Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Reports

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

User:TomCat4680 reported by User:Delicious carbuncle (Result: Both editors warned, article protected 48h)

• Page: Fuel TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: TomCat4680 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

Despite being pointed to appropriate guidelines and asked in edit summaries to discuss the change on the article's talk page, the editor did not attempt to discuss until after the third revert. Additionally, the editor has just incorrectly warned me for 3RR, so I presume there is a personal animus behind this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both editors have been warned, and I could argue that both are at 3RR. A block at the moment would be punitive. Acroterion _(talk) 03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I plainly have not violated 3RR (just look at the article's history to confirm). I have had a series of increasingly unpleasant messages on my talk page from TomCat4680, despite having asked them to stay away. I believe their reverts are because of some personal conflict they perceive with me and a block may help them realise that they need to reconsider their course of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion taken to article talk page and talk pages of respective editors. Acroterion _(talk) 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tycoon24 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24h)

• Page: 2009 Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a standard 3RR report, but a little more complex. User is trying to insert information on this article to highlight the turnout figures for this event given by the media source Pajamas TV. This source has claimed turnout figures way in excess of other more neutral sources. Unfortunately, PJTV is not a neutral source, as it promoted the Tea Party events, even giving instructions on how people could set up their own Tea Party events.

Timeline 17 Apr

• 22:23 Tycoon24 Inserts PJTV info
• 22:30 I revert (over 3 edits, other edits included) explaining why in the edit summary
• 22:42 Tycoon24 reinserts info
• 22:47 I revert, again explaining why - more fully - in the edit summary
• 22:51 I post to his talkpage, explaining the problem - there is a whole thread there which is illuminating
• 23:04 Tycoon24 reinserts the info for a third time
• 23:11 I post to the article talkpage for discussion
• 23:18 I make a compromise edit, leaving in the PJTV estimate, but including a source showing that the company promoted the Tea Party events
• 23:25 Without comment, Tycoon24 removes my addition
• 23:27 I replace the sentence, with an edit summary asking him not to remove sourced information
• 23:46 Tycoon24 removes my sentence again, replacing it with a comment from PJTV itself. This edit comes complete with a totally misleading edit summary as well
• 23:59 I replace the sentence, again asking him not to remove sourced information

18 Apr

• 00:06 Yet another revert with misleading edit summary
• I back away from making any more edits at this point. Other editors start editing the article and the page is eventually semi-protected, but the sentence regarding PJTV is still there, without any reference to the fact that it's not a reliable source. However, Tycoon24 continues to edit-war.
• 03:14 Removes entire sourced paragraph without comment
• 04:41 Removes maintenance tags without fixing the problem
• 04:50 Removes a source to a different tournout estimate without comment
• 12:02 Adds multiple, mostly irrelevant, cleanup tags to a section he disagrees with
• Tycoon24's talkpage has at least two previous edit-warring warning templates as well as other warning templates, so I believe that bringing this here is probably now best.

• Diff of disruption warning: [6]

Black Kite 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda reported by Causteau (Result: 48h and)

• Page: Haplogroup M (mtDNA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: 03:01, 18 April 2009
• 2nd revert: 03:07, 18 April 2009
• 3rd revert: 03:13, 18 April 2009
• 4th revert: 03:15, 18 April 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

The above editor has just violated WP:3RR across two separate articles: Haplogroup M (mtDNA) & Haplogroup N (mtDNA) (on the haplogroup N article: his first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert). He basically just kept knee jerk reverting edits I made to both articles, edits for which I provided a detailed justification here. Judging by the quick time in which he reverted my edits (literally less than five minutes later), the editor never even bothered to read my explanation of said edits much less respond to them. The editor was also recently blocked for violating 3RR (as was I) in a revert war with me over the same articles, but does not seem to have learned anything from the experience since he is back to knee jerk reverting. This appears to be the editor's modus operandi, as his personal page audaciously outlines, among other ploys, the following:

"As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version."

Causteau (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So too has Causteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated the 3rr as per

• History of Haplogroup M
• History of Haplogroup N

Causteau's block log reveals that the User has been blocked twice for edit warring on genetics articles. Once in October 2008 and again in April 2009.

With regards to my so-called strategy, it's simply an excerpt from a famous wikipedia webpage at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war which was deposited on my page by some user diff. I though it was hilarious so I decided to share it with the world on my personal page. There is no evidence that I use any of the information contained, I just have a sense of humor.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no I haven't. You see, I made the first edit to both pages (haplogroup M; haplogroup N), which Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then began reverting. I also only performed three reverts to the haplogroup M article (1, 2, 3). On the haplogroup N article, while I did perform five reverts, my last revert was a self-revert of my next-to-last revert, thereby annulling it. And per both WP:3RR and this noticeboard, self-reverts don't count:

"The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."

