Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Threeafterthree (talk | contribs)
21,164 edits
No edit summary
Line 705: Line 705:


::''doesn't quite look like [[Hiroshima]], circa late August 1945, yet'', what the heck are you talking about?!? Can we save the nuke references for deserving matters please, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::''doesn't quite look like [[Hiroshima]], circa late August 1945, yet'', what the heck are you talking about?!? Can we save the nuke references for deserving matters please, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Cosmic Latte]] reported by [[User:Tom harrison]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|September 11 attacks}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cosmic Latte}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&oldid=272509568 15:38, 22 February 2009]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=272684959&oldid=272672875&diffonly=1 09:09, 23 February 2009 ], reverting someone's minor addition;
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=272746525&diffonly=1 16:42, 23 February 2009], re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=272811346&diffonly=1 21:37, 23 February 2009], re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=272828025&oldid=272824895&diffonly=1 22:51, 23 February 2009], re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACosmic_Latte&diff=272832294&oldid=272551492&diffonly=1 23:12, 23 February 2009], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11_attacks&diff=272834369&oldid=272832242&diffonly=1 already familiar with 3rr]

FYI, the article is subject to arbcom sanctions at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:20, 24 February 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Cosmic Latte on Astrology, Talk:Astrology (result: talk)

    Argument (section link) between User:Cosmic Latte and I (along with User:Verbal), involving the usage of qualifying statements such as "claim" and "according to adherents." CL states that such terms violate policy, are weasel, and aren't appropriate for a topic of such widespread substance and acclaim as astrology. He refuses to be compromising, and appears to have an WP:AGENDA. Note that the Arbcom has singled out astrology as "generally considered pseudoscience" (see WP:PSCI), and has stated that such qualification is valid for such topics. Adding "claim" is not calling it "pseudoscience" but CL appears to be acting like it was. Wondering what others think. -Stevertigo 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have presented my arguments in full on the astrology talk page, and I refer interested editors to that page. Apparently my argument was a bit too full, however, as Stevertigo stated "TLDR" ("too long, didn't read") in an accusatory edit summary that, for some odd reason, he marked as a minor edit. My intention is simply to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. I never referred to WP:AWW, and I am no longer contesting the inclusion of the article in the "pseudoscience" category, although I do disagree with its placement there. A couple notes on the ad hominem attacks: As for my "refusal to be compromising," I have several times suggested "compromises," both in edit summaries and on the talk page (too tired to search for diffs unless someone asks for them). There is no WP:AGENDA. Perhaps Stevertigo means WP:Agenda account, which refers to WP:SPA's--an odd accusation to make of an editor with nearly 10,000 contributions to the project, including the promotion of an article to FA status. He also "guesses" that I am an adherent of astrology "and as such [am] unqualified to make unqualified assertions about neutrality." Interesting double use of "unqualified" in a single sentence. Anyway, if he had indeed read my talk page comments, he would have learned that my academic background is in science, not astrology. I know very little about astrology, but I claim (/wink) to know a fair amount about the scientific method and, importantly, the philosophies underlying it. Anyway, in case my talk page arguments are indeed too long to read, my desire is to introduce Astrology in the following manner: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." This seems fair and neutral. No need to insert loaded language about "claims" or any other superfluous attributions to "adherents." The article contains extensive discussion about the relationship between astrology and science, especially in the section named for this very juxtaposition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There does seem (as in it appears that there may be) that there is a degree of advocacy going on at this page. Numerous compromise wordings have been tried and simply removed, but I'm not sure this is the right venue. There is a virtue to being concise. Verbal chat 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I am advocating for is neutrality and fairness. If it still appears that I have an agendum (yes, I'm a stickler for Latin singulars), I refer you to this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi I didn't mean to imply you are (I just returned to update my wording, I'm very tired today so sorry about that, mea culpa). What I meant is that the rather long posts do seem to give that impression, if you see what I mean - I can understand that impression being made. As it is, I don't think this is the right forum. Apologies also for not yet engaging fully on the talk page, conversation by ES is not a great way to go! Verbal chat 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted. Looks like this issue can be dealt with on the article's talk page and was brought here prematurely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you are tlaking. Good. If you want to bring this back here, please provide diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FTR, FWIW, CL keeps going back to this concept: "to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA." He's asserting that what Verbal and I think is appropriate is simply an "unnecesary flourish" (he's used this term three times), and simply removing such "flourishes" makes the wording of the article more NPOV and in compliance with other policy like WTA. Note that he referred to the "claim" section of WTA, which I subsequently destroyed with a rewrite. See talk WP:WTA for my explanation. So that issue is invalid, because the policy itself was invalid, as it gave undue weight to negative aspects of "claim."

