Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Hobartimus reported by User:Omen1229 (Result: No Violation)

Page: Magyarization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hobartimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2] 22:12, 18 August 2011
• 2nd revert: [3] 12:59, 19 August 2011
• 3rd revert: [4] 23:00, 19 August 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
User Hobartimus permanently deletes informations with References. --Omen1229 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that more than 3 reverts needed to justify any report here. Additionally, Omen1229 was in a violation of 3RR on the very article a week ago ,because of which he was obliged to receive even an Arbitration Enforcment Warning [7]. However, in spite of what happened to him last week, he did a personal attack on the talk page of the very article yesterday afternoon, saying that "This paranoid user judges others by yourself. He hates all Slovaks, his edits (about Hungarian-Slovak articles) are evidence. This user is web programmer and I think CoolKoon, Hobartimus, Nmate, Fakirbakir... are same person." [8]--Nmate (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That was not "personal attack", only reaction, because CoolKoon said first: But despite that it's pretty pointless of Omen1229 and his meatpuppets...1 --Omen1229 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

????????--Nmate (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit is interesting 1. Banned user VinceB had similar IP address (195.56.207.194)2 3 4 --Omen1229 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd. I do not know who VinceB is ,and it is still a personal attack by you. And your evidence shows that VinceB and I live in the same city ,which is the capital of Hungary. Insufficient for requesting a checkuser, but you are free to fill a request for that purpose if you so wish. Has this anything to do with edit warring when it was not even me who was reported here by you? Nor were you able to fetch 4 diffs about reverts within a period of 24 hour on a single page.--Nmate (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Wanderer602 reported by User:Germash19 (Result: both blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Continuation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wanderer602 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

Comments:User returns original research. The template "citation needed" to this text existed since april 2010.

Adding a note here that User:Germash19 has not - despite of repeated requests from several users - argued his points (regarding this or his other contested changes) in any talk pages. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not truth. On a theme of casualties no one of users who deleted my editings ( User:Wanderer602, User:Jaan, User:Peltimikko, User:Whiskey) has written nothing for 3 months in the section created by me on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germash19 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, User:Illythr posted a rebuttal on that topic see archives furthermore the same topic was again discussed in slightly different context however you said nothing related to adding casualties to the list then - see discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I can say that Wanderer602 does act like he owns the articles related to Finland's wars; he reverts anything he does not like right away, including well sourced information.[15] If he does not revert, he modifies others' edits with his original research.[16] He does discuss the issues but discussion with him often goes in circles.[17] This makes it very difficult to improve the articles and make them more neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you claim with absolute certainty that it is OR while so far you have been alone with your claim in this regards. Besides that issue was and still is being discussed in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

With you, it can be discussed for months and nothing will change. You still refuse to accept that what you are doing is OR. And don't claim that I am the only one who says this when this is not the case.[18] But the issue here is your edit warring and I can confirm that you often do edit war when you don't like an edit another user makes. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours The article's history shows that both editors have been edit warring against each other for the last few weeks, and both have violated WP:3RR in the last couple of days. I'd strongly suggest dispute resolution here. You might want to start with asking for additional editors to comment via WT:MILHIST. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.40.217.130 reported by User:StAnselm (Result: 48 hours )

Page: Lordship salvation controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

—StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Starbucksian reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Lee Fang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Starbucksian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