User:Wapondaponda, by contrast, also performed a self-revert... only in doing so he was yet again reverting back to the way the page was before I first began editing it i.e. he had just realized that he had reverted my self-revert and was correcting his 'error'. In fact, his edit summary reads "oops"! Causteau (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And despite his claims to the contrary, User:Wapondaponda's personal page is very much in line with the true nature of his edits as this post of mine makes clear. Causteau (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why C doesn't realise he has 4R on the M article. Ah well, this will be a learning experience, as the new-fangled folk say. W clearly has 4R too. And both have form, so can have 48h and WP:1RR restriction on the article William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Causteau doesn't "realize" he has 4RR on the M article because he doesn't. You have unfairly blocked me when all I've made to that page was three reverts (1, 2, 3). That so-called "fourth" revert was me first editing the page, an edit I fully justified beforehand on the article's discussion page. Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then within minutes reverted that very first edit without even so much as bothering to read it, which sparked off the revert war. And I've already explained this to you in some detail on your talk page. Next time, please get your facts straight instead of needlessly blocking people and mischaracterizing their edits. Causteau (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:98.194.123.23 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Already blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 98.194.123.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC, indended blocks were multiple consecutive edits, which are treated as one for the purpose of 3RR.

1. 07:57, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
   • 07:58, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
2. 04:07, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
   • 04:12, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
3. 06:32, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
4. 06:37, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
5. 06:40, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
6. 06:42, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
7. 06:45, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
8. 07:02, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
9. 07:04, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
   • 07:04, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
   • 07:05, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
   • 07:06, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
10. 07:10, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
11. 07:13, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
12. 07:15, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
13. 07:19, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")

Diff of 3RR warning (oops, not previously warned; previous warning was for vandalism, rather than edit warring)

• 07:13, 18 April 2009

Comment:

All adding unsourced claims of GMO and allergies, some within quotes, some not. Even if if the first pair doesn't constitute a revert, this is rediculous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 1 week by User:Mentifisto. Black Kite 10:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 06:00, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by RetroS1mone")
2. 06:34, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
3. 06:38, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
4. 06:42, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
5. 07:08, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
6. 07:12, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
7. 07:14, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
8. 07:16, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")

Diff of 3RR warning:

• 07:34, 18 April 2009 (I see no evidence he's ever been warned for 3RR, either)

Sorry, folks, even though it started after the 4th revert of the anon.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have been reverting an anon who has subsequently been blocked for a week (2009-04-18T09:00:44 Mentifisto (talk | contribs | block) blocked 98.194.123.23 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)) so I'll warn re procedure but don't feel any urge to block William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about all this. I do have some questions on my talk page. I was under the impression that reverting BLP violations (which this wasn't) and vandalism was excepted from the 3rr rule, and thus not considered "edit warring". I counted it as vandalism because of that user's history on the matter. Others also considered it vandalism. BTW, the "result" above needs to be changed (thankfully!). -- BRangifer (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a number of us considered the IP's edits to be "obvious vandalism", which is indeed excepted from the 3rr rule. I took my cue from that, as well as the history, which included numerous warnings for those identical edits being vandalism... ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the "results" in the heading above. Even if it had happened, a week would be overkill considering the good faith attempts to fight vandalism. The context should be considered. We don't want to be treating loyal editors the same way we treat vandals and disrupters. "Justice that is blind to both circumstance and status can have an oppressive effect." [9] -- BRangifer (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I feel constrained to report all nominal violations in articles I edit. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick reported by MusicInTheHouse (Result: 48h)

• Page: Talk:Lambay Island (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Lambay Island|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Catterick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

MusicInTheHouse (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The same user is now involved in edit wars on two other articles and is also vandalising talk pages with obscenities: here (twice within minutes).

Warnings on the users talk page were deleted and the user now claims to have "retired" after this latest flurry

The other articles are

British Isles

• 1st revert [16]
• 2nd revert [17]
• 3rd revert [18] with obscenity in summary
• 4th revert [19]

Republic of Ireland

• 1st revert [20]
• 2nd revert [21]
• 3rd revert [22]

There are other examples earlier, but those are the most recent. In view of the aggression of this author, and the talk page vandalism something more than the normal 24 hours cooling off period is needed. The decision to "retire" may or may not be real --Snowded (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h for the edit-warring and incivility, regardless of the "retired" template. Black Kite 10:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by Laveol (Result: article sanctions)

• Page: Miladinov Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miladinov_Brothers&oldid=283845578

• 1st revert: 11:15, 17 April 2009
• 2nd revert: 20:47, 17 April 2009
• 3rd revert: 07:28, 18 April 2009
• 4th revert: 09:06, 18 April 2009
• 5th revert: 09:45, 18 April 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=284610308&oldid=284500046

Note that the warning was placed now, not previously, but that the user in question is an admin and should be well aware of all the rules around here. I hope that the fact that he's an admin won't spare him. Thanks. --Laveol ^T 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, seems I forgot one revert I did yesterday. The first listed is not a revert (a removal, yes, but not a revert to any earlier state that I'm aware of, the material has been there for ages), but okay, the rest are still four. I'm generally unapologetic when it comes to revert-warring against nationalist obsession (which is what we are dealing with here), because I find there's often no other way of dealing with it, so, do what you have to do. I will remove that passage again at the earliest opportunity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so you intend to continue edit-warring at the earliest possible opportunity? --Laveol ^T 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you start expending your energy on rewriting that passage into something halfway decent (if you can), yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

