enough for a block. WVBluefield (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• WMC's offer to stand back from the article for 24 hours is accepted - consider yourself trouted WMC.Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I accept the trout and offer my apologies William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Newly industrialized country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.158.55.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.158.56.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [314]

• 1st revert: [315]
• 2nd revert: [316]
• 3rd revert: [317]
• 4th revert: [318]
• 5th revert: [319]
• 6th revert: [320]
• 7th revert: [321]
• 8th revert: [322]
• 9th revert: [323]
• 10th revert: [324]

Comments:

This IP user is pushing his/her POV continuously. At least, a protection to the article is required. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I edit anonymously, but a review of the diffs doesn't reveal more than 3 reverts in a day. This has been the subject of ongoing dispute, with discussion on the talk page, which the reporter has not been a party to; in addition, the reporter (whose username is telling) has been blocked for similar edit warring in the past. One should not throw stones in a glass house. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't violate the 3RR, but you started an edit war. Please see the talk page of the article. All users who commented there are against to your POV. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then your report is a misrepresentation and, since you are a party to the 'warring', seems an attempt to cast others in a negative light. Your initial revert recently made no mention of your correction (readding Europe to the table), but your block history speaks volumes. And I didn't start an edit war: this issue has dated back for years (per the section initially created), and a number of users have clearly supported my stance. Others, included troublesome editors, may believe differently. I recommend getting out of the otherwise empty house before throwing those stones of yours. No more comment. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• you are both as bad as each other. I locked the page for a day to allow tempers to cool and discussions to take place. Further edit warring by either party will result in blocks. Get a consensus on the talk page instead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [325]

• 1st revert: [326]. Wholesale revert of changes, reverted by User:Anonimu.
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]

Keeps removing section headings. He has done more reverts than that, but these should suffice.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [330]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [331] (attempt to start discussion ignored)

Comments:

• Would like a second opinion from another admin as I see Dc76 is citing BLP in their last edit summary. Looks a bit of a red herring but further input in all BLP related cases is good. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why a section loaded with months-old fact tags is just being shuffled about in a BLP, but I see Dc76 making a valid attempt to balance the article and discuss concerns on the talk page. Is some short protection needed? Will keep looking. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to mention 4 things:
  • (1) There was some edit conflict between me and User:Pohta ce-am pohtit, therefore the edit history looks as it looks. I have reverted only once, with comment "please don't revert me" after I have explained twice why more subsectionizing was bad. In that same edit I erased a sentence by mistake, which I immediately corrected after that. Please check carefully the edit history step by step and the overall effect. Don't just believe the word of User:Pohta ce-am pohtit.
  • (2) Please read how this editor has characterized me in edit summaries and on his talk page. I have never even said a word about him personally. He says about me out of the blue: (a) "Hopefully this title will appease B's fans lurking here." I am a fellow editor, not a lurking fan, and I resent being called that way. (b) "move[d] poorly ref'd section last to avoid confusing Dc76" as if I wasn't intelligent enough. The edits are done for the general reader, not for me. If somebody edits to please me, something must be wrong. (c) "reverting for obvious bogus reason" WP:BLP section on controversy is not a bogus reason. (d) "raising phony courtesy issues after you're being rude" after I said (a) and (b) is rude and asked delicately for more courtesy. (e) "You started with with a wholesale revert of recent changes with no arguments" I was bold in doing one good faith edit and I clearly explained myself. (f) "typical of POV warriors" no comment.
  • (3) I have not ignored "attempt to start discussion". Quite the contrary: I started the discussion: here, here, and here.
  • (4) I would like to remind User:Pohta ce-am pohtit that consecutive edit conflicts is not the same thing as performing reverts. I have assumed good faith and has been civil towards him in all my edits today, and I do not intend to deviate from that. If I am being falsely reported, I have simply explained precisely why I see it as a false report. You would notice that I have not accused him of anything yet. I want to see what is his overall intention, and why did he suddenly came out of a long wiki-break to edit one of the most controversial topics he could have found (there is an electoral campaign going on). Dc76\^talk 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you've got to see this last one. :) Now, I understand. (Note that Traian Basescu and Ion Iliescu are political opponents.) Battleground mentality: can we, please, stop looking at fellow editors as someone's fans. If one wants to support some politician, one should do it through the appropriate venue, not on WP. Dc76\^talk 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a non-issue to me. Dc76 was merely being bold in correcting probable violations of WP:BLP, while Pohta ce-am pohtit was reverting with borderline incivil edit summaries. Regardless, the discussion has now moved to the talk page, so the alleged edit-warring is a moot point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to call for administrative revision of all Pohta ce-am pohtit's edits during the last three days. IMHO, almost all of them are politically charged at the time when Romania is part of a bitter presidential campaign. Note, all the articles are BLPs. This doesn't mean that good material is not occasionally inserted. But copy-editing IMHO is done is a very partisan manner, and information not supportive of Pohta's political opinions is removed. What is the proper venue? Can we start a RfC? Would it receive a higher level administrative attention, given the fact that these are high-profile BLPs? If so, could anyone, please, help me start and RfC. I am mostly a content contributor, I am not well versatile in procedural aspects. Dc76\^talk 06:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Articles of politicians see more edits, if anything, during high profile campaigns. I would certainly encourage everyone to be mindful of the rules on biographies of living persons, and that while BLP most certainly does allow discussion of legitimate and sourced criticism, it does not allow unsourced rumor or poorly sourced information, nor is criticism to be given undue weight, and the article must remain strictly neutral. For the other side, please keep in mind BLP is not a free pass to edit war if the matter is a legitimate content dispute. If agreement cannot be reached, dispute resolution is available as normal, but as it seems discussion may go somewhere, going to close this as no action taken this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Sangsari language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SorenShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: base version