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

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

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

Comments:
Editor is unilaterally edit-warring by adding contentious and poorly sourced material to a WP:BLP. Additionally, some of the material they are adding is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, also violating WP:BLP. I have removed the material and discussed the issues, but the editor simply reverts, sometimes within minutes. This is not strictly within 3:RR, as one of these edits did not all occur within the last 24 hours, but there is no doubt that if I or another editor were to remove the material again, they would revert immediately (and violate 3:RR). I'm not going to do that as it would appear to be baiting them into breaking 3:RR and would reflect poorly on me, even though allowed under WP:BLP). I would prefer to let this be handled by uninvolved administrators. (actually, editor has since violated 3:RR as well) Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that it is User:Loonymonkey who is edit warring, not I. It is also clear from a look-see at his contributions that he may also be in violation of WP:SPA, given his long editing consists only of editing on matters political. Other users have gotten involved on the Lee Fang page and found my edits to be helpful. As is apparently common with User:Loonymonkey, he is trying to use his edit summaries as somehow indicative of a talk page. After he pointed out what he perceived as problems on the talk page, I changed my edits to try and establish WP:consensus. It is he, not I, that was involved in reverting. It also appears odd to me that other editors have been more than willing to engage in WP:consensus and have found my edits constructive. I wonder why User:Loonymonkey doesn't want to. I'd be more than happy to talk to administrators about this. Thanks.Starbucksian (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this editor understands what an WP:SPA is. If anything, they fit the bill as they have made few edits outside of that article. Further, they continue to revert other editors on that article who are pointing out the same problems. WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP have been explained. And now they seem to be stalking me, even going so far as to revert me on my own talk page. Some outside assistance would be greatly appreciated, I'm going to step away for a while. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're both edit warring, but Loonymonkey hasn't stepped over the 3-revert line and has the better argument that his side is supported by a policy known as WP:BLP that's considered an exception (and other policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SYNTH, although those don't justify edit warring). Sorry I didn't caution you about that on my talk page. Folks, if you look at my talk page I think Starbucksian is a good faith editor who is sincerely trying to learn the rules here. Perhaps some guidance and patience are going to be more constructive than a formal application of the rules. Starbucksian, the way things work here you have violated the reversion policy and you're likely to be blocked short term. There's a chance you can avoid that if you promise to slow things down and not make any more changes to the article within the 24 hour window (and please don't edit war after that, even if you feel someone else is edit warring... it takes two). Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikidemon, there's words and there's behavior. He might have said on your talk page that he wants to learn the rules, but that doesn't stop him from reverting every time you or someone else removes that highly contentious material. You offered the same explanation as I did for why that material doesn't belong and yet he still reverted you. As for edit-warring, removing BLP violations are, by definition, not edit-warring, any more than reverting vandalism is. It's hard to see how anything short of a block will stop this behavior given that he still doesn't even acknowledge it was wrong. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I created an account a few days ago and already I have edited more topics outside of politics than you have in several years of edits. If you look at the page, it is User:Loonymonkey who is the deletionist and WP:Burden should fall on him to explain where the WP:BLP violations are. I've been working with other editors and he alone has consistently reverted back to what he thinks the page should be. He doesn't discuss at all, but merely edits and uses the edit summary. He also assumes that the WP:BLP has actually been violated when there is no evidence presented. I've been more than willing to seek WP:Consensus as User:Wikidemon can attest. As for stalking, I think that's patently ridiculous. The last thing I wrote on his wall was an apology! Sheesh! WP:Good faith is apparently ignored. That said, I'd be more than happy to take a breather from the Lee Fang page, but I think User:Loonymonkey should, too. Thanks to User:Wikidemon for helping me out. Thanks for the help. Off to edit something a little less controversial, like say, the Rape of Nanking.Starbucksian (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

None of that is true, as the edit history show, and you're basically just shouting "I didn't hear that!". You've been unilaterally reverting anyone who removes this material (myself, Wikidemon) and ignoring the explanations for why you can't insert original research or unreliable sources in a WP:BLP. You have yet to respond to any of that. And again, please read WP:BURDEN. It's states very clearly (in bold type so it's hard to miss) that the burden is on you as the editor adding or restoring contentious material to get consensus (which clearly won't ever happen for BLP reasons stated multiple times). Under the rules of WP:BLP that material must be removed immediately, but I don't feel I should let myself get splashed with mud, and you'll just revert yet again anyway. I'll raise the issue at the noticeboard and let another editor remove it. But what then? You still don't seem to even recognize what the problem with your behavior is. You say that you're going to "take a breather" but what will you do as soon as an editor removes that material again? Will you run back and revert to reinsert it? Clearly administrative intervention is necessary here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours There wasn't a 3RR violation here, but Starbucksian was continuing to add material to the article despite concerns about his or her changes to it on the article's talk page, which is edit warring. All participants in the discussion on the article's talk page should use dispute resolution if they are unable to reach a consensus view on how to develop the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ksmdr reported by User:Akbar Khan89 (Result: protected for 72 hours)