    Note also that he's refusing to be brief. He could after all state his view succinctly and give at least the appearance of compromise - suggesting alternatives, asking for our input, etc. I'ts not always possible to reason with people who are absolute about a particular view, without actually having a point. He knew when he responded above that his WTA reference was defunct, and yet he still cites it. Just an example of what he's up to. -Stevertigo 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the spirit of succinctness, here is my final reply to this thread: Firstly, WP:AGF; secondly, [12]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon reported by Hfarmer (Result: no vio)

    This user and I have been going through all manner of dispute resolution, and was the subject of a user conduct RfC not very long ago due to violations of WP:NPA.[18]

    You do realise you warned him a day after he stopped reverting? yandman 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never the less do you doubt that he was aware of the ruel? He's not exactly a newbie.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He stopped editing for as long as he has because at least where we live in the USA it is just now morning, So basically he was stopped by sleep, not restraint.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the 4th revert? (The one that would make this a breach of 3RR). yandman 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There need to be four reverts in order to break 3rr? There is no fourth revert. However as it says at the top of the page edit warring is not simply measured by a number of reversions. It is a tone, an attitude of confrontational editing, which has been a problem for Dicklyon (hence the recent RFC/U).--Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 3 "reverts", of which 2 are contiguous so count as 1, so only 2 really. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: warned)

    This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned Blocking would be excessive per staleness and lack of evidence he was aware of the rule (plus the linked first revert is not by Ratel, though I did independently count 4 reverts). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dewan357 reported by Xinjao (Result: 24 hours )

    The following reverts show how he swaps the country names to give India more importance, even though the sentence becomes factually incorrect.

    This user has a history of editing info he doesnt agree with in India related articles. This involves pointlessly swapping country names to give India more importance, and generally adding unverified info. I have warned him but the user insists on reverting info and adding his own facts to the articles. Xinjao (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Schwnj reported by 208.120.47.96 (talk) (Result: 12 hours for both)

    [30] 07:02, 19 February 2009

    • 2nd revert:

    [31] 15:46, 19 February 2009

    • 1st revert: [32] 17:25, 19 February 2009
    • 3rd revert: [33] 01:01, 20 February 2009
    • 4th revert:

    [34] 19:01, 20 February 2009

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

    This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article.

    208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was coming here to report this same user (Schwnj). But I was also going to report this anonymous user (208.120.47.96), too. Both have exceeded three reverts. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my (schwnj) defense, I should note that a second editor stepped in partway through this dispute and the latter two reverts had to do with the version created by that other editor. There is a full discussion of these reversions on the talk pages of the above mentioned articles. My biggest problem is that the anon editor who reported this seems to be confused and thinks I am somehow substantively changing the topic of this list. I suggest other editors (e.g., ElKevbo) chime in on the discussion.-Nicktalk 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I can judge this IP refuses to discuss anything on the Talk page. And I actually do not understand why (s)he tries to insert online institutions (without physical campus) into the list titled List_of_largest_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment. So if someone needs to be blocked, it is this IP. Ruslik (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The anonymous editor has responded on the Talk page (albeit in a very disjointed and confusing manner). But both of these editors were engaged in a protracted edit war before either of them posted anything to the Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I look back, it is true that I 3RRd. But, to be fair, I was convinced at first that these were vandal edits. Anon reverted the page either with no explanation or a very confusing statement that didn't seem to be applicable to the page. And, as these reversions actually made the page less factually accurate, I assumed them to be vandal edits. When I finally started to understand what anon was trying to say, I went to the discussion page. (Although anon hasn't cleared up exactly what his/her problem is.) -Nicktalk 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours. Both violated; Schwnj reverted again after knowing of the rule, and the anon knew of the rule.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hippo43 reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result:24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure I understand TRHoPF's issue here - is this really an edit war?? IMO, my edits have been constructive and improved the accuracy of the article. One of my reverts was the result of a typo. My most recent edit was an attempt at a compromise. I haven't brought anything controversial or obviously contentious to this article, and articles on the Commonwealth itself (Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria and Commonwealth_of_Nations) clearly support my version.
    I see TRHoPF has contributed much to various articles on European empires. Perhaps he/she feels I am on his/her turf. If he/she had brought this up on the talk page or addressed the points in my edit summaries instead of rushing to declare Edit War I would have been happy to discuss it.
    hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Swapnils2106 reported by C21K (Result: 24 hours each)

