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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:25, 10 February 2010

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

1st revert: 20:01, 29 December 2009
2nd revert: 18:16, 30 December 2009, note promise to edit war on this.
3rd revert: 19:16, 31 December 2009
4th revert: 20:30, 31 December 2009
5th revert: 22:36, 31 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2] (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments:

User:Borsoka reported by User:Criztu (Result: Stale/No 3RR at time)

Previous version reverted to: 18:38, 13 November 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:13, 6 February 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:28, 6 February 2010

Comments:

In the talk page of the article I have provided my reasons for removing literary sources that do not document the Romanians, and for grouping sources by century and removing what i consider POV sections in the article, the replies i have received from Borsoka i consider being incivil. I have explained him/her that in the article talk page, and provided him link to Wikipedia:Civility, on which he replied "Dear Criztu, sorry but I do not understand your above remarks.". Further more, after i have noticed him about the 3RR on his TalkPage, he accuses me of "faking content of sources" and "obvious vandalism", which i consider continuous Incivility. user:Borsoka reply on my talk page Criztu (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same report re-opened by reporting user by re-signing their signature at 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New comments
Not 3RR: the first "revert": Revision as of 12:39, 2010 February 5 and Revision as of 09:29, 2010 February 6 and (25 intermediate revisions not shown). the second revert is also not a revert and so on...--B@xter⁹ 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Closed again as it's the same report, simply re-signed. As noted here, please stop. NJA (t/c) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

User:Jasepl reported by User:Dimitree (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

1st revert: [5]
2nd revert: [6]
3rd revert: [7]
4th revert: [8]
5th revert: [9]
6th revert: [10]
7th revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

Seriously? You both seem to be engaging in tit-for-tat edit warring, and all the while, the article's talk page hasn't been edited since November. Work this out in talk. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've protected the page. Work this out. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What complete garbage. As has been explained to the poor "victim" on more than one occasion, additions of new destinations MUST include a valid source and, if required, an appropriate valid summary. This is a basic editing requirement across Wikipedia and also for the Aviation project. It is not a movable line either. And NO, "Aeroflot's planning department told me"

you defigurate my words, as usually. I said Aeroflot NETWORK planning Department. Be a man, who can face the truth. --Dimitree (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is NOT a valid source. Jasepl (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complaining "victim" also seems to be blissfully unaware of basic concepts, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL, preferring instead to go all comrade this and Kondoleeza (whatever that is!) that. Wikipedia's basic requirements are very simple: if a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong the editor/victim is. Jasepl (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I thank you for protecting this page (that I created). Second, few fords about THIS Jasepl. He (or it - I can't read this nickname) simply violates the rules. He (it?) demands others to offer a VALID source, but he (it?) doesn't give such a VALID source for any other date/flight/aircompany. When he (it?) is kindly corrected (with all necessary sources), he (it?) just starts his favourite game - reverting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 20 times a day. Nothing personal. Just trying to be objective. --Dimitree (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask your attention again: Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him (here [14] and here [15]) to explain why he has done it. --Dimitree (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is because Aeroflot do not codeshare with those airlines. Only the reverse is true, as is evident from the very same link. If you bothered to familarise yourself with the WP:Aviation guidelines, instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that there is a difference between the two.

Yes? Aeroflot DOES NOT codeshare with these airlines and indicate them as code-share on the web-site? Are you ok?! It seems to be not. Have a look, please, at OFFICIAL timetable of Aeroflot [16] and find, for example, code-share flight SU 595/CX 9240 or SU 535/AI 6535 or any other. --Dimitree (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I demand nothing; Wikipedia does. If you bothered to familarise yourself with Wikipedia's basic editing guidelines (such as WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL to name but a few), instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that too.

And what? Which of my editions contradicts above mentionned rules? WHICH? No one! All dates and flights are available in GDS Timetable. It is YOUR problem that YOU have no access to these data base and YOU can not verify it, and you simply revert it. --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this has been explained to you dozens of times. But oh no, you'd rather scream Comrade this and Kondoleeza that. Not to forget how the entire English-speaking world is on some collective Russia-bashing mission and how you're being singled out for targeting. It's not true, so get over it.

Explain yourself what to do, Mr. Kondoleezza Rice. No one asked you explain anything. When asked - welcome, when not - just very easy fuck off and very smoothly be gone. --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, and pay attention, because this is important: If a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong you may be. Compris? Jasepl (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last, but not least: as I said above, all my editions have reliable and VALID sources such as GDS Timetable and official web-site (to which I always provide links but you delete them). Anyway, you can say whatever you want: Planning Department, Departmenning Plan - it's up to you. The truth remains the same: I have reliable and valid sources, you have no. That is why you revert everything that YOU (and no one else!!!) can not confirm. You are the only one here to impose constantly others YOUR INCORRECT point of view:

First it was a wise dispute over Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan [17]. But you were defeated

Second - GDS Timetable (or even aircompany web-site) is not VALID source [18] and here [19].

Third - Aeroflot cod-share flights on OFFICIAL web-site [20]) or on OFFICIAL timetable of Aeroflot [21], are still NOT VALID for you.

Fourth? What could be fourth? Ah! English grammar! There is a NEW Jasepl rule that says: forever and ever, the verb must always disagree with its subject: single subject = plural verb, plural subject = single verb [Jasepl]. The same for: to begin and to start - there is a yawning semantic chasm between these two verbs, and you must always keep it in mind [Jasepl]. Here [22] is a brilliant example of an excellent proficiency of the English language presented by Jasepl! Pay attention to the verb form used by Jasepl: Aeroflot (=it) DO not codeshare. Or Aeroflot DOES? --Dimitree (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: and this Jasepl accused me (here [23]) of an incorrect usage of English: incorrect is "flight starts" and correct is "flight begins" according to Jasepl...[reply]

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [24] reverted to redirect as before this edit

1st revert: [25]
2nd revert: [26]
3rd revert: [27]
4th revert: [28]

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding a merge. So far Drork has argued for it with one other user saying "support per Drork". Two users (myself included) have argued against it, yet Drork claims there is now a consensus to merge the article and has edit-warred to support this supposed consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page, only section there is on the merge.