Page: Template:History of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ksmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:A very arrogant type of editor. Who is using mis-information. I am reporting this user now because i was blocked before from editing. Because he reported me for 3RR, when he himself was also involved in 3RR, as mentioned above. Than in his report on me, he falsely claim that he have only made 2 reverts [39], After that User:LikeLakers2 reports of COI issue. And he also falsely claim that i don't care about the 3RR rule [40], when he at himself doesn't care about the 3RR rule (as the 4 reverts are mentioned above).I has added the picture of Kabuli gate of Rohtas Fort, which is build by Sher Shah Suri, an Afghan/Pashtun of Suri tribe from Ghor (Afghanistan), who was born in Sasaram, India and ruled from Kabul to Bangal. And his famous GT Road exits also from Kabul to Bangal. Akbar Khan89 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I did not violate the 3RR. The diffs are from different days. Adding an image of a fortress in Lahor, Pakistan, which is on the other side next to India, to the Afghan template is ridiculously wrong and very controversial. Afghans and Pakistanis generally don't like each other. Sher Shah Suri was born near Bangladesh in eastern India and he ruled India for 5 yrs before he died in an accident. The fortress has no relation to the history of Afghanistan, and Sher Shah Suri is considered "Indian of ethnic Pashtun origin". The Afghan history template needed an image that goes well with the history of Afghanistan and I've added a great shot of one of the Buddhas of Bamiyan taken by someone in 1977, which I believe is excellent because not only it's located in central Afghanistan but it presents a true Afghan historical scene where so many people from far distances used to come visit the site. It was something like Mecca in Saudi Arabi. Since the Taliban destroyed the statue at least we can keep it alive in encyclopedias, books and on the internet.Ksmdr (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. This level of edit warring doesn't justify any blocks, especially as there's a discussion underway at Template talk:History of Afghanistan. I'd suggest asking uninvolved editors to comment on this through the relevant Wikiprojects and making more concise posts on the template's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this a wrong decision, because I was blocked for the 3RR rule and he did made at least 3 reverts within 24 hours. And this is except from his at least 3 time of picture changes. And I cann't belief that I got blocked for 31 hours and he is getting nothing! I found this ridiculous, injustice, unfair and members unfriendly!

Below is a list of at least 3 reverts within 24 hours (the night of 16 to 17).

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]

below is a list of picture changes within 24 hours.

1st change [44]

2nd change [45]

and enough more edits are made, please visit the history of it.

What I want is that he must be also blocked since I was blocked for the same issue. And else I want a excusse from User:Ksmdr or someone who have blocked me, must say sorry to me because of blocking me for a ridiculous, injustice and unfair issue (since one is blocked and other can freely edit pages, I found this ridiculous, injustice and unfair). Akbar Khan89 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I did review the history of the template, and I don't think that the frequency of reversions and other edits from the various editors involved in this warrants anyone being blocked. As such, I've made the judgement that protecting the template for 72 hours to encourage dispute resolution is the best option. Please try to reach an agreement on the template's talk page, and use the other parts of the dispute resolution process if that doesn't work. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbpjmuf reported by User:DWC LR (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Emich Fürst zu Leiningen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dbpjmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

The same thing has happened at Andreas Fürst zu Leiningen. I have asked and asked this user to please go to WP:RM and make their case for such a move which goes against naming conventions WP:NCNT but to no avail. - dwc lr (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I count 4 reverts for you and 3 reverts for the user you are reporting. The first link you provides does not count as a revert as he was the one making the move in the first place, not reverting anyone else. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have probably reverted more than four times as they added a PROD I objected so removed it they put it back about twice. I asked this user to go to a RM in a edit summary and on their talk page. They are not seemingly not interested. If they want to move this article I am more than happy to discuss this in through the correct channels, a WP:RM and look over their argument but like I say they are seemingly not interested in doing this so I really I don't have many ways of getting through to this person. I am showing with the diffs disruptive editing when the user was asked to go though the correct procedures. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: No violation)

Page: Falkland Islands Wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56],[57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58],[59]

Comments:

I reverted a newbie edit this evening, before I had a chance to explain my actions User:Medeis reverted to restore the text again. I have tried to explain to User:Medeis that the information is dated and incorrect and contradicted by information already in the article. He has chosen to revert war and [60] is using 3RR to impose content. 3RR is bright line that is supposed to prevent edit wars, not to be used to force incorrect information into an article. I won't be reverting again today as that would be in violation of 3RR but really this is a stupid thing to edit war over and Medeis isn't listening or using talk as he should - as an experienced editor he should know better. See [61] he has ignored my suggestion to avoid edit warring and discuss the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that (1) there is no fourth reversion, (2) I am the one who began discussion on the talk page, [62] (3) the additions have proven largely supportable, and I am in the process of adding the needed refs, [63] and (4) the complaining editor's argument about DNA evidence arguing against a South American connection is odd since, (a) no such genetic claim was made by the disputed additions, and (b) the DNA evidence adduced in the article shows the South American Maned Wolf to be the animal's closest relative.