    Swapnils2106 is adding unrelated language script. and he refuses to discuss in article talkpage C21Ktalk 10:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: User:Swapnils2106 uses a sock IP 202.63.253.30 to disrupts my edits

    previous version

    1st revert

    2nd revert

    3rd revert

    4th revert

    5th revert

    diff of 3RR Warning [42]

    after 3RR warning

    1st revert

    2nd revert

    3rd revert


    reverts by his IP

    1st revert
    2nd revert
    3rd revert

    It needs to be discussed in on the talk page weather or not it is unrelated. Till then the Script should be there. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    you can't add unrelated scripts without discussing in article talkpage. C21Ktalk 10:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sourced. see the personal life section. he is a Kannadiga not marathi. C21Ktalk 10:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Majority of his life was spent in Maharashtra, singing marathi songs and Abhanga's so that script is needed. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case, you need to add marathi script to all the Bollywood actors page. because they are all living in Maharashtra. C21Ktalk 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His mothertongue is Kannada not marathi. It is wellsourced. C21Ktalk 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    so we prefer only native language. not what he sings. tomorrow some person will add Hindi, Bengali etc... which will be totally mess.C21Ktalk 11:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bollywood actors have nothing to do with marathi, Panditji has been an integral part of marathi "sahitya" Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense. Bhimsenji is Kannadiga not marathi. in wikipedia only native language script is added. C21Ktalk 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    see some examples Lata Mangeshkar(native-marathi, career-hindi) , Aishwarya Rai (native-tulu,career-hindi), A. R. Rahman (native-tamil,career-hindi), Satyajit Ray(native-bengali,career-hindi). C21Ktalk 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hence, only native language is preferred. not other languages. C21Ktalk 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot say Lata Mangeshwars career was hindi, you cannot say that for anyone you mentioned above Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG, I guess you don;t know anything. Lataji has sung more than 40000 hindi songs which is a world record. and you say her career is not hindi. C21Ktalk 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, there is no hard and fast rule to add the native language only Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He is a native speaker of kannada, so kannada is added. There is no rule to add Hindi,Marathi,Bengali or any other languages ..etc.... C21Ktalk 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been an integral part of "Marathi Sangeet", since you cannot create a seperate article of the same name the script can be added. Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    he is an integral part of Hindustani music,Bhajans not only marathi. he also sings in many indian languages. so that we can't keep on adding every script. C21Ktalk 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wow, mega editing warring, 3RR blown away by several parties. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP got 24 hours too. Sockpuppeteering looks likely, but not sure it makes a difference to the overall picture. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    Cunado reported by General Disarray (result: 8h)

    • 1st Revert [44] Unilateral revert of 12 contributions
    • 2nd Revert [45] Reverted contribution attempting to address concerns from talk
    • 3rd Revert [46] Reverted back to previous revert after another rewording attempt
    • 4th Revert [47] Unilaterally reverted 4 edit contributions explained in talk attempting to remove WP:SYN and add referenced detials.
    • I did not have a chance to offer a 3RR warning, but neither did I expect the violation as Cunado has been blocked for this twice before (under his old user name Cunado19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). As of late, I've observed on several different pages we both contribute to that he regularly reaches 3 reverts without going over, so I have become accustomed to assuming he's aware of what he's doing regarding this issue.