At least I'm trying. All you've been doing this week was calling me an idion, a banana citizen and so on. I've answered you on the talkpage, but you don't seem willing to communicate with unless it involves some lame personal qualifiers. --Laveol ^T 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Future is again resorting in personal attacks. What "if you can" means if not a reference to the intellectual capability of another editor?--Avg (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read "if you can" as indicating that the passage might be unsalvageable as an encyclopedic section. Black Kite 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. is a repeat offender in attacking Laveol in terms of his ethnicity and encyclopaedic capacity. --Avg (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see one admin trying to remove a tangent passage musing on what a Macedonian is, while being reverted by three different editors. The better tactic would have been a short term protection of the page, but I advise all parties to cease the edit war. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he is an admin offers him immunity? He is an involved editor with a POV. Ask him yourself if he is acting with his admin or editor capacity here.--Avg (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst he shouldn't have reverted past 3RR, I can understand FPAS' problems in attempting to keep irrelevant synthesis (which is what the majority of that paragraph is) out of obscure articles when multiple nationalist editors have a vested interest in keeping it in. Black Kite 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. I see him acting as an admin to keep a clearly absurd section out of the article. Hopefully, the ArbCom case related to this kind of editing will help empower us to deal more cleanly with this sort of thing. If he, or I, protect the page, then we are accused of protecting his POV, even though the removal of the passage is clearly appropriate. The problem is that a nationalist consensus established what should be in the article. The only way an admin ends up in one of these pages is usually in the course of removing something that is out of place, at which point we become "editors abusing our admin powers to protect a POV". Our hands are tied on this, but there is no way that I am blocking someone on a technicality. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you can clarify your comment, are you offering Fut.Perf. carte blanche to violate Wikipedia policies if he has a dispute over the content of this paragraph? And may I remind you, Fut.Perf, is an involved editor in this case, he's not an uninvolved admin defending Wikipedia encyclopaedic quality. In fact this has been his modus operandi for years. He edit wars over content disputes playing the uninvolved admin card.--Avg (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All I know is any other editor would've been blocked for this (and has been in similiar cases in the past). That's all from me. --Laveol ^T 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this battleground, and blocking FPAS isn't the sensible solution. I will attempt to impose something sensible, see the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why blocking FPAS is not the sensible solution? This is not the first time and it will not be the last. He's right now edit warring in other articles too, see his contributions. If he feels he has immunity he will continue.--Avg (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify my statements above, this is an example of what we are hoping to see resolved with this arbcom case. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Funny you mention it, please have a look at Fut.Perf. edit warring over the article Macedonian only today.--Avg (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: no vio)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [27]

3RR within one hour. User:Mashkin refuses to accept information credited to six sources from a wide spectrum of WP:RS even though this is the compromise reached. --Shuki (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is misleading information of course. First, as you can see I have not violated 3RR. Second, no compromise regarding these sentences was reached (please look at the talk page). This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions, but let me just mention that I do not see any merit in discussing a label such as "far left" with no explanation as to what this term means in the particular context. Mashkin (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR needs 4R William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Mashkin did revert 3x within 45min. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CharmingPeople reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24h)

• Page: Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: CharmingPeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [33]
• Diff of warning as IP [34]

Editor also as IP, also making similar edits and edit warring on Creation according to Genesis as IP. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:70.71.22.45 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h )

• Page: Talk:Stephen Barrett (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Stephen Barrett|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 70.71.22.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 23:25, 17 April 2009

• This editors subsequent eight edits , in 27 hours, have all be reverts, all to Talk:Stephen Barrett

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:57, 19 April 2009

This article falls under ArbCom sanctions, but I thought a 3rr report would be a step prior to AE. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Blocked for disruptive editing to prevent further disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh reported by CyMoahk (Result: Warn )

• Page: 2009 Women's Professional Soccer season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: NA - see below

• 1st revert: [35] - statistics
• 2nd revert: [36] - score format
• 3rd revert: [37] - score format
• 4th revert: [38] - score format
• 5th revert: [39] - statistics
• 6th revert: [40] - statistics
• 7th revert: [41] - stastics

It's hard to identify exact reverts and an 'original version' since this user has been banned from editing articles multiple times for other edit wars, so his reverts on this article have happened over long periods of time (3RR doesn't apply) with lots of different information entering the article between his edits. It's the same issues over and over again though, even when on the discussion page he's in the minority on each issue.

• Diff of 3RR warning: NA - see above

I'm still relatively new at Wikipedia myself (six months or so, only a handful of article) - I've read as much information about edit warring, trivia, reverting, original research, etc. as I could, though, so I don't think I'm in the wrong here, but please correct me if I've messed anything up (including if I've messed up this report somehow) - I don't want to cause the same kind of frustration I'm feeling right now for other people. CyMoahk (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Half of these are completely non controversial or not within 24 hours. The SB to NJ edit is just like one CyMoahk made previously. All I did was use the abbreviation used by WPS. I was also updating the statistics (not merely reverting), and in the process was eliminating unsourced WP:OR. I have also been discussing this on the talk page of the 2009 WPS article. Furthermore, none of my edits were contested, and if Cy wants to revert them, they are more than welcome to. Making a bunch of edits that you disagree with is not edit warring. This is based on an incomplete understanding of policy by CyMoahk. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe my edits to be correct, but I've reverted to avoid a block until further discussion takes place. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

You are both advised to take a minute away from the keyboard and cool down to avoid escalating the dispute. Use the article's talk page to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. Please review Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and keep in mind that continuing to edit war will result in blocks. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts reported by Mendaliv (Result: Warn)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47]
• 6th revert: [48]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [49]