• 1st revert: [332]
• 2nd revert: [333]
• 3rd revert: [334]
• 4th revert: [335]
• 5th revert: [336]
• 6th revert: [337]
• 7th revert: [338]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [339]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [340]. While it is not a part of this report, here is the Talk Page discussion at Proto-Indo-Iranian where he completely ignores the discussion.

Comments:

Based on Talk Page discussion, user is 1) not a linguist and is incorrect in non-controversial topics (thinks South Slavic is in Russia and that Indo-Iranian is not a universally accepted node of Indo-European), 2) is trying to insert original research into the article (note his attitude toward original, and totally impressionistic, research here), and 3) doesn't follow Wikipedia standards for reliable sources as evidenced by other warnings. He is also pushing a POV agenda that is not based on accurate linguistics at Proto-Indo-Iranian. I am an expert in the field and he is just wrong (he's a research assistant to a professor of Linguistics and I've been an actual professor of Linguistics for 30 years). Sometimes it's nearly impossible to get the eager, but ignorant, to back off their folly. (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Comment: I was contacted by Taivo to have a look at this situation, so I won't be taking admin action here myself. It is a bit unfortunate that Taivo chose to continue reverting here, letting SorenShadow run up to 7R and going beyond 3RR himself, rather than report him immediately. However, I can certainly confirm that the problem is entirely caused by the irresponsible editing by SorenShadow, who has been blindly revert-warring, ignoring several requests to enter into discussion, and has a record of quite blatant POV editing on other articles too (including his previous account SurenShadow (talk · contribs)). I also confirm that specific addition under dispute here is factually blatant and obvious nonsense, from the linguistic standpoint. Please consider Taivo's latest reverts as if they had been done by me; I fully endorse them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

EC with FPAS, but both have violated 3RR here and have received a block for 24 hours. Even obviously POV edits are explicitly not exempt from the 3RR, unless the article is a BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

While this is correct in principle, I am nevertheless uncomfortable with an outcome that appears to be treating both users as equally culpable. This is clearly not a symmetrical situation. While 3RR is considered a red line, we should treat editors differently according to whether or not they are dealing responsibly with verifiability and neutrality issues, whether or not they are making constructive efforts at entering into dialogue, and whether they are defending consensus or editing against it. On all these counts, the behaviour of the two editors here is not comparable. SorenShadow should at the very least have received a significantly longer block than Taivo. It is important that administrative intervention should be designed to protect encyclopedicity. Administrative agnosticism towards content quality is bad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — SorenShadow (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs). --slakr^\ talk / 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Page: Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Macai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [341]
• 2nd revert: [342]
• 3rd revert: [343]
• 4th revert: [344]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [345]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346]

Comments:

Mikenorton (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)