    As basically the only two contributors to this article, the history is obviously loaded with a lot of back and forth between the two of us. I'm a member of the small religious sect the article is about, and Cunado is a member of the larger group ours broke off from, and has taken a keen interest in the article over the past three years. In the past week a lot of contributions have been made to the page by both of us, most of them I'd consider improvements. Although we often engage in healthy debates on the talk page to reach compromises, in the past two days I have made a total of 5 requests in between these reverts asking for considerations on the talk page which have gone entirely ignored. #[48] #[49] #[50] #[51] #[52] Basically after every contribution I've made has been reverted, I've gone to the talk page to make my case, and comment on the edit summary of Cunado's reverts, yet there has been no response. My efforts to pursue dispute resolution on the talk page have entirely stalled, and now reverting is the only participation Cunado is engaging in. DisarrayGeneral 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: this doesn't really look actionable here. As you say, it's basically you two fighting, and I can't see C being obviously unreasonable. I think you are doomed to WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually I wasn't concerned about edit warring, per se, but that there was a 3RR violation. Is this not the right place to report this? DisarrayGeneral 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was never a 3RR violation on February 20. Look through the history. I think anyone reading through the talk page and looking at the content of my edits would quickly see that I'm trying to apply policy and editing appropriately. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This report was actually intended only to report a 3RR violation by Cunado, but in the past few days I'm not sure if a case couldn't be made that the behavior isn't reaching the bar of warring. Since this report was filed every single contribution to the page by me, which I'm explaining in the talk page discussion, have been unilaterally reverted without so much as a an edit comment (besides "rvt"), let alone having any participation in the discussion. Talking to myself doesn't seem to be moving the process along. There has been zero participation from Cunado on the talk page between any of the 9 reverts back to his original wording. I'm only pointing out that reverting three times a day, every single day, has been Cunado's only contribution to either the article or discussions. Since 2/20 I've made a total of 8 posts to the discussion page stating my concerns over his removal of reliably sourced details, and article structure; basically one for each of his unexplained reverts. With the exception of one dismissive comment and logic-defying comment from Cunado, all of my posts have received no reply. I'm not excatly sure where the line in for edit warring, but this is now looking a lot like it to me. DisarrayGeneral 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    8h. More talking, or perhaps rather more engagement, required, especially from C. GD, please avoid the rolling-on-the-floor stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Opole.pl reported by Lucas (result: please talk)

    The article talk page is this way. Oh look, it's a red link isn't that odd? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.183.246.93 reported by Mark Shaw (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Bernard Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.183.246.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 22:54, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */ A Settled issue")
    2. 22:55, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */")
    3. 23:00, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "added other Regnery authors")
    4. 04:44, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    5. 07:14, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 272212188 by Threeafterthree (talk)")
    6. 08:33, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Add addl. sources")
    7. 20:06, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    8. 20:08, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ See talk page. There can be no edit war if you stop editing.")
    9. 20:51, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ added source because of dead link")
    10. 20:54, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop reverts. I have discussed this on talk, you have not.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User continually reverts article to restore verbiage which had been removed by editor consensus several days ago. User ignores requests to work out differences on talk page before implementing these changes. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Shaw continues to revert edits before reading discussions on article talk page. He also does not comment on talk page before reverting edits, then he issues 3RR warnings. This is a continuing pattern with this editor. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's talk page will reveal that 68 is attempting to thwart consensus previously reached by him/herself and others. Of course, "consensus" is not set in stone; and if s/he wishes to use the talk page to argue for his/her changes before implementing them, I'm all for that.
    Note that 68 has also removed the 3RR warning from his/her talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What the article's talk page will actually reveal, is an ongoing conversation between me and another editor that was attempting to achieve consensus. A conversation that (Mark Shaw) chose not to contribute to. Instead, this editor was busy reverting edits without explanation or comment on the discussion page.
    Also this editor has, in the past asked me to stay off his talk page, when I am simply responding to his incessant messages on mine. His idea of civility was to call me a "loon". As a result, I now remove all efforts by him to place anything on my talk page. As he has also just removed my latest attempt to get him to stop this uncivil behavior from his talk page. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: on review, I see that I have included too many diffs in the above. Here's a cleaned-up reformulation (again, from earliest to latest):