Comments:

nableezy - 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) User:Nableezy supported the forking of the article Palestinian territories based on the claim that this term has different meaning than the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". He has been explained that the difference does not exist, and there was no reason for forking. He argued, but eventually accepted the explanation. He kept arguing that the name "Occupied Palestinian Territory" was better, and therefore the "Palestinian territories" article should be merged into it. He was explained why this was a bad idea, and this claim was received with objections. The "Occupied" article did not include any significant new information about the subject of the Palestinian territories, so I simply turned it into a redirection once the discussion came to an end. User:Nableezy reverted the change over and over again, leaving me no other option but to re-revert him. DrorK (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is obviously a controversial subject, but neither of you should be reverting changes "over and over again" or "re-reverting" each other, because you both can be blocked for that kind of stuff. You should keep working on the talk page on this... Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not going to close this one myself, but calling the first action a revert is a bit of a stretch. You're claiming he reverted back to a version from May. That's too long back to be considered a genuine revert. Obviously, there's edit-warring going on, but it takes two to tango, and I can understand why Drork might have thought consensus was reached for merging on the talk page (it's clearly more than two editors in support of merging the articles). This notice seems poorly-evidenced. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version from May is not mine, but it proves that there used to be a consensus about the matter, until someone decided to turn the redirection into an article. To my best judgment, the talk page showed that such consensus was rebuilt upon merger request. I don't know how long such a discussion should last. Obviously not all editors on WP want to express their opinion about the issue, and those who were willing to comment used every conceivable argument pro and against. Since those opposing the merger admitted themselves that there was no difference between the terms-in-question, and resorted to the claim that there should be a merger but to the other direction, I saw no point in continuing the discussion. DrorK (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected In general, people who initiate or comment on controversial merger requests may not be sufficiently impartial to determine consensus. I've protected the page for three days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have a real problem with Malik Shabazz's move. First of all, he's just given a prize to the person who initiated the war edit, just because he was first to complain, and because he has friends who were able to revert my legitimate edit, without causing him to break the 3rev rule. Secondly Malik Shabazz was one of the contributor to this article. Even though his contributions were fair and productive, his involvement in the article's editing may cause his reluctance to merge it, even unaware. Third, how long should a merger discussion go on, and who is supposed to close it? POV forking is explicitly forbidden for very good reasons. The editors who initiated the article gave only one reasoning to this forking, which was refuted on the article's talk page. People are afraid to take the next step, because they know it might lead to an edit-war, and they will be scolded. The issue of articles dealing with the Palestine Question is very delicate, and therefore attempts to POvize articles or POV forking should not be accredited, otherwise en-wp's credibility would be compromised. DrorK (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited Occupied Palestinian Territory or its Talk page. Of course I protected The Wrong Version. I recommended at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory that you and the other editors involved in the dispute ask an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss content. Finally, the alternative to protecting the article would be to block you for edit-warring; would you have preferred that outcome? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your remark on the article's talk page. I don't like the patronizing tone of your last remark. This is not a game of power, this is about how en-wp is going to be more credible. With all due respect, your last move didn't make it more credible, whether it is accompanied by a block or a "pardon". DrorK (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about making Wikipedia more credible, it's about stopping an editor from from further disrupting the project. I had two choices, protect the article or block the editor. I'd like to think I made the right choice, but you're starting to make me wonder. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrorK, you should know that it's not them that got you on this page. And viewing this as a humble independent observer, there's clearly no conflict of interest that I can see regarding Malik's "move" (nor of his giving out of any prizes; I know I didn't get one ;<). Why are you still arguing on this page after being advised not to? Doc9871 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will criticize a decision made by an admin if I thing it is very wrong. Suggesting that I am disrupting a project is a very poor judgment on behalf of an admin, and the fact that I chose to criticize his decision does not make him entitled to question my motives. His decision not to block me is not a favor for me. It is his obligation to exercise discernment. Unfortunately he went half way in doing so, and I gave a detailed explanation why it is so. DrorK (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The climate change users group - again! reported by gemtpm (Result: reporting user warned)

Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MuffledThud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Skepticism

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_Skepticism

I have a neutral view on Climate Change. Having read the WP coverage, it is impossible to get the sceptical perspective. Not that is the 'correct' view, but that perspective. Hence, we need this page. But a group of users is deleting any such materail. This is not how WP can survive as a 'reference' work. (Do we want it to, though?) Gemtpm (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. Gemtpm, please seek collaborative discussion with your fellow volunteers - simply reverting to get your way is not productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the right to reach a consensus. In the meantime, pages should not be 'redirected' which is in effect a deletion of the content. I can be blocked, but this will provide a fairly clear example of the failure fo Wikipedia to even pretend to be able to be a neutral 'reference' resource. There is a gross bias towards the 'climate change lobby' here, the skeptiks point of view has been deliberately supressed for several years, and now that events in teh public domain have made the former a 'minority' positon and latter a matter of great public interest, WP needs to remedy its past bias - and fast! I welcome a proper debate, so far there has been no attempt to have one. Gemtpm (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of 'redirects' is a problem here. I do not consdier this to be 'editing' - it is a form of deletion without going through any process. This 'edit war' indicates a systemic problem with Wikipedia, as does the routine banning or threatening to ban users such as myself who object to this tactic being used. Gemtpm (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really where you should be discussing policy, Gemtpm? This is not the place for the "proper debate" you seek, I assure you... Doc9871 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:jstanierm (Result: Blocks)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The first one was unsourced. This report is the user getting back at me for actual 3RR CTJF83 chat 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first may have been unsourced but when you were reverted a citation was added (which you didn't bother to look into); you just began edit warring to push your POV. Apparently you have been at it for a while; I just noticed your recent reverts.21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs)

First link is unrelated too. CTJF83 chat 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 24 hours to Ctjf83 and OscarMilde for 3RR violation. Jstanierm has only two clear reverts this time around, but he is continuing an edit war on the same article for which he was reported here on 4 February, so he is blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.179.224.112 reported by User:Atlan (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

1st revert: [36]
2nd revert: [37]
3rd revert: [38]
4th revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

A request for checkuser is filed to link this IP to blocked User:Keithmc2. The account and multiple IP's have been edit warring and block evading at Kent School (and reverting my edits wholesale on other articles). A discussion is going on and is about to be wrapped up at the article's talk page, where the IP does not participate.--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Kent School has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:GSP-Rush reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: 24h)

User user:GSP-Rush is still causing problems on Samuel Sevian. He was warned about 3RR on his talk page last month. He violated that today. His edits also violate Consensus, Crystal Ball, and Original Research. he has reverted four times today:

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

Was warned about 3RR and edit warring a month ago: [46]. (And he remooved it here.)

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

Comments:
Yet again bubba73 put me a warning that unfounded, he tries to take off things whit out justifying himself and say he has reach a consensus but doesn't give me any link to any consensus. I would like to know, for any administrator out ther, how can i report bubba73 for making claim that are unfounded and trying to repeatably get me block went his at fault. This is taking up my time, forcing me to take my time and come here and defend myself. I think this is unacceptable, if he would prove to me or give me a valid reason i wouldn't of undone it but he just impulsively took it off. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also to justifies the passed warning, first off the warning was issued by, who other then bubba73. And also i was warned, not because i undid thing, but because i had just started editting and i told him to fuck off, because i was unexperienced and he was harassing me. And since then i have learn to deal whit people on wikipedia, making agreements and staying polite, although a few days ago bubba73 told me to and i quote STFU . And for the most part his anger wasn't justified because his the one who harass me. Bringing up passed conflict whiteout explain wat happen is incredibly unethical. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was on his own talk page but he removed it here (the comment by EdJohnston, between the first 3RR warning and the Civility warning). Also, the consensus is on the Samuel Sevian talk page and in the history of the article itself - he is the only one putting it in and there are several removing it. He also made the unsourced claim that the person is a Candidate Master (see the Samuel Sevian talk page) and I told him to supply a reference or STFU (and I literally said [[STFU]] and didn't use the words, see [diff). He did neither. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My page is my page and i can remove wat i want form it. Also ther no consensus on my page all ther is 2 people, you and Edjohnson ( witch you warned him of me so he took your side at that time ). Also the consensus on the Sevian talk page like you call it isn't conclusive at all. Some people made statements about removing it but never replied back after i wrote argument or went they did replied they talk about other subjects. And for the unsourced claims i actually step back ( even tho he is a candidate master) because i couldn't prove it whit reliable sources. But like i stated once fide release it on the Internet i will re put it.