• Taken to here as a result of an EAR request: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Terminology. The other editor seems to have broken 3RR as well, and has been warned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Both parties have been given warnings, and therefore continuance of the edit war by either should be reported to me or here. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lunchtime666 reported by Dan D. Ric (talk) (Result: 12H )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jason Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lunchtime666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 16:44, 19 April 2009 (edit summary: "I have removed /* Critical Reaction */ because it was written by somebody wants to ruin the playwright's reputation and sabotage the page. Please do not reallow him to enter it. Thank you")
2. 16:52, 19 April 2009 (edit summary: "i REMOVED /* Critical Reaction */ AS IT IS SOMEONE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE PAGE OUT OF MALICE. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO PUT IT BACK")
3. 16:57, 19 April 2009 (edit summary: "i have removed critical reactions as it was done out of malice")
4. 17:01, 19 April 2009 (edit summary: "PLEASE DO NOT MINDLESSLY SABOTAGE THE REPUTATION OF THE PLAYWRIGHT")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2009-04-19T17:48:13 Nja247 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Lunchtime666 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Learneggs12 reported by Drmies (Result: 24h)

• Page: Learneggs12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Learneggs12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]

Editor has reverted closure of AfD discussion three times; I've undone it twice, but do not wish to fall afoul of 3RR. Editor, after being warned, went back for a minor edit ([54]), at which point they could have easily undone their last reinstatement of the AfD tag. Editor has also thrice undone the closure of the AfD discussion, here, here, and here.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

There is a history of vandalism and of somewhat unseemly AfD's for this article--I don't have the tools or the smarts to look into suck puppeteering, but this editor is an SPA; the article was twice nominated a month or so ago and easily and quickly kept; Tenpoundhammer has already rolled back once to this version, the last one that had consensus: I consider Learneggs12's edits to be unhelpful and suspect. Thanks for your attention, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I re-closed the afd again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal reported by Adrian CZ (Result: no action)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]

Verbal is repeatedly reverting the insertion of material from the opening sentence of a news report [60] on the website of Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency, despite the fact that this source clearly and easily meets the bar for WP:RS. The lead in the article that Verbal is reverting, on Matthias Rath, currently contains a statement based upon the sixteenth and seventeenth sentences of a piece from The Sunday Times (Johannesburg) [61] that I – and, seemingly, other editors – feel would benefit from the addition of a contrary opinion, to ensure neutrality, per WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, Verbal reverted the insertion of the material from the Bernama news report three times within a mere 82 minutes. Moreover, I would also wish to point out that this is the second time within a matter of weeks that Verbal has contravened the three-revert-rule. [62] Adrian CZ (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"seemingly other editors" is right. The rest isn't. This is being discussed on the talk page page and so far no arguments for inclusion have been presented. Rather than make these reports and waste multiple editors time, it would be better if Adrian and his IP friends used the talk page to justify the edits and convince us that this is valid. To encourage this perhaps Adrian should be banned for some time from this page, as has been done with other editors who have abused it in the past. With each edit I directed the editor(s) to the talk page and even started the discussion for them, to which they haven't contributed. Stating that I have broken 3RR in the past is also incorrect, Adrian was directed in that instance to go to the talk page (as the result link will testify) - lying in a 3RR report is not recommended. I'm sorry to be wasting my time and the time of good faith editors here again, yours, Verbal chat 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• No action. Last time, I turned down your report about Verbal partly because 3RR had not been breached ([63]). It hasn't been breached this time, either, as only 3 reverts have been made. Also, the "reliable source" is a promotional advertisement for a seminar being held by Rath, and so of course is likely to describe him in glowing terms - and thus fails WP:RS. And yet again a UK T-Mobile IP is inserting the information, and you're reporting it again. It's becoming a bit difficult to assume good faith here. Black Kite 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

miasnikov reported by motopu (Result: Malformed)

Miasnikov continually erasing sourced historical version and replacing with opinion at "Fare strike" page Here is a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fare_strike&diff=284752397&oldid=284748984

The issue is a fare strike of municipal transit in San Francisco. I am posting the historical fact, corroborated by published author, Znet contributor, and well known radical historian Tom Wetzel, that "thousands participated" in the fare strike. Wetzel was a participant in the fare strike, and is a primary source. His statement about thousands participating is featured at the libcom.org website and other places: Primary source from first days of the fare strike documents that thousands rode free, agrees with other first hand accounts

"Despite heavy police presence at major bus transfer points, at least a couple thousand passengers rode the buses for free in San Francisco on Thursday, September 1st — the opening day of a fare strike in North America’s most bus-intensive city."

source: Tom Wetzel, anarchist author, Znet author, teacher, and well known Bay Area radical historian. URL: http://libcom.org/news/thousands-ride-free-in-san-francisco-transport-fight-04092005

The user "miasnikov" is a well known internet troll named Kevin Keating who has been banned from libcom.org for disruptive/disrespectful behavior, and had a special section created at anti-politics.net for his continually disrespectful and disruptive attacks on users. He has written serialized attacks on the fare strike participants, but they have not been corroborated by a single participant or witness after four years.

The fact that thousands participated in the fare strike is corroborated in a pamphlet called _Fare Strike!: First Hand Accounts_ published by IDP publishers of San Francisco (http://flyingpicket.org/?q=node/7). There are other sources I can cite if need be.