    Mark Shaw (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see from the history, I also could have reported Mark Shaw for his 3RR violations. However, I did not because I realize it would not be helpful in the long run, and would only fuel his childish desire to prolong an unnecessary and unproductive edit war. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the article's history, I find three reverts by me (from latest to earliest, in this case):
    • 21 Feb, 14:52:50 - [64]
    • 21 Feb, 14:48:31 - [65]
    • 21 Feb, 07:45:43 - [66]
    And then the next previous edit of mine (which was not a revert) occurred seven days earlier:
    • 14 Feb, 11:16:21 - [67]
    So, where's the 3RR violation? Mark Shaw (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As further proof of Mark Shaw's WP:CIV violations, please note this on his talk page:
    "ATTENTION: If I have asked you to stay off my talk page, any edits you make here will be deleted unread. Thanks! (Administrative activity, such as required warnings and etc, are not included in this, of course.)" 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilson Delgado reported by OldMan (Result: no vio)

    This user was apparently warned before for revert-warring on Humanism. He is attempting to add the same content again, despite failing to achieve consensus on Talk:Humanism.

    • First attempt to add bad content without consensus: [68]
    • 1st revert: [69]
    • 2nd revert: [70]
    • 3rd revert: [71]
    • 4th revert: [72]


    Those 4 reverts were days ago; he has already been warned for those once.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [73]

    Today he is attempting to add essentially the same content, again without achieving consensus on the talk page, and reverting any attempts to remove it:

    The content he is trying to insert is in violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. I've also reported that behavior here. OldMan (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is too slow. You need WP:DR, not 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Agatha doppelganger reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: deleted)


    • Previous version reverted to: [76]


    The article in question is populated by highly contentious and unsubstantiated claims. The majority of the "references" when researched did not support the accusations.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [80]
    2009-02-22T19:39:43 Ruslik0 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pro-Turkism" ‎ (G3: Vandalism) (restore) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yaf reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: no vio)

    Right to keep and bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term edit warring, with prior blocks for edit warring this article.

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

    1. 18:31, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm biased statement as comparison is largely meaningless, being the majority of homicides in the US are in urban areas amongst drug trade participants, & aren't widely distributed")
    2. 18:33, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm uncited statement, and reword = rm ws")
    3. 20:41, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm speculation in violation of WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a crystal ball...")
    4. 22:09, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm content contrary to Wikipedia policy relating to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the content is speculating on what could happen -- out it goes...")
    5. 23:12, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv; (article is about arms, used in almost all homicides, not about guns; restoring properly cited and referenced material); take it to talk before removing properly cited information")
    6. 23:24, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm uncited statement")
    7. 23:30, 13 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm unnecessary comparison (per talk page discussions)")
    8. 00:14, 15 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv to last version by Anastrophe (rm commentary that is uncited and sophomoric, the US Congress is not a "Parliament")")
    9. 04:07, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
    10. 04:07, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
    11. 04:50, 16 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths */ rm uncited speculation")
    12. 06:26, 17 February 2009 (edit summary: ""cites" fail to identify "right to keep and bear arms" as being related to "gun violence"; rm uncited and unrelated commentary that is only pushing a POV rather than providing relevant content")
    13. 19:07, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm US content from UK section per talk page discussions; as for breaking out dead by firearms vs. dead by other arms, it really doesn't matter, for dead is dead and article is about arms, not firearms")
    14. 19:09, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ typo")
    15. 19:41, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm rest of US content in UK section")
    16. 19:57, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
    17. 19:58, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
    18. 20:35, 20 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Modern commentary: three models */ rm uncited content")
    19. 03:50, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm OR")
    20. 03:52, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homicide and firearm homicide statistics */ typo")
    21. 03:56, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm OR (equating "gun rights" to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"); Need cites equating RKBA to gun violence for this to stay.")
    22. 04:10, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "rm OR (need to add cites that establish that "gun rights" equate to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" before inserting this)")
    • Diffs of article talk page warnings: here, here

    —SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your counting is wrong. Contigous reverts count as one. Please read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcperkel reported by wrs1864 (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [81]


