Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:SamEV reported by User:Salaamshalon (Result: )

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

I have been editting on this page zipporah for over a year The editor SamEV come on page and cause disruption. I have been going back and forth with him and told him I would report. An image was added to the page and I removed it, yet this editor keeps bringing it back. The problem is the image does not support the topic of thepage : Which is about the bible character Moses's wife Zipporah. The image is of 3 or 4 women. It is too vauge to represent her. Another editor told SamEV who has a habit of doing this and been blocked for 3RR in the past) to validate his edits and he insults me by saying it is my sockpuppet. I am offend and tired of this constant disrupting of the page. I don't think the image helps the page in anyway, for example it is like putting a picture of 4 men on page about Michael Jackson, when the Michael Jackson page does not once mention the 4 men. What is the point? This is why I value for admins to look at this situation. Thank you very much.Salaamshalom (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

What a frivolous report. But I blame me. I should have reported you earlier; but I'm an incurable procrastinator.
This is from the article that alledgedly doesn't mention the subject's sisters, who are depicted with her in the image in question; (emphasis mine):

1. "Zipporah was one of the seven daughters of Reuel";
2. "Reuel's daughters came to water their father's flocks.";
3. "Other shepherds arrived and drove the girls away";
4. "Moses helped the girls and watered their flock.";
5. "Upon their return home their father asked them";
6. "The girls answered";
7. "An Egyptian rescued us";
8. "he even drew water for us".

That's at least 8 mentions.

In his or her sigleminded effort to keep the image out, Salaamshalom keeps replacing a direct link with a disambiguation, even though I alerted him from the beginning that he was doing that. It doesn't look like s/he cares.

Lastly, I did not come along and 'disrupt'. I pretty much rewrote the article almost 6 weeks ago in my first edit there ([1]), after it had received a major addition on Jan 31 which contained a lot of overlap with the previous content. SamEV (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: If you had something to report me about, you would have long ago. I tell you several times that I would bring this to admin attention and you basically told me to do it. You say "In his or her sigleminded effort to keep the image out, Salaamshalom keeps replacing a direct link with a disambiguation, " Where is this direct link and what is it for? This article is not about Reuel or his other daugthers or Moses even (As his page in mainly about him and his works). This page is mainly about zipporah and the image should represnt her. All I see is a vague image of a couple of women. How is that image representing Zipporah. Salaamshalom (talk)

All the daughters are not the main subject, but it is certainly true that they are mentioned, contrary to what you claimed.

Again: "[[Jethro]]" is an ambiguous link. Compare the link Jethro, which you use, vs. Jethro (Bible), which I use. The first one doesn't lead directly to an article about Jethro Zipporah's father, but to a list (a disambiguation page) of articles which relate to the name Jethro.

I also forgot to mention that your reverts keep removing the references to a couple of Biblical verses which use the name "Jethro" instead of "Reuel" – i.e. my version reads: "who is also called Jethro (Exodus 3:1, 4:18, 18:1-2 ff.)", and your version reads: "who was also called Jethro (Exodus 3:1)". SamEV (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This link shows the diff. between your edits and mine and its here for all to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zipporah&diff=358531648&oldid=358530263

The reason I left (Exodus 3.1) and took out the others is that. They mere mere repetions of each other and did not bring any insight. You do not need 3 things to tell you the same thing. As for the disambiguation page of Jethro's name. If that was your main concern then you would have easily fixed it without placing that image on there. As you keep on disrupting the page I am going to leave the link in tact and remove then image. It does not make sense why you try to focus on her father or her sisters when the page is about zipporah. It is very obvious that you are trying to divert issue you can can't validate you're edit on why the picture is on the page that is why you going around in circles with petty nonsense. (This is the very reason why I brought issue to admin attention). Because like I told you I do not want to participate in a senseless edit war with you. Salaamshalom (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is there for all to see. Very instructive.