Kevin Keating (miasnikov) engaged in vandalism when he repeatedly removed my posts from the discussion page in which I explained my edits and rebutted his comments about me. He has also been trying to replace this sourced historical fact with an opinion that judges a historical event (a strike) in a reductionist way as a "failure" despite it having drawn the support of thousands and being thousands of times larger than a similar effort that never came off in the 1990s. Obviously, historical events exist in a continuum, and the responses from around the country that participants have recieved indicate that people want to try fare strikes in where they are too, suggesting some "success" in exemplary action.

Lastly, for my part, I was trying to act cooperatively with Keating, as I explained in the discussion section: "From the start I helped clean up the links to your articles so people could see your side of the story. While you as a source on the fare strike, have been discredited among the fare strike participants, at libcom, and on anti-politics, I agreed to have not one, but two of your articles in our joint editing process, and I think that shows an interest in being open minded on my part. I also dug up the remains of the Social Strike [a group Keating was in until they split from him for similarly abusive behavior] site and linked to it via the wayback machine. Again, I made the effort to present your side and a balance, without posting opinion on whether the fare strike was a success or failure, which should be left to the intelligence of the reader."

Apologies if I have not entered this complaint correctly, I read many directions, but I don't think all of them. Motopu (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct: you haven't filled in the form properly. There are many ways you could discover this, probably the easiest would be to compare it to the other reports. Alternatively you could click on the add new report button. You need to supply diffs showing 4R, not a long string of text no-one will read justifying the edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to William M. Connolley for taking the time to respond to this. When I get time I'll try to pattern my entry on the others here. Oh, and I'll look for that add new report button that I missed in my newbie ignorance. Motopu (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the instructions at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuckarg33 reported by Ryan4314 (talk) (Result: Blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chuckarg33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:33, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Politics */ Add in Constitutional Reform details and new paragraph start.")
2. 23:47, 19 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid Sections of the Arg constitution which refers to the Falklands are MOST relevant since large parts of the article mentions Arg")
3. 00:56, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Very quick undo. Not about Argentine constitution; only mentions what relates to the islands that is in the legislation")
4. 01:13, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Biaed opinion after misreading the text. Isn't about the Constitution but the article that refers to the islands")
5. 01:27, April 20, 2009 (edit summary: Undid revision 284921225 by Ryan4314 (talk)
6. 01:42, April 20, 2009 (edit summary: "biased by those on the british side. let 3RR flow!!!")

• Diff of warning: here and here (plus must be aware of 3RR by now)

—Ryan4314 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked by Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Starlingmaximilian reported by Collectonian (Result: No action)

• Page: List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Starlingmaximilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link (revert with additions)
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link
• 6th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Edit continuing to edit war on this article despite being reverted by two different editors and having been warned by a third (me). He is aware that these edits are against consensus, as shown by his participation in a discussion on it at Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes#"Filler" episodes, but continues edit warring anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Has made a 6th revert [64] ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Added above

He's since taken it to the Wikiproject talk page, it seems. At least, his last 21 edits (over the span of 3 hours) have been on talk pages. I think it's unnecessary to push this any further than maybe an admin warning. --Raijinili (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Since he's stopped reverting and started discussing, no further action for now. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Arqoub imp reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours )

• User: Arqoub imp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Page: Marwan Barghouti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]
• 5th revert: [70]
• 6th revert: [71]
• 7th revert: [72]
• 8th revert: [73]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [74]
  • 9th revert, made after being notified of this report: [75]

• Page: Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [82]

• Page: Tel Aviv University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]
• 3rd revert: [86]
• 4th revert: [87]
• 5th revert: [88]
• 6th revert: [89]
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Protected)

• Page: Phar Lap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ernest the Sheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link
• 6th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Ernest has been very involved in editing the Phar Lap article to his own personal agenda and has been unwilling to discuss before reverting. After he was last blocked for edit warring, we got some constructive discussion in, but now he has sprung up again and has continuously reverted constructive changes that have been agreed on through the talk page from a previous slightly biased article to a more ambiguous, NPOV article that no longer is giving undue weight and is less corrupted by the heritage of the horse and is trying to move towards presenting the facts. He is even removing fully cited material and adding back his own uncited changes. He is well aware of WP:3RR, he has been warned over three times now (and blocked once last week), but chooses to ignore many editors pleads and the policy all together. Many have tried to collaborate with him but he refuses to do so. I did not want to be here twice in the same week, but he is leaving many editors very little choice and is causing disruption and conflict. Thank you, Matty (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected Stifle (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alpha Centauri 2021 reported by untwirl(talk) (Result: 48h)

• edit warring violation on

Matthew J. Amorello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alpha Centauri 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 14:35, 10 April 2009
2. 13:08, 12 April 2009
3. 14:46, 14 April 2009
4. 21:38, 15 April 2009
5. 17:57, 17 April 2009
6. 03:57, 18 April 2009
7. 23:15, 18 April 2009
8. 12:14, 19 April 2009
9. 22:07, 19 April 2009 <
10. 12:02 20 April 2009

—untwirl(talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [90]

this user keeps removing the fact that amorello was forced to resign. untwirl(talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. Black Kite 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

wow - you're fast! untwirl(talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Amicaveritas reported by TNXMan (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amicaveritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:43, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:01, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
3. 19:05, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:26, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */ factual corrections")
5. 19:31, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067502 by Tnxman307 (talk) - published fact. Restoring.")
6. 19:32, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285075609 by Tnxman307 (talk) removing libellous and factually incorrect content")
7. 19:33, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
8. 19:38, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067273 by Tnxman307 (talk) restoring public factual content and removing false claims that do not match source")

• Diff of warning: here

—TNXMan 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. Black Kite 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And unblocked again. May be a BLP issue here. Further eyes welcome. Black Kite 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure. What exactly is D's supposed excuse for breaking 3RR though? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

69.158.150.169 reported by 201.143.220.153 (Result: )

• Page: Outline of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 69.158.150.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RR warning is needed, rules are well known by reported user.