    • 1st large edit/revert: [82] Note that there are 24 edits in this diff. This started with marcperkel making a large number of additions/changes. I reviewed these changes and, assuming most changes would be good, piecemeal reverted small sections until I had reverted a large portion of the changes and merged other portions into the existing "drawbacks" section.
    • 2nd edit/revert: [83] Note: 5 edits here. revert by Marcperkel, restoring much of the new stuff he added and I had deleted. In addition, he merged and move stuff around.
    • 3rd edit/revert: [84] Note: 3 edits here. I revered Marcperkel's re-addition of the "how to implement" section, along with more edits, including renaming the "drawbacks" section to what I thought was a more acceptable "Known problem cases when implementing Callback Verification".
    • 4th revert: [85] Marcperkel re-added "implementing" section.
    • 5th revert: [86] User:AndrewHowse removed all sections that had "implementing" in them as per WP:NOTHOWTO
    • 6th revert: [87] I restored the original "drawbacks" section because it isn't a "howto" section, renaming it again, now to "limitations" (as per the title in one of the references that covers the same material.
    • 7th revert: [88] revert by Markperkel back to AndrewHowse's version.
    • 8th revert: [89] I reverted to add back the "limitations" section (originally the "drawbacks" section) and added inline references as per a request by AndrewHowse on the talk page discussing re-adding this section.
    • 9th revert: [90] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
    • 10th revert: [91] revert by me
    • 11th revert: [92] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
    • 12th revert: [93] revert by me
    • 13th revert: [94] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted. Note this revert was soon after User:RegentsPark had given a third opinion that the "limitations" section was important for the article.
    • 14th revert: [95] revert by Marcperkel to restore the "implementing" section, previously deleted by AndrewHowse
    • 15th revert: [96] revert by me.
    • 16th revert: [97] revert by Marcperkel
    • 17th revert: [98] revert by me
    • 18th revert: [99] revert by Marcperkel
    • 19th revert: [100] revert, with follow-up edits to address points from the discussion on the talk page
    • 20th revert: [101]revert by Marcperkel
    • 21th revert: [102] revert by me
    • 22nd revert: [103] revert by Marcperkel


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

    While there have been a large number of reverts, neither of us have technically violated the WP:3RR policy. There has also been a large amount of discussion on the talk page and many points that I thought we might be merging toward a consensus, or at least had the potential to be working that way. Many of the reverts had followup edits by both parties to try to resolve things. We appear to have had two third parties come in and try to resolve this situation. However, I no longer see a good way to proceed via the talk page and other resources and I think the article as it stands now neither represents the WP:CONSENSUS from the previous two years nor is it an encyclopedic article.

    As a summary, I feel that User:Marcperkel is asserting himself as an WP:EXPERT to use this article as a WP:SOAPBOX to create a WP:NOTHOWTO article based on WP:OR.

    12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [105]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [110]


    User keeps adding the claim that legitimate criticism of Israel is confused with Antisemitism, despite a rought consensus at the Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Criticisms_and_condemnations and repeated warnings that newsletters or blogs (i.e. CounterPunch and a The Brussels Journal) are not a reliable source according to WP:RS. The same editor also before expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "Judeopedia" due to articles such as this (see [111]). Afroghost (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    3rd and 4th revert allegations are illegally constructed. User Afro is carrying out a personal vendetta against me because I made edits that he did not like. If anyone looks at history of the article, one would realize that it was the user who reported against me that started the edit war(from which I had gracefully exited). His mentioning of a comment I had made at a specific context in a talk page again and again wherever I make an edit shows him carrying personal vendetta Zencv Lets discuss 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring disaster area. As usual, all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order. Deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume your account has been compromised, because otherwise I cannot explain why you are not following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions. And your claims are ridiculous, several editors, including me tried their best to keep the article in order. Afroghost (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-02-22T23:50:34 Black Kite (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Afroghost (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This block is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The block was for unrelated reasons. Action still must be taken against User:Zencv who violated 3rr and was clearly edit-warring in violation of the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rapparee71 reported by NJGW (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [112]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