The reason I include other "Jethro" verses besides Ex 3:1 is to show that it is not the only instance. That's helpful to readers. It also helps that the others can be listed without taking up much space.

My main concern was all of the above, the image included. Hence my reverts. Your reverts were careless, because you kept repeating [them] until now, despite my explaining them to you.

I'll ignore your insulting characterizations of me (have you read WP:NPA?) for the moment. Rather than restoring the image right now, I'll wait at least another day, until an admin comments on this. SamEV (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC); 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My previous edit was not careless I have given a reason why I did it. Here is the link for the last edit I made. your repetious "refs" as you called them where left in tact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zipporah&diff=358537908&oldid=358531648 So why are you still going on and on. It is a pity no matter what you do you can not change the topic to something else, still no validation on why that image sould there and still going around in circles. You might be interested in edit warring seeing that you have been blocked 2 times for it, but it is a waste of time. I like I have said many times I belive the image on the page should represent the person the page is about. That image on there does not do it because it is too vague. I will not waste anymore time with you, because clearly talking to you goes no where there is no point. This is why I bring it here for admins to interven. Salaamshalom (talk)

If you notice, the verb form I used was "kept", and I added "until now". It was an acknowledgment of the fact that the last edit you'd made was different. Maybe I could have been more explicit.

By the way, you're really helping your cause with your insults and snotty attitude. Keep it up. SamEV (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Sammyy85 (Result: stale)

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

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

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. Revision on those edits and contributions from other nationalists would restore their neutrality.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stale Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:85.107.38.237 reported by User:Anothroskon (Result: 1 month semi protect)

Page: Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 85.107.38.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments: The use of the word genocide has been debated to death in the artcile's talk pages yet there are always people who object and without first going through the arguments seek to impose their views without first reaching consensus in talk as per Bold Revert Discuss. The article should be placed under lock so that only established users can edit it. This will prevent further sockpuppetry. In addition the user should be IP checked as it is very likely (based on editing style and content) that the user is a sock of a previously banned user.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not here discussing the usage of the word `genocide` in the article, in fact we are not discussing anything since you simply revert the article to its previous versions by deleting the sourced content without presenting any reason for doing so. The quotations might perhaps need shortening, but still they are relevant as they come from academicians whose work in the massacres of the Ottoman Empire are widely cited and well known. --85.107.38.237 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP Special:Contributions/85.108.187.152 is the same user [13], so together it's something like 9R already [14] [15] [16] [17]. Athenean (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Shadowjams (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result Semi protected for 1 month by Jayron32. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Canada Jack reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result:no action)

Page: North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Canada Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

This does not fully account for the changes made by this editor as some long-standing material was also removed in the fourth part.

These would likely be considered one revert, but I have each part listed:

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

Here are also two recent reverts of his before the latest incident: [23] [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[25]

Though I have not discussed this specific instance it is a response to several issues which were discussed prior to the revert here and here. I should add, discussion of past incidents has on occasion only lead to this editor taking an even stricter position. This most recent incident is more or less an example of that.

Comments:

I have tolerated this editor's behavior for a while, but his latest actions have compelled me to pursue this route. The editor performed a revert of a great deal of cited material, a substantial portion of which he did not show any signs of disputing until he reverted it.

The fourth change listed is one of the most significant as it consisted of material Canada Jack had shown no objection to before, but then decided suddenly to revert. I should also note the first change was of an edit that I explained in my edit summary was about the timeline-like appearance of the section. However, Canada Jack construed this as some plot to insert a conspiracist POV.

This appears to be his primary justification for his persistent edit-warring, though his own explanation for his actions suggests it is more about pushing an agenda. In his own words he said:

This is precisely what I've been arguing from day one - there is and never has been a specific proposal for anything resembling the EU in North America, at least not from anyone of any influence, and certainly not by that name. It's simply the paranoid imaginings of the consequences of applying some proposals like Fox's.

...