201.143.220.153 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: this report was apparently filed by IP 201.143.220.153, a sockpuppet of User:Jcmenal; see below. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuki reported by Mashkin (Result: Protected)

• Page: Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shuki reverted 4 time in less than 24 hours. He is a veteran editor who knows about the 3RR and ironically tried to get me blocked a few days ago (see notice up there).

• 1st revert: [91] at 23:31, 19 April 2009
• 2nd revert: [92] at 16:28, 20 April 2009
• 3rd revert: [93] at 21:19, 20 April 2009
• 4th revert: [94] at 21:32, 20 April 2009

• Comment from WP:V

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy) far-right claim is POV and not sourced properly. --Shuki (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have left a note on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is that was a sincere concern. Note that "right wing" to a "far right" party might be considered offensive as well. Mashkin (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - Protected 3 days. Not clear that there is a genuine BLP violation here, but I see plenty of reverting with little usage of the Talk page. Those opposed to Shuki offered no quotation from a reliable source for the term 'far right,' while the Jerusalem Post does sometimes use 'far right' to describe political groups in its own articles. Nobody reported the Post doing so for this party. Please sort this out on Talk. Admins may be inclined to issue blocks if warring continues when protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider and block Shuki.

The JP source given in the article says explicitly: "The far-right Eretz Yisrael Shelanu party, led by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo and Baruch Marzel" Mashkin (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you found 'far-right' in the article I struck out my previous remark. Please continue this discussion at the article Talk page. Maybe you can attribute this party's far-rightness as the opinion of the Post so that it is clear to readers. If you and Shuki can agree on compromise wording, then the protection could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the party is very clearly far-right; its leading members are well-known far-right activists (e.g. Baruch Marzel). Unfortunately Shuki has a history of injecting right-wing bias into Israel-related articles, so attempts to shift anything on the political spectrum to the right (so, for example, he endlessly edit wars at the New Movement-Meretz article to get the party (which is a standard social-democratic party with a dovish stance on the peace process) labelled as far-left, even though they are clearly not communist, similarly, anything right-wing becomes centre-right, and anything far-right becomes just right-wing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A)I am disgusted to see an admin like Number57 blatantly attack my ability to be POV on articles close to my knowledge and excuse himself of identical behaviour on his articles (as evidenced recently in an unjustified and lengthy semi-protection of the New Movement-Meretz page after a very, very short skirmish with one lone alledged sockpuppet, whereas other articles more frequently vandalized do not get this favoured status protection when brought through the proper channel). I challenge Number57 to document his preposterous claim that I regularly soften the right-wing articles.

B)Number57 claiming the party is 'clearly far-right' without any WP consensus litmus test to judge is blatant OR and POV. The lone Jpost article does not even describe why it labels the party 'far-right'. In contrast, the compromise reached at the Meretz article is that the main label is 'left' yet 'some claim' that it is far-left is deprecated and included lower down. In fact, the 'far-left' label there is well sourced to a wide variety of international media, the far-right label here is simply not. The lack of wanting to reach a compromise on Eretz Yisrael Shelanu article is suspect of the attempt to add derogatory language to an article the editors oppose (right-wing articles).

C)WP:AVOID The use of explicit far-left, far-right should be avoided unless it is undeniable. The current use of the term in Israeli media (legitimate or not) is certainly not the same one used in other Western countries but the world reader would not know that. Mashkin or Number57 (assumed credible admin) have refused to show a wish to improve the article but rather justify one off-hand mention as a good source.

D)I understand Mashkin's continued behaviour to hound me but am disappointed with Number57's failure to be the 'more mature' editor. Instead, he emotionally enters the edit war with a failure to want to NPOV resolve the disputes as well as poor use of the edit message to justify his edits only replying on the discussion page after I revert him. The Meretz compromise only came after an additional 'rfc' editor suggested it.

E)There is nothing to show how this new party is more extremist on one side of the political spectrum than Meretz is on the other. Meretz supports parading homosexuals through the Jewish city of Jerusalem, supports the forced removal of Jewish settlers from homes on the West Bank, and radically supports the separation of 'church&state' on Jewish issues, while Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (and similar Jewish National Front party) support parading Israeli flags though an Arab town, supports motivating the emmigration of Arabs from Israel (not their forced removal), and encourages Israel to be more Jewish/religious. Meretz activists have been documented regularly opposing religious leaders, Eretz Yisrael members do not show the same fervour to oppose secular people.