Also i would like this to be the last time i half to justifies my self for undoing thing he undid whiteout having a valid reason. It unreasonable to ask me to defend this all the time. Or at the very least ther has to be a way of sanctioning him for falsely reporting me all the time.GSP-Rush (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep claiming that you didn't know there was a consensus because it was right there on your talk page (before you removed it along with the two warnings). And from wp:Removing warnings "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 24 hours for edit warring. GSP-Rush has been persistently re-adding his favorite material after getting a number of warnings to work for consensus, and has been incivil on the article Talk to people who were trying to explain Wikipedia policy. Both parties should avoid using 'STFU' in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Sumbuddi reported by User:2005 (Result: Declined)

User user:Sumbuddi made his fourth removal (all in a few hours) of a Dmoz link that has been on the Online bingo article for many months if not years. His justification is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He was warned after his third revert but then made a fourth revert anyway.

1st revert: [47]
2nd revert: [48]
3rd revert: [49]
4th revert: [50]

Was warned about 3RR: [51]. Likewise also removed a perfectly acceptable Dmoz link that has been there for years here

I pointed the User to WP:EL which states Dmoz links are valid links, in this case especially because it is a high spam subject with hundreds of possible external links. I suggested he go to WP:EL if he had a problem with the Dmoz guidance there, and on my third revert I warned him about 3RR. (I admit since this should be about the least controversial external link in the encyclopedia, and is plainly appropriate, I do not understand this editor's actions.) 2005 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Clearly a dispute, thus please consider dispute resolution guidance for tips on resolving. No clear WP:3RR vio, though if reverts continue without discussion then someone (or both) likely to end up blocked for edit warring generally. NJA (t/c) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Criztu reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Declined)

Permanent modification of a well-sourced article without using reliable sources, or by abusing reliable sources. Modification of the text of sentences based on reliable sources in a way that the new text does not represent the writers' view any more. Ignoring any proposal for cooperation. The details can be found on the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Warned: Note that both of you are in a dispute, thus you should be actively using discussion and if needed consult the dispute resolution guidance. NJA (t/c) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

1st revert: [53]
2nd revert: [54]
3rd revert: [55]
4th revert: [56]
5th revert: [57]
6th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [60], [61]

Comments:

This is not a result of edit warring as I just explained on User talk:Daedalus969 and ANI.

I copied the article to prevent User:Ryulong from changing = symbols to + symbols. My copy does not have the unnecessary quote marks around the ref names. User Ryulong now agreed that we can work on the article without using the quote marks and reset the article to that state. diff For some strange reason user Daedalus969 has added them back in and is playing strange games in an effort to prevent me from adding more footnotes to the article. [62] These changes make absolutely no difference to the displayed article. Racepacket (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He never agreed to anything. He self-reverted out of frustration. That isn't agreeing.

However, content is irrelevant. You edit warred, and that is all that matters.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the attempts where Daedalus969 tried to resolve this dispute? You are using Rylong's harassing messages as evidence that *you* tried to work this out. Ryulong and I have worked this out. We are not even trying to alter any visible content. I am just trying to add content without having to check each time that Ryulong has not snuck in and replaced a = with a +. I have not reverted anything, I am adding footnotes. Why are you trying to engineer an edit war when none exists? I don't see what changes you are trying to make and I don't want to take the time to make sure that you haven't accidentally picked up some of Ryulong's stray + symbols. If you can't guarantee the integrity of the edits that you are making, please don't make them. Please explain why you are making the changes that you are making, because I don't understand your WP:POINT. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that I tried to solve anything. The text I have presented has not said such. It simply provided a link to a diff that attempts were made to solve the dispute. Lastly, there is no point that I am making. You edit warred. If you don't like our rules here, go somewhere else.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus, I don't think that adding new, undisputed footnotes is edit warring. Assuming that I edit warred, would it not follow that you and Ryulong edit warred as well since you are adding in the invisible quote marks to make the article imperceptively different from the version that I was working from? I don't want to edit war and respect the rules. If I understood what change you were trying to make to the article, I would be sure that it remained undisturbed. As far as I can see, I am accused of reverting a change that does not exist, while you deleted and immediately added back in the footnote in question just to make a WP:POINT. It is 4:30 a.m,, why have you wasted another hour of both of our lives on top of the two hours that User:Ryulong wasted with his silly, invisible quotation marks? Racepacket (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can think that all you want, doesn't make it true. You reverted, he reverted. You both edit warred. If he gets blocked as well, oh well, but you still edit warred.

Secondly, you do not know my motivations for reverting or adding in any edit, so don't you dare accuse me of disrupting to make a point. You reverted, and edited, at the same time. I reverted your revert, and added back in the edit. Talk about a WP:AGF violation.

If it is so late, then go to bed. Look at it this way. If you are in the right, you won't be blocked.

Lastly, I have wasted no-ones time. It is your fault that you didn't take it to the talk page, and chose to edit war instead of discuss. Learn to take some responsibility for your actions. I am doing nothing to prevent you from going to bed.

And stop it with the personal attacks of disrupting to make a point.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the record is clear: Here are Daedalus' diffs (which could be viewed as edit warring for edit warring sake ~~although they lacked any visable effect on the article~~):

Here is Ryulong's diffs:

This is the first time in history where a person (Daedalus) deliberately started an edit war over invisible content with someone who was not aware that he was changing that person's invisible content just to make a WP:POINT and to bring the artificial edit war here, instead of working it out on the talk page (which I am willing to do.) Racepacket (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. H. Christ. Would you stop bringing up the =/+ shit? You keep acting as if I meant to fuck up the page. Also the first two diffs you link to are identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. I fixed the second diff. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I think that Daedalus has the chronology mixed up. I made the 3:32 edit without realizing that Daedalus had made the 3:23 edit. He then left a warning message on my talk page at 3:43 and I responded on his talk page at 3:53. By then he had already filed this complaint at 3:47. So, Daedalus' claim that I should have worked it out on his talk page does not match the chronology. This is like the old Jimmy Stewart movie about Harvey the invisible rabbit. I am being accused of edit warring over changes that nobody, including me, can see. Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds justone back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was suggested that I take a look at this thread by an admin who knows I've got a particular opinion on the formatting of references. To help clarify the issue of quotes and such, I think it would be easier for me to simply re-post a comment that I left on a fellow editor's talk page:
You are absolutely correct when you say quotation marks are not required on the value of attributes in HTML, unless the values have spaces in them; however, being a web designer, I have noted that the MediaWiki software employed by Wikipedia tries valiantly to be written in the "transitional" flavor of XHTML 1.0, rather than HTML. Being fanatical about web standards, I am aware that true XHTML 1.0 Transitional must adhere to the standards of XML well-formedness so that it can be easily scraped by an XML parser. This happens with various applications that "read" Wikipedia and reuse the data, but when such applications encounter documents that aren't well-formed they either fail completely, or have to employ various algorithms to handle the tag soup. In this particular case, one of the rules of well-formedness is that the values of all attributes must be quoted. The space before the element-closing forward slash is not required, but it is put there to assist somewhat older web browsers that have compatibility issues. Now it can be argued that most of Wikipedia ignores these rules (largely because 99.9% of editors will be unfamiliar with the concept of well-formed XHTML), but I like to think the little universe that is my Watchlist can be a shining beacon of perfection!