I invite the complainant to explain his current objections on the talk page, assuming his still has any. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note User:Medeis continued to revert after the talk page discussion had started. He still isn't listening and is ignoring information already in the article. Definitely not following the WP:BRD cycle as claimed. Also seems to have recent block for 3RR, and I invite him to remember that 3 reverts is not necessary to violate 3RR. What is necessary is stepping back from edit warring and not using 3RR as a trump card. Plainly he has not learned from previous block. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Continued to revert" only describes the OP's actions. I modified the material to remove inappropriate claims and provided sources to back it up. The OP's response was three identical wholesale reversions and a threat to file an AN3 [64] rather than to explain his objection, which is still unclear, given that he quotes a source describing the "South American Maned Wolf" to complain that the animal should not be said to be related to other South American canids. Searching my history to find a block which was immediately reversed (he does not mention this) is the height of bad faith. I suggest the OP be warned to focus on bettering the article rather than wikilawyering. I am unwatching this page. If admins have questions I request they comment on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: No violation. Only three reverts are listed by the submitter. Medeis' original reverts to defend the new but poorly-sourced material do appear to be edit warring. But then he did a lot of work to merge in the material, fix duplication, add some references and repair a copyvio. The parties are now having a reasonable discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment See [65] and [66], Medeis actually edit warred to keep text that was a copyviolation. I was in the process of checking when he edit warred to re-instate that material. Using 3RR to impose content in the way he did shows he doesn't understand the policy and in this case he allowed a copyvio to persist. After checking the OP's other contributions, they all seem to be copyvios. I do believe a warning was warranted for using 3RR as a trump card as this really is not what 3RR is about. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:The Gnome (Result: No violation)

Page: Karrine Steffans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67] (16:32, 18 August 2011)

• 1st revert: [68] (06:10, 19 August 2011)
• 2nd revert: [69] (08:06, 19 August 2011)
• 3rd revert: [70] (18:23, 20 August 2011)
• 4th revert: [71] (23:27, 21 August 2011)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments: The reported violation is in line with Xenophrenic's display of presumed ownership of the article on Karrine Steffans, as indicated by previous, extensive disrupting editing and inflaming discussions on almost every issue related to the article subject (link) (link), and as shown by the unilateral, one-sided decisions he takes on issues while they're still been discussed.

-The Gnome (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Four reverts over a three day period, with never more than two in any 24-hour span. The complaining editor introduced an edit to this BLP 4 days ago; it was reverted, and he has been re-inserting it repeatedly ever since without addressing and resolving the concerns raised about it. Regarding the complaining editor's comments about "ownership", "extensive disrupting editing", "inflaming discussions", etc., I would be happy to address them in the proper forum — I look forward to it, in fact. @The Gnome: It would be appreciated if, in the future, you would notify your targets of these posts. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Please use the talk page to reach consensus. Intense disagreement over somewhat minor points is disconcerting, but is not yet fast enough to constitute an edit war. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment. If you guys think there are any actual BLP issues that need solving, present the matter at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cush reported by User:Hashem sfarim (Result: Reporting user Warned)

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

• Page: Crossing the Red Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Cush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's no call for what's this editor been doing. It's mendacious fighting, edit-warring, POV, bias, and false accusations. And he just violated 3RR. I'm writing here because I see that he won't be reasoned with or talked to. He has a history, from what I can see, of POV-pushing, false accusations, projection, bias, bullying, hostility, and blatant edit-warring.

I know that he already has a pro-"Yahweh" bias. He reverted three times now the edit on erroneous grounds. (On the "Crossing the Red Sea" article) In his one of his edit comments he said "weirdest possible transliteration" when that is blatant POV, and simply not true. "Jehovah" is not a weird transliteration, and saying that it is is just a matter of opinion. It's an established rendering, and in major Bible translations. And is already in many WP articles. (It's NOT the "weirdest possible translation"...as it is the logical and established Anglicized rendering with "J" in English, and in major Bible versions, otherwise call "Jacob" by the word "Yacov" to be consistent.) It's true that most WP articles have "Yahweh", but not all. He seems to accuse others of what he himself more guilty of. The POV and bias here is all his. And it's obvious. His bias against the rendering "Jehovah" is clear. And is on faulty and just POV grounds, nothing more. There are scholars on both sides of that rendering. There's no valid reason to remove that simply because of "WP:I Don't Like It". No valid reason to revert or tamper with that edit, as it was accurate, good-faith, and sourced. Only vandalism or real inaccuracies, per WP policy and recommendation, should be "reverted". (And there was no "vandalism" on my part, so that's a false accusation.) I told him to please stop edit warring...or take it to this article talk. Instead he just reverted again, and wrongly accused me of "vandalism".

I only reverted twice, not three times. There was one "edit" there I did that was NOT an actual "edit". If you click here here you'll see that it was just a non-edit, simply to make an edit comment in the revision history. There was no "reversion" (or anything) in that specific one. So I only reverted twice, not three times...like he did.