What is truly remarkable here is you've actually done readers here a service by underlining what the skeptics have said all along - the move towards a or the NAU emerged completely out of paranoid fantasies from certain quarters.

My contention is this editor is trying to push this argument to return the page ultimately to its original form which was essentially a hit piece on conspiracy theorists, filled with unverifiable claims and inaccuracies, and resists changes which seek to make the article about the actual legitimate concept, indeed he has resisted the very idea that it is an actual legitimate concept. At least one change suggests a move in that direction.

Though, the most worrisome element is Canada Jack rarely makes an effort to rewrite or discuss the material beforehand, but instead simply removes anything he doesn't like on a whim. At the same time, despite the numerous significant changes he made without discussion he insists that I must discuss every change I make before making it demonstrating a sense of ownership towards the article.

In disclosure, I was previously blocked for edit-warring on this page, though without being notified that I was reported, and I gave my objection on my talk page with more examples of this editor's edit-warring. Concerning that the following editors, all admins, are likely to back up Canada Jack: User:Kralizec!, User:Orangemike, and User:Arthur Rubin though it should be understood they have previously been involved in essentially tag-team edit-warring on the article and adhere almost exactly to the same POV concerning the subject as the editor being reported here. So any argument about consensus will likely refer to an agreement amongst these like-minded editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is complete and total nonsense. How can the "3R" rule apply when I only in one instance removed all the material in question? The editor above has repeatedly made substantial changes to a contentious page, always without previous consultation or notification despite the controversial nature of the page, and always at odds with almost every editor on the page, as he admits. In the current situation, I made a change after I pointed out that an inclusion was POV - and he subsequently ammended what I did, re-inserting text amended along the lines I had suggested, thus implicitly agreeing with what I had reverted. That was a week or so ago. But he then added substantial material to create a "history" of the concept of the North American Union, a history, I pointed out, no historian or published author has spelled out, or at least, no such source was ever supplied. It is therefore Original Research. That material I removed, after I pointed out it was Original Research, and that's all I've done. I've not done it multiple times in recent days.

One section, which had been removed many months ago was re-inserted by him, and that was also removed. I brought this up on the discussion page several times before I removed the material, that his edits and the section in question constitute Original Research as the purported "history" thus set down does not emerge from any source which specifies a series of events which culminates in the North American Union, rather it is simply, it would seem, the editor's own personal view that these various mentions of concepts constitutes a "history." The one section left to stand is not Original Research as it is written and includes sources which state the sequence of events as it relates to the allegations and development of the North America Union, the entity which the bulk of the remaining article describes.

His approach, I have pointed out, gives the misleading and unsourced impression that early talk of a North American union in the 1990s and early 2000s culminated in what is now understood to be that entity as described in the bulk of the article.

I have had no contact with these other editors in terms of an alleged "tag-team" in dealing with the above editor. Indeed, he has drawn the ire of the others for labelling entries as "biased" or "POV" even when they were clearly identified within the article as being the opinions of those who see the North American Union as a conspiracy theory. In contrast, I have invited Devil to include sources which support his contention that the NAU has been years in development. None were ever forthcoming, and this has been going on for about two years. Instead, he has found sources which mention various concepts, some described in comparison to the European Union as being a North American union, some described by other sources as being a "North American Union," but no sources which make any connection between these ideas and the North American Union as discussed in the bulk of the article. Canada Jack (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You need not violate the three-revert rule to be edit-warring and this is not a place to dispute content. Also, even if the other editors were neutral on the subject (they aren't), it is not a justification for edit-warring.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The Advocate is unique in attempting to re-shape this article in a direction more fitting to conspiracist theories, and persists in his edits pushing the WP:FRINGE position that there is really such a move under way sub rosa. Jack has been the one watching this article most closely, so he's done the most edits; but if I happen to notice a fresh WP:FRINGE edit (usually either by a drive-by IP or by the Advocate), I will tend to reverse it unless it can be defended as legit and WP:NPOV.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no 3RR vio here, nor do I see any reason this case of edit warring reaches the level needing blocks or protection. I think you all know the drill. Discuss, use DR, and possibly have a trip to the Fringe theories noticeboard, since apparently that's at issue here (I've avoided reading too clearly what the dispute itself is about to guarantee my neutrality). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:96.251.153.184 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: stale)