    This all revolves around a section which Rapparee71 has demanded be removed. After being reverted by 5 separate editors in the past week, Rapparee71 has started making POV edits which have also been reverted by different editors. He has made 5 sets of reversions in the past 24 hours. After being warned for a 2nd time of 3rr and asked to self revert the 5th set, Rapparee71 tried to compromise with a partial revert[123]. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It can be argued that the edits I have made are POV Edits or not. That is the point in which I have been trying to get across to Jim Dunning and NJGW. I changed the title of the sections back to "Misogyny" to appease NJGW, but BoomerAB actually changed it back to "Alleged Misogyny"!
    The section in which I changed the introductory sentence of the second paragraph of "Themes" was, in fact, already edited by Jim Dunning from the paragraph that I had inserted in the first place (a quotation from Richard Adams from an interview with BBC Radio). I was merely improving on his edit. This is neither against the rules nor the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, to date, I haven't heard any complaints from Jim Dunning on this specific action. The edit to his edit was merely an effort to streamline the sentence and to take out superfluous words he had added. All of this is clearly within the bounds of a good edit. None of the actions I have taken are "vandalism". All edits were made in an effort to improve the article.
    Since I made an effort to reach a compromise (several times in fact) and they were summarily reverted without an effort on the other party's part to reach a compromise, I can only assume that NJGW's motives are vindictive in nature. Also, let us not forget that this is a community effort and I also, am a member of this community. The ONLY reason it could be argued that I have violated the 3RR "rule" is that NJGW and Jim Dunning have insisted on repeatedly reverting my revisions without discussion. Or when they do discuss it, they do so without giving my opinions (term used loosely) equal weight. Rapparee71 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not clear that this is 4R. You'll have to follow the instructions for "complex reverts" if you care. I'll warn R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I revised this to show 5 reverts in 24 hours, after the initial warning. Prior to this, the editor reverted 8 times in 48 hours. NJGW (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Constructive editor reported by Martin451 (Result: 24h )


    • Previous version reverted to: [124]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

    Martin451 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. yandman 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagishsimon reported by Jenuk1985 (Result: talk / DR)

    .. among others, see user's contributions

    • Previous version reverted to: [131]

    The above are diffs for Isaac McLellan, there are about 8 articles the user has reverted in this way.

    The user repeatedly removes orphan tags despite being warned not to by myself and another user. The user has also engaged in what I believe to be uncivil conduct on my talk page: User_talk:Jenuk1985#WTF, but that may be a different road I'd need to go down. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You and he and who knows who else disagree about those tags. You need to talk it over rather than revert it over, perhaps at the relevant noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lynn Caldwell reported by Anyone77 (Result: talk)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st edit: # (cur) (prev) 15:41, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,291 bytes) (See discusion section) (undo)
    • 1st revert: # (cur) (prev) 17:35, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
    • 1st undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 21:08, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,311 bytes) (Undid revision 272531823 by Lynn Caldwell (talk)) (undo)
    • 2nd revert: # (undo)# (cur) (prev) 21:33, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
    • 2nd undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 22:01, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,330 bytes) (See Discussion section on this matter and use it rather than wantonly vandelizing the edit.) (undo)
    • 3rd revert: # prev) 00:26, 23 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,209 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)


    • I made what I have termed the "1st edit" above in the interest of accuracy to the facts. "Lynn Caldwell" evidently doesn't like the fact that changes I made to his link description are accurate to the facts and has engaded in what appears to be a 3RR violation. He will not use the Discussion section to respond to my posting there on the matter, even though I have directed his attention there. He wrongly claims that I am vandalizing his posting. As there are numerous links in that External Links section, I provided a brief discription of each so that the reader may choose which to investigate without having to look at each one. The facts I noted in the description of Caldwell's link are accurate to the facts, and I can easily prove them. He wants to give a false impression of what his site actually contains. That just doesn't seem right, as this doesn't seem to be a forum for private opinions, but rather a place of simple facts. Please help, allowing my description to remain, and blocking him from changing it if necessary. Thank you Anyone77 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Um, looking at the diffs there is no strict 3RR vio, and the text being removed is odd. I've mentionned this on the talk page: it looks to me as though that link should die, not be qualified William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    86.155.147.172 reported by CHawke (Result: semi)