Cush reverted clearly three times in a 24 hour period.
here...
22:33, 21 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,504 bytes) (there was no need to change the deity's name to the weirdest of all possible transliterations.)
here...
09:27, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446121644 by Hashem sfarim there is no need for the renaming. please do not unnecessarily change the article to promote some POV. if you want a change please discuss it first.)
and here...
09:42, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446124503 by Hashem sfarim you changed the article without discussion. stop your vandalism!)

So you see there. That's three reverts in less than a day. That's a bright line, and he's in violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ignoring the lack of formatting, etc, at not only did Cush (talk · contribs) not breach 3RR (although he's at it) at Crossing the Red Sea, it was Hashem who first made the change to Jehovah. He was then reverted by RossNixon who has an entirely different pov to Cush. Hashem reverted to his version, then Cush reverted to what I think was the original (Yahweh). There's been no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, which I think is Hashem's responsibility as he wants the change and has been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have attempted to discuss this at talk. My remarks are there too. As well as on Cush's talk page. Yes, RossNixon did a revert days ago. But it was about other matters as well, regarding referencing, which was fixed. Cush's agenda is to push "Yahweh" only and exclusively as a rendering, and has made blatantly POV remarks against the "Jehovah" rendering, which are not valid or true. Also, I'm not sure how you say that he has not violated 3RR when I showed exactly how he did 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Hashem sfarim (talk)

Addendum: so you're saying that a violation would be going beyond 3 reverts in a 24 hour period? In other words four reverts? Ok, if that's the case, I wasn't sure. I was under the impression that the violation is at 3 reverts within a day. But edit warring, as we know, is more than just that. And I did say in my last edit to "take it to talk". But instead of doing that, Cush simply reverted me again. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I may have mistaken the timing of your post but you should have started a discussion on the 19th, when RossNixon reverted you with an edit summary explicitly dealing with this issue - he wrote "Jehovah -> Yahweh (more widely used current transliteration)". This is a content dispute and 2 editors disagree with you but you've continued to reinsert it which might be seen as edit warring on your part - you should have stopped and tried to get some agreement on the talk page. In any case, editors should be warned when they make 3 reverts, but 3 reverts is the limit. If they continue to edit after they've been warned, that is the time to report them here. Cush wan't warned nor has he made a 4th revert. -- adding, post edit conflict, I see that you understand 3RR isn't the violation, but you were the one who should have taken it to talk after being reverted by two other editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I see from what you wrote to him that you believe that Cush should have brought it talk himself, also. Which he never did. Even when I made the remark in the edit comment "bring it to talk". Instead of doing that, he simply reverted me again. And at the very least hit the "bright line". Also, his edit comments were blatant POV, erroneous, biased, and mendacious. And also, accusing me of "vandalism" was not called for here. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia Yahweh is the name used when dealing with the biblical deity, especially in a neutral context that is supposed to be inclined neither towards Judaism nor Christianity. Jehovah (deriving from Latin respelling of the mame in Greek) is a dated rendition of the Tetragrammaton, and its occurrence in the KJV is irrelevant since that is one of the worst Bible translations available. Yahweh is also closer to the transliteration/-scription/-lation of the deity's name in other languages.

What is important is that the article has existed for a long time using Yahweh as the biblical deity's name and there was absolutely no reason to change its use in the article to Jehovah. It would have been Hashem sfarim's responsibility to explain the change on the talk page.

On another thought it reallky would be time to get rid of this pointless stub article and merge it into to Exodus article. This article has been troubling us for the last 5 years. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are scholars on both sides of that, and calling the KJV "one of the worst Bible translations available" is just an opinion. I'm not a KJV Onlyist at all, and I know it has some inaccuracies in it. But there are more inaccurate versions than that. Plus, it's not just in the KJV. The R.V. of 1885 contains the form of "Jehovah". The A.S.V. of 1901 contains the form "Jehovah". The NEB also, etc. Also, you miss the point about consistency. "Jehovah" is the Anglicized form, with the "J" in English. And also the Tetragram being four consonants would have been tri-syllabic originally. So it's been argued by some scholars that "three syllables" should also be in modern forms. Jehovah fits that bill. As well as preserving the four consonants "YHVH" or "JHVH". Also, "Yahweh" is not consistent with how other names in the Bible are rendered. We don't call "Jacob" "Yacov" on Wikipedia. Or "Joel" as "Yoel". Or "Jeremiah" as "Yeremiyahu". etc. So let's be consistent.