Above all, I would expect a seasoned editor like Number57 who takes a strong interest in world politics to be NPOV on all Israeli articles as well, not just the ones he identifies with. --Shuki (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You may well be disgusted, but I hope that you can actually learn from it. Trying to claim that Meretz is far left because it supports gay pride marches, the demolition of settlements and the separation of church and state just illustrates your delusions regarding the location of the political centre; these are all very common stances, and in most countries are even supported by people on the right.

As for trying to claim I have some form of bias, it's nothing I haven't had before from right-wing Israeli editors; the fact that I've had the same kind of abuse from blatantly pro-Palestinian editors like Ashleykennedy3 suggests that in fact I let the facts do the talking, regardless of whether they make one side or the other look bad. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Number57, please comment on the issue at hand rather than avoid it. Don't put words in my mouth, the issue here is not Meretz, but rather a double-standard, or rather no fair standard. --Shuki (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

201.143.220.153/Jcmenal reported by 216.234.60.106 (Result: )

• Page: Outline of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.143.220.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Jcmenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

Jcmenal:

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

IP 201.143.220.153:

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link

The named user has been blocked before, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The sockpuppet is probably a mixed and misguided attempt by the alleged puppetmaster to not only circumvent that, but to also cast doubt onto the other editors involved in this.
IP 201.143.220.153 (IP based out of Tijuana, Mexico) popped up and reverted edits to 'Outline of Mexico' (note the restoration of rare, misleading regions into the outline) that are similar to those supported by Jcmenal, an alleged puppetmaster in nearby Mexicali who has a loooong history of edit warring (e.g., Geography of Mexico, Template:Central America topic, Outline of Mexico - having violated 3RR at that article recently) and blockage. IP 201.143.220.153 then posted a misleading 3RR report posing as this IP. A sockpuppet report has been filed. IP 201.143.220.153 has since reverted the article again and again. Significant measures are probably required (extended blocks). 216.234.60.106 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As well, a clerk over where the sockpuppet report has been submitted [95] declined to checkuser, but affirms that "Behavioural evidence is sufficient [in support of sockpuppetry]. Quacking like a duck." Quacked, is right. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist reported by [Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36] (Result: No violation)

• Page: RFC Collect
• User: Ncmvocalist

this initial edit was reverted:

• Previous version reverted to: [96]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]

Please also see the RFC's talk page...consensus was already reached on which info goes where on a complex RFC.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [100]

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While I respect your decision, I still feel this user violated 3RR because it was a clear attempt to Game the system - (3RR not an entitlement). 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you feel that he violated some policy or guideline other than 3RR, which does not apply as per the above. If you can find some other policy or guideline that was broken, that might be useful. But otherwise I have to agree the existing decision is the right one. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more the other way around as the IP states here:[101]. ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good catch, Clean-Keeper. I asked below, I'll mention it again here. IP, your edits both in this report against Ncmvocalist and below against Daedalus seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors, then appealing to admins for help. You admit above to edit warring, and promise to continue. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dontworry reported by EvaK (Result: 24h)

• Page: Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main)
• User: Dontworry

Well known as edit warrior in de-wiki the user continues his edit war in Article Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main), after I placed some new images in the article. When I dropped a warning note on his talk page to stop this action he reverted the article as IP which can be located in Frankfurt. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285203557&oldid=285197276 (IP from Frankfurt)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285189062&oldid=285187173 (Dontworry)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285160957&oldid=285110703 (IP from Frankfurt)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=284592404&oldid=282214150 (Dontworry)

24h. But why is there not a word from either of you on the talk page about why your version is correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I asked him to discuss the issue on the talk page, but there was no reaction. He refuses to discuss with my, also on de-wiki. The only reaction I ever got are personals attacks. I'll try to open a discussion, though. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bassline2 & 85.176.99.95 reported by 124.169.112.128 (Result: )

• Page: Cryostasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Bassline2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.176.99.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: [103]
• 2nd revert: [104]
• 3rd revert: [105]
• 4th revert: [106]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [107], [108]

These two users are reverting the changes I've made to this disambiguation page removing external links, contravening WP:MOSDAB. 124.169.112.128 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Luis Napoles reported by User:Likeminas (Result: )

• Page: History of Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [109]

• 1st revert: [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert: [112]

• Page: 1973 Chilean coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [113]

• 1st revert: [114]
• 2nd revert: [115]
• 3rd revert: [116]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [117]

Please note that user has violated the WP:3RR at least twice within 24 hrs. Likeminas (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor made a false report. I noticed that this editor was making massive deletions of citations in a single revert without any explanations, but limited it to exactly three warnings. See his case.Luis Napoles (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

76.234.167.192 reported by Richard Myers (Result: 24h)

• Page: Work People's College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 76.234.167.192 (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 (self-)revert: [122]
• 5th revert: [123]
• 6th revert: [124]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Editor 76.234.167.192 keeps re-introducing the same paragraph. Two of us have reverted this persistent addition of unsourced opinion. This is probably an IP sock puppet, these are the only edits made by this editor. Not sure if there is a significant violation of Wikipedia policy, so no warning given so far. Richard Myers (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Likeminas reported by User:Luis Napoles (Result: )

First violation

• Page: History of Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Likeminas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The version before his reverts: [125]
• The version he is reverting to: he has not specified, but by browsing history it is clear that he is reverting to some version at least hundreds of edits ago before expansion by the editor Melromero.