Page: Annabel Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.251.153.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First insertion of YouTube, PajamasMedia and other non-Reliable Sources into a BLP

• 1st revert: 19:12, 25 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 21:25, 25 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 21:53, 25 April 2010
• 4th revert: 22:41, 25 April 2010
• 5th revert: 23:03, 25 April 2010
• 6th revert: 23:50, 25 April 2010
• 7th revert: 00:01, 26 April 2010

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Annabel Park -- He has also been informed by other editors that his YouTube and other sources were in violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements.

Comments:

Single purpose IP. He's been reverted by multiple editors. Note: This BLP is about a political person covered in an article that just came out today. I suspect this may be just the first wave of edit-warring spawned by the recent publicity; maybe a temporary semi-protect of the article would be warranted.

Stale But do let me know or re-report here if the IP comes back again. Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jstriker reported by User:Snowded (Result: blocked 72 hours )

Page: Template:Socialism sidebar (edit | [[Talk:Template:Socialism sidebar|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jstriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert:[28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]
• 6th revert [33]
• 7th revert [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

An idea of the tone of this editor can be gained from one of the first versions of his user page here, comments on talk pages are filled with accusations against "leftists" etc. Although a fairly new editor there is a flavour here of someone who has edited before. Whatever, edit waring, failing to use the talk page etc. etc. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Any edits to a user page are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The "newness" of an editor should be irrelevant to the matter at hand. I am not sure what relevance the unsupported suspicions of whether I am "new" or not from the above have. One can "lurk and learn" without participating actively. As can be seen - the discussion on the talkpage has been civil throughout, though perhaps marked by some slight obfuscation on the part of the above. "Filled" is perhaps a slight exaggeration as can be seen by anyone who takes the time to read through the discussion here: Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar#National_Socialism. As can be seen - my offer (as a more junior editor!) to go through dispute resolution processes was ignored. Jstriker (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested three times that Jstriker self reverts, each of those suggestions has been ignored. If s/he does that and agrees to await consensus (or dispute resolution if it ever gets that far) then I am happy to withdraw this report. Its worth noting that the first edit ever made by this user was an Afd nomination --Snowded ^TALK 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi - again incidental. There is no crime in requesting an AFD. This report must be judged solely on the matter at hand - this is not a witch hunt. Let's try and keep all discussion on the original discussion page too - Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar#National_Socialism - I think it will make it easier for the admins involved if everything is in one place. I will agree to this if you will? Jstriker (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR is a basic Wikipedia rule Jstriker, its very difficult to discuss issues with editors (however new) who not only break that rule, but refuse multiple invitations to restore the position prior to their edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall we keep all discussion here Template_talk:Socialism_sidebar#National_Socialism to make it easier for the admins or not? Jstriker (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jstriker blocked for 72 hours: properly warned, continued with edit war regardless.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi reported by User:Tajik (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]
• 5th revert: [42]
• 6th revert: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments: As you can see in this diff-link, the user is also deleting a referenced quote/work from the academic and authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam and replaces that with wrong information "backed up" by an unreliable Pashto entertainment website ("Sabawoon").