Anyway, the main point here was not for debating that issue here necessarily, or your blatant POV and pro-Yahweh and anti-Jehovah bias. But whether you violated 3RR or not you still edit-warred. As 3RR is not the only way to edit war. Whether I was totally perfect in how I handled this or not, you still edit warred here. Dougweller does not seem to think so, I'm not sure. If, according to Dougweller, violation of 3RR is not simply going at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, then ok. I thought it was. According to what he said, it's going beyond 3 reverts in the period. Fine.

My apologies if that's the case, for that. But you still edit warred, in my opinion. And were blatantly POV and wrong in your remarks in the edit comments. Accusing me of "vandalism" was also mendacious and foul. Also, when I said "take it to talk", instead of doing that, you simply reverted me again. So regardless of 3RR violation or not, you still edit warred and carried on POV. Hashem sfarim (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hashem Sfarim, you have been pushing that change over the last couple of days: diff, diff, diff, diff. You have been reverted for that over and over. Clearly there is no consensus for that change. I suggest you now find consensus on the talkpage, and only apply that change again when that consensus is found (preferably, let an editor, uninvolved in this dispute, determine the consensus and apply the found consensus). What you are doing here is trying to win an argument via bureaucracy and getting opponents blocked. This is just edit warring from your side, and whether or not the bright red line is crossed or not, your language and behaviour is inappropriate, discuss the issue in a civil way on the talkpage. Consider this a last warning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

even if I was not perfect, are you gonna say that what Cush did was "civil" and with "appropriate language". And that he did not edit war at all? By going right to the "bright line", and after I said "take it to talk" he instead simply reverts me again, without going to talk at all. And also accusing me of "vandalism"? That was "appropriate". Even if I was not totally perfect in this, I was not the one who reverted good faith and accurate edits simply because of "I don't like", nor did I accuse anyone of "vandalism". I mean, really, was that "civil" or "appropriate" for him to say? Also, I was not reverted over and over again, except by Cush. The other editor the other day let the situation go, after my edit comment. Again, Cush went to the line, and arguably was edit-warring, I told him to take it to talk, he ignored that, but reverted me again. I brought stuff to talk, and I simply utilized the mechanism that Wikipedia provides to resolve disputes and problems. I first went to "incidents". I was told to come here instead. Again, Cush used words like "weirdest transliteration" and "stop vandalizing". That was "civil" and "appropriate language"? You have singled me out here on this why? Cush was anything but civil, cool, or appropriate in language or otherwise. Yet I get this harsh lecture from you, "warning" me, for simply trying to voice my concerns and issues that page, and he gets zero warning. It doesn't seem fair. For his inappropriate unwarranted and POV remarks, and constant revertings in a 24 hour period. I'm wondering why that is. But it would be nice if you could answer those questions. About those specific things he said and did, and how was that totally "civil" on Cush's part. Those were not just rhetorical questions. And I really try hard not to edit war or violate clear WP policy and standards, but I'm always learning. Thank you.Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reporting user warned. — Satori Son 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I consider myself warned, although I received no warning tag on my talk page. But what is with all the stuff that Hashem sfarim left on 2 user talk pages as well as the article talk page in question? Who will clean that up? ♆ CUSH ♆

Actually, that was Hashem Sfarim who was warned by Beetstra above. Sorry for the confusion. I'll take a look at Talk:Crossing the Red Sea. The users in question are welcome to clean up their own talk pages. — Satori Son 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User:74.15.228.233 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.15.228.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keen but presumably new editor doing a large number of minor improvements to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. However their enthusiasm for adding links has perhaps got the better of them and they're now past useful links and WP:REDLINKS into WP:OVERLINK. I've reverted and opened discussion on their user talk:, but no response. As I'm now up to 3RR, I'd appreciate it if someone else could please take a look.

History is pretty clear from the article history. As there are only two of us active on it today, and their edits are numerous and fragmentary, it's probably easiest to see the disputed links from my reversions of them:

• Mine
• Mine
• Mine

Also see my comments at their talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted further overlinking, I've never seen so many wikilinks being added in any article. If this persists a block maybe the only way to stop this. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note, now started at Grease (film). Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Noting EdJohnston's additional warning, has continued in the same vein, overlinking and adding incorrect links. This is a funny sort of vandalism but I regret to say that only a block will stop it. Bowing out as I'm also at 3 reverts and don't wish to risk a block. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[72] minutes after my last revert! Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with lots of links, to a level that many editors would probably regard as overlinking. I certainly repeat links between sections (which is per policy, although it's forever being reverted by others who haven't actually read the policy). However this editor is not only "over" linking, but they're "bad" linking too. Anytime that a word can become a bluelink, they add it - whether it's the same topic or not. If I wanted this sort of simplistic auto-behaviour I'd still be using Meatball wiki or C2. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Towerblock reported by User:Jerchel (Result:31h)