I hope you have found this perspective useful and interesting. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective. However, we are not discussing anything that will be sent to the users as HTML or XHTML. MediaWiki delivers XHTML code as output, not as input. The cite extension parses the content of the <ref> tag in the course of generating the article page. See: Cite extension documentation, the arbitrary names given to particular references, with or without quotes, never sees the light of day nor affects the user experience. I am sure that Ryulong could find a million different ways of making invisible edits to a page (for example adding |foo=bar to templates that don't have a foo parameter), but why encourage useless, harrassing behavior? Racepacket (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od)RP, do not refactor my posts. I have reverted your refactoring. If you feel like explaining your edits, do so in the comments section here, not in the report above.

However, there is no good reason to edit war. You were edit warring, and that is against the rules. The next time you disagree, take it to the talk page instead of reverting. Although you were editing in your reverts, your reverts were still reverts, and you were still edit warring.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the content is not at what is at issue here. It is the fact you were edit warring, and you were most certainly edit warring. In fact, you are still edit warring, and as such, I have added another diff.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you delete the footnote? Racepacket (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was clearly a mistake on his part Racepacket. He did not see that there was the <ref name=jfwp/> and I did not realize it was there either. That's why I removed the name="jfwp" from the reference. You should stop assuming bad faith of everyone around you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus has asked that I list the five alleged "reverts" separately, which in fact were five different substantive additions to the article:

1st revert: [63] (added publishers and changed + to =)
2nd revert: [64] (added sentence and footnote about $15 million grant)
3rd revert: [65] (corrected class size and added footnote)
4th revert: [66] (added footnote on year of founding law school)
5th revert: [67] (added two footnotes about Pearson becoming President}

The reason I made these changes to the article was to improve the article so as to address the GA review. The 5 diffs were not made with the intention of reverting article contents added by other users. However, in the course of making these changes, I did write over invisible changes made by Ryulong, for which I apologize. I still do not know why Daedalus969 deleted the second footnote and am willing to discuss it on the merits with him. I now accept Ryulong's statement that he did not deliberately change work=New York Times to work+New York Times, but believe he should take responsibility for his edits. I no longer see the need to work off a separate copy of the article. I had thought that the entire matter had been resolved before Daedalus969 made his three edits and do not understand what visible changes he is trying to achieve with his three edits. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat something that I have already quite clearly told you. If you are unwilling to read my reply, I am not going to do it for you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As to my three edits, they are an uninvolved user reverting the article back the the original version. I frankly don't care if there is no change in the html.

As I have been saying over, and over, and over again, and please, read it this time:

The content of the edits is not up for question here, Racepacket. What is up for question is if you had, or had not, been edit warring, and you are quite clearly edit warring.

It does not matter if you edited content within your reverts. You are still reverting the article contents to your preferred version, and that, sir, is called edit warring. There is nothing more to say.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket: could you just no longer use the separate copy, and just add content as everyone else does? It should not matter if once you are done, I add the quotation marks in the name parameter as the days go on. Neither Daedalus969 or myself meant to cause any harm to the page, and no harm was done except to the level of discussion we have had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are arguing. You are saying that if someone leaves an invisible fingerprint in an article and then other editors make substantive edits, that those editors are "edit warring?' The flaw in the argument is that nobody can see the invisible fingerprint so there is no intent to revert. I can explain each of my edits. In contrast, User:Daedalus969 and User:Ryulong have no explanation for their edits other than to be vexatious. User:Daedalus has still not explained why he deleted the footnote or made any of his three edits. Absent some explanation, it would appear that he was trying to stir the pot and to engage in imperceptible conduct that he would define as "edit warring." I would say that changes have to be visible to be subject to the 3RR. Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was "edit warring" because you kept replacing the page wholesale with the version you have saved on your computer instead of modifying what was in the version on the website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that Ryulong no longer insists on his formatting style. This should make it unnecessary for Racepacket to keep restoring the copy of the article from his own computer. I hope that Racepacket will respond to the suggestions from Ryulong, which sound reasonable to me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated yesterday that I would not use the separate copy of the UM article. The problem currently here is Daedalus deletion of the footnote, his reverting Ryulong, then reverting me, and then adding back only one of the two footnotes without the quote marks into the version that had the quote marks. (Three reverts without any articulated purpose or explanation.) I have restored the footnote deleted by Daedalus because he has not explained why he feels it should be deleted, but I will give his reasons every consideration if he objects to its restoration. I don't understand why Daedalus deleted it, nor do I understand Daedalus' reasoning that invisible changes should count toward 3RR. If invisible changes count, then Daedalus three changes would violate 3RR as well. Racepacket (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are all there now. Just end this and don't keep referring to an offline version if I make these "invisible changes", as you keep referring to them, in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page, Daedalus969 has agreed he will stay off the article for a week. I hope that Racepacket and Ryulong will now be able to see ways in which they can coordinate their changes more effectively. (Neither party can blame Daedalus for any further delays). EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rav chandni reported by User:jmh649 (Result: Warned)

Text added: [68] 1st: [69] 2nd: [70] 3rd: [71]

Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Warned. It seems he did not continue to revert past 12 noon UTC on 8 February. That time is just after he got the warnings. If he starts reverting again, he will qualify for an immediate block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: 48h)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

1st revert: [73]
2nd revert: [74]
3rd revert: [75]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

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

Hi, I hope I've done this right. I've listed 3 reverts counting the fourth as the original addition of material. The user has removed references and contradicted the original statement. The counter reversions were made by 3 different editors (including me), 2 of which had edit summaries requesting discussion on the talk page. No discussion was forthcoming however when I warned on their talk page they refered me to a debate on Chilean people: and ethnic composition: What a pathetic joke. There are also existing warnings on the users talk page regarding the article Chile. Does this warrant action?
Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 48 hours for edit warring. Al-Andalus seems to be a man on a mission. He has been adding his distinctive viewpoint on racial matters to various articles on South American topics. More than once he has used the edit summary ''Standarizing articles throughout Wikipedia that touch on Chile's ancestral & ethnic sturcture, to remove littany of misrepresentation of sources & outright fabrications of a white "majority" in Chile." It is not up to him to standardize these articles to his personal viewpoint if he can find nobody else to support him. His talk page is full of warnings and I don't see that he got consensus anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over Michael Cherney (Result: No action)