Tajik (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:Aspects (Result: 12h)

Page: American Idol (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: 22:51 25 April 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 358237222 by Qdiazissipom (talk) there is no consensus")
• 2nd revert: 02:55 26 April 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by MarkMc1990; Consensus from three editors who have no prior involvement with the project? Not consensus. (TW)")
• 3rd revert: 21:38 26 April 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by AT40Reviewer; There is NO consensus.. (TW)")
• 4th revert: 21:54 26 April 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 358501823 by AT40Reviewer (talk) Revert again if you wish to be reported, there is no consensus")
• 5th revert: 22:22 26 April 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Aspects; No consensus. (TW)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:19 26 April 2010
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning deleted: 22:21 26 April 2010

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 9)#Changing the Elimination Chart Proposal

Comments:There has been discussion for the past month about the colors to be used in the elimination chart and now that a consensus has been found to use a certain color, but Turian keeps reverting back to his preferred color/version claiming "No consensus" but making no argument how a consensus has not been found. Turian was previously reported here eleven days ago on the exact same article, [46], has reported other people here and in this discussion has warned another user, [47], so Turian obviously knows the 3rr but somehow thinks his edits do not apply. Aspects (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen. Blocked – for a period of 12 hours, and I'll protect the page if the edit warring happens again. I would have given a 48 hour block but this is just so...lame. Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:StanStun reported by User:Tariqabjotu (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:53, April 26 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 03:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
• 2nd revert: 12:25, April 27 (as User:78.176.118.187)
• 3rd revert: 16:32, April 27 (as User:StanStun)
• 4th revert: 17:50, April 27 (as User:StanStun)

Earlier reverts

• 14:05, April 24 (as User:88.251.76.242)
• 22:50, April 23 (as User:88.251.96.196)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:41, April 27

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• I posted a lengthy comment providing rationale for my changes at Talk:Istanbul#Pre-Byzantium_history on April 24.
  • I have repeatedly tried to point him to the discussion on the user talk pages he uses (April 25; 15:02, April 27; 17:35, April 27) as well as in edit summaries (e.g. here). He has not responded or commented anywhere, neither on his talk pages or on the article talk page; he simply reverts.
• I have also tried meeting some of his requests. Even though, as I say to him, I had great difficulty finding English-language sources that corroborate a claim he makes (regarding Istanbul in the Copper Age), I nevertheless found a source today and added it to the article. But that still wasn't enough: he reverted all of my edits simply because he didn't like that I wrote "c. 660 BC" rather than the precise "667 BC". I explained to him why we shouldn't use exactly 667 BC -- sources give various estimates, even if there are some tertiary sources that act like 667 BC is an agreed-upon date -- and then wrote a rather lengthy footnote explaining this. But that still wasn't good enough for him, and he reverted everything without explanation (save the reference to the note in the infobox).

Comments:
I have gone to great lengths to try to talk with him about why I made certain changes to the article and why it is not acceptable to repeatedly use a Turkish-language encyclopedia as a source over English-language secondary sources, but he has not responded to any of my comments anywhere. All he does is revert. And it sure doesn't help that he jumps between IP addresses and, now, a username. Perhaps a block would encourage him to engage in some kind of dialogue. -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[[User:<69.47.181.248]] reported by [[User:<Sguffanti]] (Result: )

Page: [[:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>]] ([[Special:EditPage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|edit]] | [[Talk:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:<Causes of the United States housing bubble>|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) User being reported: [[User:<69.47.181.248>|<69.47.181.248>]] ([[User talk:<69.47.181.248>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<69.47.181.248>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<69.47.181.248>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<69.47.181.248>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<69.47.181.248>|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1st revert: [13:45, 23 April 2010 69.47.181.248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
• 2nd revert: [ 12:58, 26 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358398551]
• 3rd revert: [04:33, 27 April 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble&oldid=358575500]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]
• 5th revert: [54]]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

The original above diffs seem to have been SNAFUed (for which I apologize), and the proper diffs are now reflected both immediately above and in the Stellar input below. The points still stand. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Diffs of canvassing by Annoynmous: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]

Comments:

Comment by Epeefleche.