Towerblock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Editwar in the article International Commerce Centre. Account has been registered some months ago and now starts an edit war, first via IP-adress (some days ago), now using this account. The user insists that the building contains 118 floors, but 108 is true. I added two reliable sources: International Commerce Centre and ICC. I tried to explain the situation at the talk page several times why is 118 is incorrect, but user continues to restore his value. Jerchel (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have issued a warning to Towerblock on their talk page, as none had been given yet. I will defer to another admin on further action if needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

He should stop removing reliable sources liks CTBUH. CTBUH is always used in terms of skyscraperss as source. Jerchel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with him on the article's Talk page? Or, conversely, has he discussed it with you? That's the first place to go in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Should that fail, seek dispute resolution. In the meantime, Towerblock has been given a warning regarding WP:3RR, so other eyes are on the situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the two sources and I have explained why those sources give this number I wrote in the article. I have some blueprints of the building that prove the posted sources are correct, but I can't upload them (I do not have premission to upload floorplans here). If Towerblock wants to see the blueprints, he has to request at CTBUH (I have given the contact information at the talk page) Jerchel (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked Towerblock for reverting again after I issued the warning above. Given the use of this single-purpose account and various IPs to remove sourced content, Towerblock's actions seem to fall under the category of disruptive editing to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:89.250.157.71 reported by User:Rafy (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Talk:2011 Libyan civil war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.250.157.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]

The user is clearly trolling by adding a thread with absurd content in order to generate comments.--Rafy talk 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:97.87.29.188 and User: 99.19.47.119 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)

Page: Talk:Global warming (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 99.19.47.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 22:26, August 22, 2011
• 2nd revert: 22:42, August 22, 2011
• 3rd revert: 23:10, August 22, 2011
• 4th revert: 04:55, August 23, 2011 as 2nd IP
• 5th revert: 05:45, August 23, 2011 as 2nd IP

All reverts uncollapse the section, and indent the start of the section by two ":". Some have other incidental changes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Well, the 1st IP warned me about 3RR some time ago. The 2nd is from an IP pool, unlikely to have any history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved, here. I only made one revert.

Comments: The first IP is more-or-less stable. There's no point in blocking the 2nd, he's gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: First IP blocked 48 hours. The second one is probably the same person, editing through another provider, but that IP looks too dynamic to bother with. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dzlinker reported by User:Omar-Toons (Result: Both 48h)

Page: Template:History of Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dzlinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously known as Omar2788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77] (as of Aug. 8th)

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]
• 4th revert: [81] diff summary: "Dead talk" (then he considers that since nobody's agreeing, nobody's opposing!)
• 5th revert: [82] diff summary: let's wait until u get a support (a support to go back to the former version awaiting for a consensus by discussion!)
• 6th revert: [83] diff summary: "An obstacle to progress"

* edit: 7th revert: [84]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see below)

Comments:
While the discussion is ongoing on the Template's talk page (Template talk:History of Morocco), Dzlinker is trying to impose his own version (which isn't a standardized "Region history" template) despite the only thing on which everybody agrees is that the lists should be collapsible ; that seems to be a JDLI case.
I made a second template, by integrating all the remarks expressed by the users who participated to the talk (Template talk:History of Morocco#Proposal II), then I tried to convince him that we need to discuss that before changing the whole template, but I got a personnal attack as an answer.
Now the discussion is ongoing but Dzlinker keeps reverting to his own version, while I try to get it back to the old version while discussing which one of the "modified" versions we should take.

Note that this user used to edit templates and articles despite the fact that discussion is ongoing and that his versions aren't gaining support by other users, as he did in the article Berber people (edit history [86] and talkpages[87][88]).

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The consensus made on this template is about to make a collapsible one, so it doesn't take as much space on articles as it does now (tp). every one agreed, and then arrived this guy who is searching for an already done consensus. The reason: He didn't like the layout as he say on this tp [89] (in spite of this policy Wikipedia:DEW), so he made his own layout (which is a massacre since the text is bolded (it makes it hard to read) and some links doesn't work at all, otherwise it would have been accepted).

the talk is not on going as he says the last pasted message dates 2 or 3 days ago, i since posted 3 messages asking for some interaction with watchers no one seems opposing but this current user who just doesn't like the layout, which is no reason for repetitive undos. so i putted the new template back.

NOTE: This user have already been blocked for disruptive edits as seen here [90], and he still continue on this path.