Hi all, this isn't a report as such, but over at Michael Cherney, a user has twice removed a link to the Interpol website with a listing of the guy as 'wanted' for money laundering, saying that the article is being 'vandalized by Cherney's political enemies' (e.g. [77] and [78]). In addition, the level 3 header 'Wanted for money laundering and organized crime' has been replaced by 'Harassed by political enemies with false charges of money laundering and organized crime'. I just wanted to confirm that reverting this removal of content is the right thing to do! Arctic Night 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit war or 3RR issue, though it does seem to be a possible conflict of interest. Consider a post at WP:COIN if discussion with the user isn't helpful. NJA (t/c) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have posted here that everything has been resolved. I wanted to confirm that by reverting the removal of the Interpol bit three times I wouldn't be falling foul of the three-revert rule, and considered this to be the most appropriate place. I know that the 3RR page has an exception to do with reverting vandalism, so just wanted to clear all that up. Anyway, I managed to settle for an appropriate compromise. Arctic Night 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reality Maker reported by User:Guettarda (Result:72 hr )

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

1st revert: 14:23, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
2nd revert: 16:28, 8 February 2010 (Same content on "imminent cancellation, but with the addition of refs)
3rd revert: 16:42, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
4th revert: 16:49, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
5th revert: 17:00, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo; done after being warned that s/he was over the 3rr)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79] (prior block for edit-warring, over a year ago)

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

Comments:

While Soxwon is also involved in this edit war, there are real BLP concerns here, and his removal of these additions seems appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:85.210.180.155 reported by User talk:86.193.84.62 (Result: 31h)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Tammet&action=edit&oldid=342683907

Previous version reverted to: [80]

1st revert: [81]
2nd revert: [82]
3rd revert: [83]
4th revert: [84]

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

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

Comments:

86.193.84.62 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 31 hours. Adding unsourced controversial information to a BLP article is against our policy. In this case, the editor is adding what he claims is the subject's birth name. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

athenean reported by sulmues (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

1st revert: [88]
2nd revert: [89]
3rd revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring : [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit-warring. He has NOT broken the 3rr rule, but his behavior of deleting 72 valid references is very much uncalled for. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far I see User:Athenean, did not removed a single letter from the main text. Actually the insertion of 72 sources, in a part that's already sourced, in such a disturbing way, has absolutely nothing to add in the article and is completely superfluous [[93]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify user:alexikoua: I am reporting user:athenean for deleting references, not for editing on the main text. The edit that you brought is my revert to bring back the references that had been taken out from user:Athenean. Those references had been there for a long time (and had not been brought by me, but by a plethora of other contributors through time), however when I rearranged them, Athenean deleted them first in the 3rd of february and then twice today. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous, blatant bad-faith report. What Sulmues claims is my first "revert" [94] is not in fact a revert, because I did not revert to the version he is claiming I did [95], as that his HIS version. So I only have two reverts in the entire history of the article. This is a highly aggressive Albanian nationalist user who has been topic banned from Kosovo for six months and is on 3 month civility supervision [96] for extreme aggression [97]. Rather than scream insults this time, he is gaming the system by filing this bad faith report to get back at me, even though we have asked for a third opinion and are discussing things on the talkpage. His filing of a blatantly bad-faith report where he lies about the number of reverts I have made is WP:HARASSMENT and a breach of his revert parole. Athenean (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was me calling for the Third Opinion, and not you, but you wouldn't stop from deleting references. Calling me a "liar", mentioning three times that my report is "bad-faithed", throwing accusations, and describing my "bad" character for which you have already reported me and for which I already have been blocked several times, won't help your cause with an impartial admin. As for the reverts, they speak for themselves, I don't need to explain them again: there is no sophism that will make an admin believe that you did not delete the references three times. Those references are coming from three centuries of scholars that have strongly argued that the Albanian language descends from the Illyrian language, and this was started by a polymath, like Gottfried Leibnitz. Saying that we don't need these references and consistently deleting them makes Wikipedia a poorer place. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including *73* refs to prove a single, disputed theory is an attempt to manipulate and deceive our readers. It is the very definition of WP:TEND and WP:UNDUE. I stand by my replacement (not removal) of those 73 sources (incl. some from 1705) by a single high-caliber source. And contrary to what you might like to think, my first replacement of the sources, which occured on Feb.3, was NOT a revert. But you've been editing this encyclopedia long enough to know that already, don't you? So you are just filing this report in bad faith, to get back at me, which is a blockable breach of your revert parole. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include the references, they were already there, hence I did not make any attempt to manipulate or deceive, so please don't accuse improperly. However even if I had included the references, the theory that the Albanian language stems from the Illyrian language has extremely strong supporters, so I wouldn't have been manipulating anybody. If anything, more content should be added to this article (or an entire subarticle Origin of the Albanian Language) from those references, but not delete them! People have made considerable research to bring them to Wikipeida: deleting is way too easy, persisting in deleting is worse. Furthermore I will recall that we are talking about Leibniz, Thunman, Kopitar, Hahn, Bopp, Camarda, Miklosich, Meyer, Pedersen, Kretschmer, Thumb, Sandfeld, Cimochowski, Lambertz, Gjinari, Mayer, Tagliavini, Mihaescu, Mihaescu, Mann, Çabej, Desnickaja, Pisani, Ajeti, Ölberg, Domi, Katicic, Riza, De Simone, Banfi, Huld, Buchholz, Pellegrini, Demiraj (in other words all firsthand linguists and scholars still appearing in my last not reverted version [98], but which you deleted and left but Kretschmer). The references had been there for a long time and I didn't include anything: I just rearranged the references. You saw my work and you went ahead in removing the references for the first time on the 3rd february. I reported the matter at user:moreschi ([99]) and ioeth ([100]). Then you removed the references twice more on the 8th of february. Now I am in civility supervision and I take that very seriously. I also notify people in my talk page about it (see my talk page in signature), but that doesn't mean that you may throw empty accusations at me. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi and Ioeth both completely ignored your post (maybe because I'm right?). That should have told you something, and you should have taken the hint. But no, you had to re-add all 73 of those sources, and in fact you made the first revert (and you also have two reverts). Now go read WP:UNDUE and stop this circus. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ioeth has been idle (ioeth's contributions), whereas Moreschi has had very few edits (Moreschi's contributions), but he has had some time to make this edit ([101]) where he warns you to remember WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. He was trying to give his vote to delete Albanian Pederasty in which you were so egregiously involved with your edits ([102] and [103]) so that the article be kept (and by the way, Alexikoua above as well was working on that article to improve it and to keep it (see [104], [105], [106], [107], and [108]: unfortunately I cannot show his efforts in improving the article while it was in AfD, because helas! it's deleted now). An edit warring noticeboard is not a circus, and you should take it very seriously. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing, deliberate mis-characterisation of everything I do (calling a "keep" vote in an unrelated AfD "egregious involvement", as if I don't have the right to cast vote) is blatant assumption of bad faith, which is clear-cut violation of your civility parole. You have really crossed the line into WP:HARASSMENT. One more false accusation, assumption of bad faith or anything similar, and I will file a report at WP:AE. This is your final warning. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to report me at any time. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As User:athenean doesn't want to discuss with me any further in his talk page ([109]) I will have to respond here to his accusation that I do not understand Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. I actually understand it very well. It says:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

In this sense the prominence of the Illyrian theory is preponderant, so prominence should be given to it through representation of the scholarly work.