I think the talk page discussion and edit summaries capture the nature of the dispute. In short, a lot of "idontlikeit" deletion of RSs, without consensus support for doing so. As can be seen by his 8 prior blocks, he is an 8-degree black-belt-level edit warrior.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't violated the 3rr, so I don't know why epeefleche is bringing that up. Epeefleche has not only removed edits, he's removed NPOV tags from the article even though a final consensus hasn't been reached on the talk page. Another editor John Z agrees with my edits and yet epeefleche has continued to ignore that. The sources epeefleche mentions are far from respectable and in some cases there were better sources for the same passages and yet epeefleche insisted on having these biased sources in the article. annoynmous 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is John Z agreeing with my edits:

Well this is exactly what I afraid when I started to make edits. Instead of trying to reach a consensus on the talk page Epeefleche decided to arbitrally remove the majority of my edits and remove the tags and declare the debate over. Apparently several people on this page are confused on the purpose of tags. The point is that the tags are supposed to saty up until a mutual consensus is reached. Sense that hasn't happened removing the tags is unjustified. As for the supposed RS sources Epeefleche claims I removed, I ask again how are Sean Hannity and Bridigitte Gabriel considered respectable sources for quotes. This is especially ridiculous seeing is how there is already a New York Times article source for some of these same quotes in the article, so why are these books necessary. Also, once again how is a book that claims there was middle eastern connection to Oklahoma City considered reliable. I'm going to restore the tags and my edits, but if this type of behavior continues I'm going to simply just give up and only restore the tags and hope other editors will come along to improve the article. This type of behavior is exactly why I avoided editing, but I took the bait from Stellarkid that people would be reasonable. annoynmous 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Was about to shorten the lead again when I saw you did; the longer version has too much puffery. The first sentence should tell a reader what he does and is known for. It would be better not to overrely on Sugg/FAIR, to track down and use the sources that Sugg cites. I just did a little cleaning up and cutting. Article doesn't look too bad now to me, not sure if there was material Epeefleche wants restored. G'night!John Z (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So it is not I who has been violating consensus.annoynmous 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Annoymmous, you neglected to mention that you had canvassed John Z (which is not to say that this is not his honest personal opinion) however here are the diffs to that:

• april 26 "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer. "
• If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them. April27
• If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them.
• Epeefleche is once again using intimidation tactics on me. He has reported me on the edit war noticeboard even though I haven't violated the 3rr. I mentioned your name in the reply if you could please speak on my behalf when you get a chance.

Also-

• attempt to canvass another user
• attempt to canvass the noticeboard

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to make this known, but here it is. I will strike it if it is not appropriate here. Stellarkid (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, to supply some context: The Sugg/FAIR entry (which John Z suggested not be over-relied on) was one that Annoymmous was insisting on putting in.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's why I also added the criticism by Salon magazine. You neglect to mention that earlier in the article that John Z posted about discussion hed had on talk page about whether Fair was a legitimate source. The conclusion was that as long as it is stated as there opinion and put in the proper section, like a criticism section, than Fair was a legitimate source.

Yes I advocated for FAIR as a legitimate source in the criticism section. Whereas epeefleche thought that legitimate sources for quotes were Sean hannity and Bridgitte Gabriel. annoynmous 06:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I asked John Z to help me out because Epeefleche was leaving intimidating posts on my talk page about how I'd better leave the article alone or else I might be in violation of 3rr. I also asked him to protect my edits when I got tired and wanted to bed. John Z was involved on the talk page before I made any edits and had expressed the same concerns I did.

Same thing for Carolmooredc. He expressed the same sentiments I did months ago, that the article had essentially become an advertisement for emersons views. I merely asked him if he wanted to contribute.

As for the Israel/Palestine noticebaord, I was simply trying bring up what I felt was an important issue in regards to epeefleches edits for the last several months. I wasn't asking anyone to go an edit an article, all I wanted to was inform people on what I felt were biased edits.

Furthermore I don't see how this is relevant seeing is how this discussion is about whether or not I was edit warring. As I showed above I wasn't, and I might add if anyone has been engaged in consensus violation it's Epeefleche. In fact if you read the talk page you will see that I went out of my way not to edit at all because I was afraid of getting involved in an edit war. In fact Stellarkid was the one who suggested I go ahead and make some edits and that if they were reasonable there would be no reason to revert them. Well I made what I felt were some fairly reasonable edits and John Z agreed with me, but as I predicted epeefleche decided to revert them.