• 1st revert: [126]
• 2nd revert: [127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129] - Just a little after his 24 hour limit expired.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [130]

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

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

• 1st revert: [131] 18:20, 21 April 2009
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134] 20:48, 21 April 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

Luis Napoles (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

69.125.53.187 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: semi)

• Page: Age of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 69.125.53.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Ben (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bemused wacko newbie. Semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

201.220.92.91 aka Nikollita reported by Jamesbeat (Result: 24h)

User - I doubt that these are two different persons - continues to add a non-existent performer to both pages listed below. Both IDs have been created on April 20 and their only contribution is adding the same vandalism on both pages listed below.

• Page: Bel_Ami_(adult_film_company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.220.92.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Nikollita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

• Page: List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.220.92.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Nikollita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link

Please note that while writing this both pages have just been reverted again to the previous vandalism.

24h. Warn them next time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:207.237.33.36 (Result: Pages protected)

Comment: I'm not sure if I'm using this template correctly. However, it is plain as day that this user has gone way out of the realm of using Wikipedia fairly. The reverts are only the tip of his aggression. Please forgive me any misuse of this template. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First violation

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

• The version before his reverts: [136]
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting several separate edits to this article with blatant disregard of the concept of Consensus.

• 1st revert: [137]
• 2nd revert: [138]
• 3rd revert: [139]
• 4th revert: [140]
• 5th revert: [141]

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

• Page: Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Beerfinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The version before his reverts: [142]
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.

• 1st revert: [143]
• 2nd revert: [144]
• 3rd revert: [145]
• 4th revert: [146]
• 5th revert: [147]

Third violation

• Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect
• User: 207.237.33.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The version before his reverts: [148]
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.
• Additionally, he is reverting edits related to this RFC on his own and on others' talk page as well. All are listed below.

• 1nd revert: [149]
• 2rd revert: [150]
• 3th revert: [151]

Comment: While I understand that these edits do not all fall under the same 24-hour period or to the same article, I believe that the hostility and attitude -not to mention their sum- they reflect this editor's inability to edit fairly per Wikistandards.

PLEASE take into consideration the multiple hostile, threatening, and vicious attack posts made by this editor on my talk page:

[152], [153], see edit summary, and this change of a section name. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these are without merit. The first conflict has already been solved, since you were stalking my edits, I'm surprised you did not realize that.

The second conflict, is again, solved, check the talk page.

The third conflict doesn't even count, I'm allowed to revert edits to my talk page, especially if the user making edits is insulting my intelligence.

207, you may be allowed to remove edits from your talk page, but you are not allowed to lie about me in your edit summaries, calling my edits vandalism when they are not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user in question was given formal 3RR warnings on his talk page...but they were deleted by him after making the above response. I stand by my assertion that this user performs a large number of reversions in content disputes should be blocked for edit warring (per the 3RR warning). Please also refer to his comment on my talk page regarding my intentions with this Admin notice: "Now leave me the fuck alone." and "Have fun with that, it won't get you anywhere". Complete disregard for civility and Wikipolicy. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: IP, your edits both in this report against Daedalus and your report above against Ncmvocalist seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors. You admit to edit warring here [154], why the sudden appeal to help from admins after waging open war? Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly address any and all reverts I made when they are reported here. In the meantime, I would suggest the focus remain on the ones I pointed out in this report. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing comments: Both of the articles that actually were violations have been fully protected for at least two hours. Blocks are only implemented to prevent damage, and with both articles locked down, a block will not accomplish anything. I am going to close this report without rendering an opinion on whether the report was valid or not. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A block against a user who is Gaming the System will certainly accomplish something. And given your out-of-the-blue edit to my talk page, I do not believe you are unbiased enough to close this report. Perhaps if you would not direct the attention to the few reverts that I made and address the multitude of reverts the user in question made, this report would keep it's focus clear: not on my behavior but on Daedalus'. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, when a post is made on the edit war board, an admin actually looks into the matter and investigates. Generally speaking, it take more than one to edit war. J.delanoy explained his reasons above for not blocking anyone, which seem to make sense. Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the record, my warning was not out of the blue. I saw you coming close to violating 3RR, so I warned you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you also warn the other involved editors? Ncmvocalist, who had just as many reverts in as many days as I did? Or Phoenix of9 (9 reverts in 4 days)? Or Daedalus (THIRTY-FIVE reverts in 7 calendar days?) Or just me? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that right there is a blatant lie. I have not been very active in the past month, so your assertion that I reverted someone 35 times is without base, unless of course, you feel like backing that up with evidence?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the 3rr warning template: "Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." Daedalus should be held accountable. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Daedalus: taken straight from your history, which is available for all to see:

[155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]

Some of the above reverts (only 32 of them in 7 days, sorry) are obviously valid and fair, which is why they were not mentioned in my report. I only question the high volume of reverts by this editor, and what this indicated about his editing behavior. Speaking of his affinity for reverts, please see this bit...[188].

Now, who would like me to chart the number of blocks of other editors Daedalus made during the 7-day period from the 15th to the 22nd? (4) How many did he recommend blocking? (7) He is an editor with a vengeance and his reverts are only one indicator of that. I stand by my report and believe my issues have not yet been addressed...in fact, the only things that has been done is fingerpointing toward MY reverts...which were significantly less in number and done in a most civil manner.

I would also appreciate this user staying off my userpage, which I indicated several times. He refuses. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)