The policy continues:

In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

As opposed to the Illyrian theory, the Dacian/Thracian theories are minor (there are 2-3 scholars as opposed to 50 of the Illyrian theory), hence they should not be included at all. But right now ([110]) the article reads:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanian as the descendant of Illyrian[10], though of late this hypothesis has been seriously challenged by linguists, who maintain that it derives from Dacian or Thracian.[11] (Illyrian, Dacian, and Thracian, however, may have formed a subgroup or a sprachbund; see Thraco-Illyrian.)

(Copying from what I wrote in Athenean's talk page):This sentence, while seemingly neutral, just gives the reader the idea that Albanian descends from Dacian or Thracian (not from Illyrian), because one ore two scholars have argued so recently, throwing away all the 3 century work that considered Albanian to stem from Illyrian. We just have to be patient to see if more scholars will bring down the arguments of the Dacian/Thracian origin, because the dead linguists can't do so any longer. Leaving one reference per argument simply leaves the doubt that the most recent scholar work should be the winning one, while that might not be the case at all. If someone wants to learn from Wikipedia, it is better to not leave the words of the editors talk, but mostly those of the references and scholars. That is why we write in the English Wikipedia, to bring together the worlds' knowledge. If I were to open an Albanian Encyclopedia, chances are it will be different from the English Encyclopedia and also from the Greek one. In the English wikipedia we need to take into account as much information possible, because every editor can make a change at any time, but important work in analyzing descendance from 50 scholars in 300 years still needs to be seen although some editors wanted to get rid of them at a certain point. Deleting the references makes wikipedia a less serious encyclopedia.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - This is a content dispute. Please try to get consensus as to which references should stay in the article. Consider opening an WP:RFC or using WP:3O to get more opinions. Both parties seem rather excitable. The one who is more excitable should try to stay calm and measured so that his topic ban doesn't get widened to include all Balkan articles. Albanian language is in the scope of Arbcom cases regarding Eastern Europe, and admins can impose discretionary sanctions if they perceive that editors are unwilling to work cooperatively with others. EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiamut and User:Harlan wilkerson (Result: No action)

These two users are acting like a "tag team" reverting legitimate edits, most particularly on the article State of Palestine. Harlan Wilkerson edits almost only articles related to Palestinian issues. For long time he "hijacked" the above-mentioned article and prevented any edit that wasn't acceptable on him. After long discussions on the article's talk page, he had to accept major changes to the article, but keep trying to revert them by deleting paragraphs or reintroducing POVized material. When he is at risk of breaking the 3R rule, Tiamut does the revert work for him. The two of them cooperate extensively in introducing POVized material into articles related to Palestinian issues. DrorK (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage admins to investigate this complaint further, though I reject the allegation of tag-teaming and believe a review of the edits will show this to be simply false. Please note that Drork has reverted to restore the same material 3 times in the last 24 hours:

21:55, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "illegitimate edits - if you want to add information, add relevant facts, and do not erase paragraphs")
22:36, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "Illegitimate revert by the Harlan-Tiamut tag team")
22:41, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "")

DrorK has already been warned about edit-warring at State of Palestine. Just two weeks ago, he broke 3RR at that article by making 5 reverts (listed in the talk page section here). Tiamut^talk 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that Drork is the subject a report that was recently closed with the page being protected above [111]. Tiamut^talk 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I did is protecting legitimate edits made by me and other users, and explained in details. If you look further into the history of the article you will see that Tiamut and Harlan piratically hijacked the article, preventing any edit that doesn't comply with their political opinions. Being well-aware of the 3R rule, they reverted legitimate edits alternatively. I wouldn't rule out a possibility that Harlan is in fact Tiamut sockpoppet considering the pattern of their edits. Unfortunately I don't have "tag-team partner" nor do I create sockpuppet, and I have to counter such conduct myself. DrorK (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning Tiamut was referring to had been addressed to him too. The fact that he knows more tricks to bypass

editing policies cannot be held against me. The "ignore all rules" principle refers exactly to these cases, when misconduct should be prevented even at the expense of breaking such rules as the 3R. DrorK (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLAXICO seems to apply here. The article has been the subject of a slow-moving edit war for the past few days, and it seems to have reached a boiling point today. Drork seems not to have learned anything from yesterday's incident, and I would block her/him but for the fact that Drork already has begun to complain about me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you not to pass judgment on this case and let another admin treat it. You supported Tiamut in the past, and I criticized you for making poor judgment. You are not impartial. DrorK (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I just wrote that I'm not taking action because of your complaints. What more do you want from me? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. DrorK (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I'm unsure blocks would be the best thing, rather discussion or use of WP:DR should discussion fail. There are also numerous noticeboards to ask for help listed in the dispute resolution guidance. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want to revisit that decision? Drork just made his 4th revert [112] of the same material in 24 hours. He also posted this lovely message of talk, accusing the three editors opposing his edits of a "group effort to hijack the article". [113] So much for dispute resolution. Tiamut^talk 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the subjects of this request, but Drork didn't notify me about it. The only edit I made to the article yesterday was to restore well-sourced material that Drork had deleted without explanation. He complains that I won't let anyone add material saying that the State of Palestine does not exist, but he has deleted a Ban Ki Moon quote to that effect that I added on two separate occasions (including yesterday).[114][115]

He has posted complaints at the Original Research Noticeboard [116], but was advised my edits are well sourced. He posted a complaint at the Editor Assistance Noticeboard [117], but I have not created a synthesis of published material that advances a position. I am citing and quoting the published analysis of John Quigley, Marjorie Whiteman, and the General Editors of the State Department FRUS series. That analysis is supported by many other verifiable secondary sources. harlan (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasepl reported by User:Dimitree (Result: Declined)

Page: BMI destinations

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

Previous version reverted to: [118]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123] and [124].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments: May I ask all your attention once again to this Jasepl: he launches editorial wars at every page related to almost each aircompany destinations list. Recently, it was Aeroflot and British Airways destinations, now I found it is BMI destinations. We have to stop him somehow from reverting without any reasons or valid sources. In case, no measures are apllied, I'm going to take this question to Arbitration. Thank you! --Dimitree (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined As noted in red at the top of this board, please only report recent edit wars here. Further, even if today were 19 Jan, the edit history doesn't demonstrate massive disruption to warrant a block. If discussion is failing, consider the guidance at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jt14905 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 31h)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

23:45, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2009 Chicago Tea Party */ TVNewser not WP:RS")
00:05, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342810335 by Gamaliel (talk)")
00:13, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342812557 by Off2riorob (talk) I agree with substantially everything that was said on talk in favor of omitting")
00:27, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342815478 by Gamaliel (talk) See talk")
00:35, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342816904 by Off2riorob (talk) No. It's not a reliable source, sorry.")
00:41, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342817635 by ThinkEnemies (talk)")

Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jt14905&oldid=342814074

User also engaging in attacks on the talk page. —Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for first clear violation of 3RR. Personal attacks and other edits marked as contentious were not taken into consideration, thus another admin may wish to assess. NJA (t/c) 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thedarxide reported by User:Snek01 (Result: )

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

1st revert: [126]
2nd revert: [127]
3rd revert: [128]
4th revert: [129]
[130]

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

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

Comments:

User:Snek01 thinks that using non-breaking space is against Wikipedia:Footnotes
User:Stemonitis and User:Thedarxide ~~(which may be sockpuppets)~~ thinks that using non-breaking space before ref is all right.