Further more I have asked epeefleche repeatedly about this source which he considers respectable:

^ "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, Jayna Davis, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2005, ISBN 1595550143, accessed January 29, 2010". Books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=UasfK4zQnecC&pg=PT43&dq=steven-emerson+-oceanography&lr=lang_en&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=52#v=onepage&q=steven-emerson%20-oceanography&f=false. Retrieved March 25, 2010.

I removed it because I would think it would be absurd to consider such a source RS.

annoynmous 21:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

1. 1st revert: By the way this is Stellarkid, not me.
2. 2nd revert: [2] Once again this isn't me, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits.
3. 3rd revert: [3] Again not me, this is John Z making some minor edits.
4. 4th revert: [4]John Z again, not me.
5. 5th revert:

Epeefleche it seems has rather deceptively stuctured these edits. In this first two for some reason he put's himself as the previous version when it wasn't. only one of the edits baove was actually made by me.

The first edit isn't a revert, It's stellarkid making some edits after mine. He didn't revert my edits. The second edit isn't a revert either, it's an editor named Welsh making some minor cleanup edits after I made some more edits. The other two edits are edits John Z made after I reverted epeefleche's revert of my edits. John Z agreed with my edits in that regard and all he was doing was removing the advertisement tag which he felt had been solved by my edits

I don't if it's due to error or dishonesty on epeefleches part, but I would suggest that before any admin makes a decision that thet should look at the actual page to see the true context of the edits. annoynmous 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see that it appears that you are correct about these edits. Somehow these do not seem to be the correct diffs. I just did try to check them and here is what I find along with your edit summaries. All of these were done on the 27th. I only get 4, not 5.

1. [67] "once gain restored edits that have been agreed to by 2 editors on talk page"
2. [68] "Have given several reasons why tag is approprite. Please stop removing until consensus is reached."
3. [69] "restored tags and edits. Please to not abritrally remove or revert until consensus reached)
4. [70] removed material

Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But that last one isn't a revert. I was simply trying to properly format Richard Clarkes picture in relation to the passage that mentioned him. I restored the section that I took out right after that. I removed and then put back things several times in an attempt to get his picture in the right position. So don't characterize that as a revert when it wasn't. annoynmous 04:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Further more how can it be a 3rr when I'm reverting myself. I reverted the removal of my edits and then I went on to make some more edits. Any way you slice it I didn't violate the 3rr. annoynmous 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I might add that the order of these edits is wrong. The 3rd edit is the first edit. Then the 4th. Then the 2nd and then the 1st. The 4th wasn't a revert of anything, it was some additional edits I made in an attempt to format a picture. In the trial and error process I took stuff out and then put it back in.annoynmous 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to address this issue of canvassing. First off neither John Z or Carelmoore DC qualify as mere random editors. John Z contributed to the talk page before I ever posted on his talk page. He agreed with my edits and I asked him to protect them from reverts when I went to bed. I also asked him to help me with intimidating posts left on my talk page by epeefleche.

I posted two messages on The Israel/palestine messageboard. The first was about the articles on Emerson and Sami Al-Arian. Carelmooredc had objected to edits epeefleche made on the Al-Arian article before and I asked him if he wanted to contribute. He agreed with me that the article was biased, but said he didn't want to get involved just yet. I then added tags to both articles.