Besides this user is an every day reverter to my edits. it's his best part of contributions on wp.

as seen here this guy have no thing to do with team work or consensuses, since he impose his pov refusing even to discuss it!! here are some of those unacceptable and undiscussed edits: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] and many others. he insists every time on symbolic edits and never contributed effectively on any article.

Dzlinker (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Both blocked 48 hours. Only Dzlinker reached four reverts, but Omar-Toons is at 3RR and he is the other side of the edit war. Both have previous block history – Dzlinker's is under his former account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:ZHurlihee (Result: Both warned)

Page: Wade Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]
• 5th revert: [108]

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

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

Comments:

While there were not 4 undo’s in 24 hours, Xenophrenic has timed his edits so that they barely fall outside of the 24 hour window. There has been no clear reason for the undo’s and there was a general agreement in the talk page that the material should be included in the article. While looking at another articles Xenophrenic has been recently involved in, a similar pattern emerges where undo’s or revisions are made so as just to fall outside the 24 hour window but still display the same gaming of 3RR.

• Please show a little good faith, ZHurlihee. I've never "timed my edits" to "game 3RR". I only have a few windows of time per day when I can edit Wikipedia, so my edits line up during those times. The "generally agreed to material" to which you refer has indeed been included in the article, and isn't the reason for my recent reverts. My reverts were to your unexplained deletions, instead; deletions you haven't explained in either edit summaries or on the talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

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

• As for the above 4 diffs, there are no violations there. Those were edits made persuant to the related discussion results on the BLP/N noticeboard. Please review the O'Keefe section there and you'll see. I hope that clears things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I don’t want to see anyone blocked, this aggressive and confrontational behavior needs to be curtailed. Thank you. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also don't want to see anyone blocked. ZHurlihee, especially when working with BLP articles, it is a very good idea to explain your edits on the article talk page - this is even more important when your edit has been reverted. Warring to keep contested edits in an article is never appropriate. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Admins: As Zhurlihee has noted above, there have been no 3RR violations (and he listed the same Diff twice). Further, what he misunderstands as "confrontational behavior" is only my adherance to BLP policy with regard to edits of a controversial nature. I won't be making further edits to the article; I would request that ZHurlihee do the same, and suggest he engage in discussion of his proposed edits rather than just repeated reverts. The article isn't going anywhere. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is edit warring and tendentious, and I certainly hope an administrator will see that and take whatever appropriate steps are necessary. Good day. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything except waiting for your input on the matter on the discussion page. I'm no longer editing the article. I see you are willing to come here, but you won't visit the talk page and discuss your edit with me - which has me a bit baffled. Even if an admin protects the page, we will still need to resolve any existing disagreements. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. I see six reverts by X since 20 August and five by Z, though the 3RR rule was not violated. If either party reverts again in the next 24 hours, sanctions are possible. You should be aware that a WP:Request for comment could be opened. I don't see that anyone's reverts would get a BLP exception from being counted against 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Debresser (Result: No Violation)

Page: Palestinian rabbis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ism schism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]

Diff of edit warring: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments: Ism schism has only today started to comment on a broad discussion related to the word "Palestinian", and apparently disagrees with me. He seems to try and pick a fight with me. I asked him both on the article talkpage and on his talkpage to not do so, and also to not engage in edit-warring, but he seems bent on steering this into a conflict. I prefer to report this now, to prevent likely escalation. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I miscounted, but you made the exact same number of reverts as Ism schism, correct? Is there some reason why his or her reverts constitute edit warring but yours do not? nableezy - 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But there is the fact that 1. another editor has also made the same edit I have, which should have shown Ism schism that this is not a matter of incorrect POV, but of his edit being wrong. 2. I have opened a talkpage discussion, where I have shown clearly that according to Wikipedia the term I revert to is the one that needs to be used. 3. I have called repeatedly upon Ism schism to be more polite and to refrain from edit warring, but he has shown that he wants to conflict, while I try to convince. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ism schism has had the bad taste to post a warning template on my talkpage, after I had informed him of this discussion on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Many editors have tried to communicate with Debresser about this issue. The AFD was lost, and now there is and edit war. This should stop. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely what I said on this editors talkpage. [119] He is new to the subject, has not read all the relevant discussions, only the Afd but not the Rfc or the Cfd, and now he thinks that this specific edit is just another part of a large conflict. Which it is not. Apart from the content-issue, which he does not seem to understand, we just really do not need a lonely knight here. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You may have noticed that this noticeboard is not only for violations of the 2rr, but for all edit-warring. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also please see Ism schism talkpage, that he recently has been involved in and warned for another three edit war. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)