--Snek01 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Racepacket (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

1st revert: [132] 03:23, 8 February 2010
2nd revert: [133] 03:36, 8 February 2010
3rd revert: [134] 03:37, 8 February 2010
4th revert: [135] 17:21, 8 February 2010

The sentences involved reads: One of Ashe's longtime assistants, Jay F. W. Pearson, assumed the presidency in 1952.[19] A charter faculty member and a marine biologist by trade,[19] Pearson ushered in a decade of growth for UM.

User:Daedalus969 has deleted the first footnote 19 once and the second footnote 19 repeatedly and refuses to explain why he wants that footnote deleted despite repeated questioning. talk page diff, talk page diff, talk page diff, talk page diff, [136].

User:Daedalus969 has not edited the University of Miami page in the past six months. However, he acknowledges that he is a regular follower of WP:ANI and read about a controversy over whether quotation marks should be used in <ref> tags. Such quotation marks are optional and do not affect the contents of articles at all. There is also a dispute over whether one carriage return or two should be used following the end of the infobox template, which again, has absolutely no affect on the finished appearance of the article layout. If such annoying trivia is not bad enough, another editor made mistakes in pursuing his goal of wikimarkup perfection by changing a = symbol in a template to a + symbol. Perhaps in violation of WP:POINT, User:Daedalus969 decided to join in this nonsense by deleting the two footnotes in the above quoted sentence and then adding just the first one back (without the optional quotes in the <ref> tag). He did not add in the second quote back. The other editor then deleted the name from the <ref> tag. Hearing no explanation for why the second footnote was deleted, I added it back in, and he deleted it again. He refuses to respond to questions about his substantive concerns, but the other editor claims he doesn't realize he is deleting the footnote. However, he should take responsibility for the visible effects of his edits, whether he intends them or not, because they are causing confusion and extra work for others. Racepacket (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link][reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on this page: [137], [138], [139]

Comments:
If I thought that User:Daedalus969 was trying to improve the substance of the article, I would not raise this, but it becomes apparent that he is just doing this to be disruptive and vexatious. Racepacket (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Warned. Daedalus969 has already agreed to my request to stay off the article for a week, and has not edited the article since. Since he has made no reverts in the past 20 hours I'm not clear on how he is keeping you from getting your work done on the article. Your harsh criticism of other users is unlikely to win much sympathy for your position. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a fabrication. Ed, I cannot believe that you would think that I was edit warring. I never breached 3rr. Did you actually bother to read the diffs? 1, 2, and 4 are reverts, while 3 is re-adding a footnote I accidently removed. RP has also lied about my responses, as I told him several times, it was a freaking accident. I never meant to remove any refs, and I told him it was his fault for wholesale reverting RL's changes while editing at the same time, and to stop calling it a point violation, which is a personal attack. I am not disrupting to make a point of any kind. I made a mistake and I fixed it. How on earth is that edit warring?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Warned for edit warring' would have been better. I now agree you only made three reverts. The simplest course would have been blocks for at least two participants, but sometimes diplomacy is needed. Racepacket's new filing here certainly shows chutzpah, and I wonder why he identifies you as the person who is being 'disruptive and vexatious'. I wish we could charge for unnecessary usage of noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [140] revert of this

1st revert: [141]
2nd revert: [142]
3rd revert: [143]
4th revert: [144]
5th revert: [145]
6th revert: [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just warned the other day on another article, just brought two other users here above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Too many to list, see here and the rest of the talk page

Comments:
Drork has been edit-warring on a number of pages within the I/P area, so I do not know if this or AE would be the right place to deal with it. On this article he is edit-warring against 3 users failing to address the issues with his edits. He is simply removing cited information and replacing it with his own ideas. And in his last edit summary he says he will keep reverting over and over. nableezy - 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Nableezy would explain why he reverted legitimate edits to the article, and what kind of relations he has with Tiamut and Harlan? It is very convenient to bypass the 3R rule by forming a three-men coalition and make the illegitimate reverts in turns. It is also convenient to "hijack" an article like this and complain about users who try to make much-needed changes. I asked for opinion about this article here. This is the advice I've got: "A good principle in controversial areas is to keep the number of articles small and the articles brief and to the point. That way there is more of a chance of sensible discussion". How am I suppose to do that when three people hijack the article? DrorK (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overly emotional and ludicrous hyperbole aside, you do it by pursuing the processes laid out in WP:DR. And there has been no "hijacking" of anything. Only you trying to force in your favored views, often without sources or by making wild leaps the sources you do bring do not make, through edit-warring. Since you have returned to Wikipedia you have done almost nothing but edit-war at 3 or 4 articles. nableezy - 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Drork has now reverted for a fifth time while he is here for edit-warring. Can an admin finally block this user? nableezy - 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy actually acts here on behalf of Tiamut User talk:Nableezy#About State of Palestine. Why does Tiamut need a lawyer? What you are doing here is very dishonest and even cynical. You three are acting like Grifers DrorK (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, simply put, a lie. I act on my own behalf. It is in my behalf that I request you be blocked for continuing to attempt to force in your own viewpoints, largely unsupported by the sources, into a number of articles. It is on my behalf that I ask that other users not have to deal with you accusing them of being in PR for the PLO. It is on my behalf that I filed this report, and to say otherwise is a lie. Please dont lie. nableezy - 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a 6th revert, two of which were made after being reported here. Drork has now reverted 4 different users a 6 times in the last day. Does WP:EW or WP:ARBPIA mean anything at all? nableezy - 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, why did Tiamut ask you to file this complaint? Was it just coincidental? Why are you constantly objecting my edits, which were explained in details in the talk page? Is it because they are not compatible with your political views? And by the way, weren't you previously blocked for similar actions? DrorK (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did not ask me to file this complaint. I object to your edits because you push an extreme minority viewpoint, usually unsupported by sources, into a number of articles. And yes, I have been blocked for edit-warring, which is why I am here instead of re-reverting you. nableezy - 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say she didn't ask you to file a complaint, do you mean this, where she asks "someone" to revert and file a 3RR report, and guess who does both? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? She did not ask me to file a complaint, I saw Drork had continued edit-warring and I filed one myself. Tiamut is capable of filing her own reports, as am I. But what exactly is your point? Do you have something to say about the now 6 reversions of 4 users Drork has made in the past day? Or have you come to do what you do best, distract from the issue and make this about something that it is not? nableezy - 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my point below. The admin who reviews this complaint should have a look at the behavior of the other editors involved, not only Drork. I assume you're OK with that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am. If an admin looks they will see that I stopped at 2 reverts just to avoid an edit-war with a user that apparently will never stop reverting. nableezy - 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrorK, for lack of a more measured response, be quiet. Your accusations are not helping your case. You violated 3RR, egregiously, WHILE YOU WERE HERE FOR DOING IT. That's edit warring even if Nableezy is PAYING other editors to shill (which I highly doubt is the case). --King Öomie 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And by the way, weren't you previously blocked for similar actions?"