After that I looked at some more edits epeefleche had made and in my opinion they were just as biased as the two artcles listed above. I then posted these concerns on the messageboard in the hopes that other editors would want to contribute to these articles. I never advocated any action against epeeflech personally or made any attributions about his motives. I simply wanted to start a discussion among like minded people about what I felt were biased edits. As I explained on the page, the problem sometimes is that you get left alone fighting for change on certain articles because other editors aren't aware of what's going on at certain articles. I simply wanted to alert people on a specific noticeboard dealing with certain issues with what I felt were biased edits. annoynmous 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Declined I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here. -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Samkamangar reported by User:Fiftytwo thirty (Result: 12 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]
• 4th revert: [75]
• 5th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Comments:

I think that the edit summaries have made it crystal clear that this user needs to stop reverting my additions here and also a few times at various articles that I have requested speedy deletions on. This user seems to be set on advertising this company, and has created many copyright violations and has made this article very spam-ish. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of twelve hours -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:209.244.42.199/User:209.244.42.199 reported by User:Jonny2x4 (Result: )

Page: Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 209.244.42.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (anonymous user who also used the IP numbers 209.244.187.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 209.244.187.139 (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

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

Comments:

• I have tried to cooperate with this IP user and he refuses to even justify his edits. Judging from his editing history, he seems to have a history of uncooperative behavior with other users.. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nmate reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]

Comments:
Repeated removal of the sourced material and also ignoration of the consensus on the disussion board by the Nmate. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthfulPerson AKA User:207.29.40.2 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: )

Page: Coffee Party USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also uses the IP 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to: Insertion of: "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?"

• 1st revert: 17:50, 27 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 19:05, 27 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 21:32, 27 April 2010
• 4th revert: 13:33, 28 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning diff - this editor has numerous previous Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing warnings, on both of his talk pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Coffee_Party_USA - His combative stance is demonstrated in almost every talk page sub-section, and other editors have actually requested that he calm down, refrain from making personal attacks, and cease using article talk pages as forums. He specifically asked me, and other editors, not to address him anymore.

Comments:
This edit confirms 207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) and TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) are the same editor.

UPDATE: Now this is just getting weird. A previously uninvolved editor is now edit warring to remove a warning from TruthfulPerson's talk page. Please see this and this. I'm not sure if this is a sock or meat puppet, but his actions are certainly not helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to point out wiki etiquette, but shouldn't you have advised TruthfulPerson of this conversation on his/her talk page? It could have gone a long way to inform other editors of the situation, and maybe that user could have formed a defense. I've seen you BOTH go back a forth and you [Xenophrenic] issuing 3RR warnings is quite, ironic. You can't blame me for spotting an abuse of warning templates, right? MookieG (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I issued you the general {{subst:uw-3rr}} (Template:Uw-3rr).

In this DIFF I advised you of your three reverts all today as per your request. You did three reverts of another editor's standardized warning to User talk:TruthfulPerson. If you had a problem with the warning, you should have a message on both editor's talkpage and brought the issue here to WP:ANI. --Morenooso (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:70.127.202.77 reported by User:Splatterhouse5 (Result: )

Page: Resident Evil Gaiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.127.202.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

I should note that User:70.127.202.77 has also edited using the name User:NewsBot01, but after being blocked for violating username policy he's just been editing without logging in.

I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, initiated dispute resolution under User:Prime_Blue's recommendation, and finally edited the page to a neutral version until consensus is reached. User:70.127.202.77 continues to insert his theory into the article and fraudulently lists "sources" that don't even mention the information they allegedly support. At this point, I don't believe he's interested in discussion (other than personal attacks), he's simply and inexplicably determined to see his theory promoted in some way in the article, no matter the cost.

You may also want to look at the history [88] of his talk page, where he removes warnings placed by other users and swears at them. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're an ass. You know that? Prime Blue made the original revision until you started to remove them. He has said NOTHING about allowing a "neutral version", hence I reverted your edits.

[89]

[90]

And using my previous account username (which was a mistake) and my reverting warnings (which is allowed if you would kindly check the rules) as a demeaning character analysis is ridiculous. You should be blocked, not me. However, If an ADMINISTRATOR says that there should be a "neutral version", than I'll stop reverting edits. And if an administrator wants to block me, that's fine.--70.127.202.77 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)