    • Page: Hawkwind
    • User: 86.155.147.172


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    (No 3 reverts in 24 hours but a constant battle over the last week or so over unsourced entries between myself and IP address only users - initially I flagged these two changes in the Hawkwind#2000s section as "fact" requiring citations - the fact tag kept getting removed - after a week I removed even the entry as these "facts" should have had another source by now - and invited anyone wanting to change the page to add it to the talk page rather than direct - the latest IP editor has reverted to the unsourced, untagged version almost straight away--C Hawke (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm... I'm not sure blocking one IP is going to change much. This is more of a BLP issue. How about I semi-protect it for a short while until the user(s) behind the IPs discusses it on the talk page? yandman 13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi Protection would be cool - thanks for understanding, this is the 1st time I've had to raise things like this, so not sure what was best - I think the user will either get bored or, of course, there is a chance that the "facts" will have some external source after a while - how do I go about getting the protection removed once added? --C Hawke (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. It'll expire in 1 week. If after that time the issue isn't resolved, drop a note on my talk page. yandman 14:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks - I'm sure the other person will get bored - and I am pretty sure that these different IPs are the same person--C Hawke (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amyseekuif reported by Ward3001 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [135]


    3RR warnings here and here. Level 4 warning here.

    Amyseekuif was blocked for 24 hours. I also warned Ward3001, who also was close to 3RR limit. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Antisemitism and User:Jayjg (no vio)

    A couple weeks ago I added the self-hating Jew link to the antisemitism template. Another user, Malik Shabazz, reverted me, (diff) and we engaged in a brief discussion on the talk. The first reverter gave consideration to my argument for inclusion and, for the time being, consented. Malik himself undid his revert and restored the link (diff), and there it has been until Jayjg came along not long ago to remove it. Jay's substantial justification in the comment line was terse: "[it has] nothing to do with the topic of antisemitism." (diff)

    Call me unwiki or whatever but I generally don't like it when people revert good faith edits (ie. "my edits") without joining the discussion. I'm referring to such tactics as "ninja edits," (ie. 'deadly but pointless' edits: WP:NINJA). I restored my changes (diff not really a revert, see) and stated "that's nice Jayjg, but you forgot to discuss this on the talk page, where there is a section dealing with this addition. Others appear to agree its relevant". Which was true! The talk page section is here if anyone wants to look. Jay reverted again, here, "even if relevant, which it's not, it's not significant enough to go in the template," and I "restored" again here, "That't great, Jayjg. You might be right about the concept, and therefore have an argument against inclusion here. On Wikipedia we have talk pages, and on these pages we talk about the articles. Please join us other three by clicking "discussion" abov[e]."

    So, I'm asking Jayjg to put aside his ninja-editing concept, and join us in a discussion about its inclusion. I admit that he may have a point, or I should say instead as with anything, there is legitimate cause to question the concept's sufficient relevance such that would justify the link's inclusion. Whether Jayjg wants to make a valid argument on the talk page that could perhaps persuade others to join his position remains to be seen, and I would like to see him conform to these tedious traditions of we call "discussion" and "consensus." That is my entire purpose for this report, and I plan on using AN3 more often for this purpose of promoting such tedious traditions. -Stevertigo 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay wasn't edit warring (2 reverts in 2 weeks). This isn't the venue for this accusation. Grsz11 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Agreed. Maybe try a WP:RFC or other venue. --Tom 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ps, oops, looks like there was one?? --Tom 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is, given that I don't want him to accuse me of 3RR, when reverts again without joining the discussion, thinking he owns the place, and that we who differ with him deserve no more than his ninja-esque treatment. There were two reverts each, not counting the reverts and restorations previous. That is edit warring, even if it is just at a low-intensity warfare, and doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet. -Stevertigo 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pursue WP:DR. We can't solve all problems here. There are 4 reverts today, 2 are yours, one is J's, what do you want, to be blocked? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet, what the heck are you talking about?!? Can we save the nuke references for deserving matters please, --Tom 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cosmic Latte reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: )


    • 1st revert: 09:09, 23 February 2009 , reverting someone's minor addition;
    • 2nd revert: 16:42, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
    • 3rd revert: 21:37, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
    • 4th revert: 22:51, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."

    FYI, the article is subject to arbcom sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=272845576"