Similar to your actions. --King Öomie 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Drork should stop reverting at this point (or probably a little before this point), I hope the admin that takes care of this complaint looks into the actions of the other editors Drork is edit waring with, including User:RomaC who just reverted him despite never having edited the article before. This is not a tag team. It's a gang bang. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what Drork did after that? nableezy - 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already addressed and made clear the issue of Drork's reverts. You conveniently ignore the issue NMMNG has brought up about the edit-warring that your team is doing and try to refocus the attention back to Drork. Do you really think this last comment of yours will sway an admin looking at this case? I'd like to give you more credit than that. Breein1007 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the hopes of getting the point across, I am going to type very slowly. There is no "team", there are a number of users who take issue with Drork's original research and various unfounded views. Those editors have reverted Drork. Instead of seeking a consensus to make his proposed changes Drork instead tries to force the edit in. I stopped at 2 reverts and came here. Drork has continued. This board serves one purpose, to report edit-warring, including violations of the 3RR. If you would like to discuss something else, do it somewhere else. I dont think I need to "sway" an admin, I just need one to pay attention. Drork has reverted 6 times in the last 24 hours, 3 times after being warned, 2 times after being brought here. He has written that he will continue to revert with impunity. He should be blocked so that he may not continue doing so. nableezy - 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a team here. I encourage any admin who decides to look into this mess to look at the reverting that has been going on over last few weeks. This is not to say Drork hasn't been edit waring, but as is often noted on this board, it takes two to tango. Only in this case a few others have been cutting in to avoid breaking the letter (but not the spirit) of 3RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, four editors found Drork's changes to be unsatisfactory. Each time an editor rejected his changes, Drork reverted to restore his preferred version. He is clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS. There is no conspiracy here. Tiamut^talk 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nab. Though we've had our differences, you and I have gotten along relatively well in the past. Having said that, I must take issue with your attempts to have sanctions imposed on User:Drork. For one thing, you know what it means to be on the receiving end of the sanction stick. You should therefore be a bit more mindful before having others sanctioned. Second, I actually empathize with Drork's frustrations. Having 3 editors with similar POVs teaming up is an excellent way to circumvent 3R but is equally, if not more egregious. My apologies if this is not the case but on the face of it, it sure looks like it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case. Drork introduced several errors in his reverts, among them replacing "officially" with "in some contexts" when referencing the official name of the state, also repeatedly writing that the UN "did not recognize" Palestine when a. no source says that, and b. the UN does no "recognize" states. He refuses to accept that his opinion on the existence of a Palestinian state is meaningless on Wikipedia and instead demands that his own views be placed ahead of articles by respected academics published in peer-reviewed journals. Drork has revert 4 different users 6 times. The only reason why it is not 7 times is because nobody feels like re-reverting just to see Drork revert once more. nableezy - 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Drork has clearly gone over 3RR, and even if, for the sake of argument, his opponents constitute a tag team, nobody is forcing him to violate our usual limit on reverts. He is the one who decides that. Any complaint about tag-teaming should be raised at WP:AE. Drork and No More Mr Nice Guy are free to pursue the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if they don't like the state of the article which the majority of editors have chosen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why that was directed at me. I did not participate in this edit war. Too bad the others who did got away scot-free though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sanam001 reported by Axxn (talk) (Result: Warned for now)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

1st revert: 15:58, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Editing to maintain social and anthropological accuracy")
2nd revert: 16:05, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "adding link")
3rd revert: 16:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Refer discussion section - correcting primary discription")
4th revert: 16:50, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Comprehensive aefinition of nayars-kindly refer discussion")
5th revert: 17:37, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Definition inadequate- refer discussion")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Comments: Attempted to resolve the dispute on talk page, but user not co-operating and reverting instead. Axxn (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note In reality, the reporter has violated 3RR, with the reportee one revert away. I've warned the reporter here, and gave the reportee the standard 3RR warning. NJA (t/c) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

128.214.205.4 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [148] is the original version and [149] is the version that this IP keeps changing to.

1st revert: [150]
2nd revert: [151]
3rd revert: [152]
4th revert: [153]
5th revert: [154]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

Comments:

Under the nationality of people from Great Britain page, the rules state that there is no definitive method of using flags. However, one rule generally is to not change it without good reason and also to leave perfectly good versions alone if there's no need for change. This IP, I believe, is in violation of that.

I have tried to explain why a ENG flagicon is perfectly sufficient and this has been constantly reverted by the IP. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:190.10.63.69 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Repeated re-addition of redlinked "see also" entry, despite warnings. Continued beyond 3RR warning on user's talk page.

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

20:14, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
20:26, 8 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
03:03, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
15:44, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
16:07, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
16:23, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
16:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")
21:36, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Commercial CDNs */")

Diff of warning: 17:31, 9 February 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48h EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ExitW3Must reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

23:16, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342854844 by Ronz (talk) Whose consensus?")
23:41, 9 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343035824 by Off2riorob (talk) I did and it does")
00:09, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343039811 by Off2riorob (talk)")
00:19, 10 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 343045534 by Gamaliel (talk) Eagerly await a valid argument")

Warnings: first warning second warning user deleting both warnings

Almost certainly a sock of User:Jt14905, who was blocked yesterday for 3RR on this article, which is a sock of lord-knows-who. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ExitW3Must reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: )

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

1st revert: [157]
2nd revert: [158]
3rd revert: [159]
4th revert: [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

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

User has failed to move to the talkpage after requests. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User is not bothered, he's on a dynamic IP and he can come here every day and create a new account and be disruptive and waste good editors time and upset people because he can, please consider a rangeblock if possible to stop him being able to edit wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 789: / Line 789: @@
 :I'm not sure why that was directed at me. I did not participate in this edit war. Too bad the others who did got away scot-free though. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-== [[User:Sanam001]] reported by [[User:Anandks007|Axxn]] ([[User talk:Anandks007|talk]]) (Result: ) ==
+== [[User:Sanam001]] reported by [[User:Anandks007|Axxn]] ([[User talk:Anandks007|talk]]) (Result: Warned for now) ==
 *[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
@@ Line 805: / Line 805: @@
 Comments: Attempted to resolve the dispute on talk page, but user not co-operating and reverting instead. [[User:Anandks007|Axxn]] ([[User talk:Anandks007|talk]]) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
+*{{AN3|n}} In reality, the reporter has violated 3RR, with the reportee one revert away. I've warned the reporter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anandks007&diff=343115557&oldid=342962053 here], and gave the reportee the standard 3RR warning. [[User:NJA|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''NJA'''</em>]] <small> [[User talk:NJA|<em style="color:#63D1F4">'''(t/</em>]][[Special:Contributions/NJA|<em style="color:#63D1F4">c)</em>]]'''</small> 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 == [[128.214.205.4]] reported by [[User:Paralympiakos]] (Result: ) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards