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:Mamalujo reported by Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: stale)

Page: The Deputy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 21:56, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407181905 by Ekwos (talk) Unjustified deletion of sourced material")
2. 22:12, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411457203 by Jayjg (talk) Not conspiracy theory. It is sourced to RSs. Please discuss before blanking material source to multiple RSs")
3. 22:27, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "I have addressed this on the talk page and will do so again. This is sourced to Times London, Forbes, The Australian, National Review, The Jewish Ledger, U. Miss. Law Prof. Rychalk")

—Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
Reporting on general edit-warring here. Although Mamalujo has "only" reverted 3 times in 31 minutes today, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). Objections to it have been raised on the article's Talk: page, but he has responded with quite inaccurate statements. He's been warned about edit-warring/3RR many times (e.g. [5][6][7][8][9]). Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm not locking or blocking yet, but let's consider this a final warning; no more edit warring, no exceptions.

Mamalujo, from what I can see, the others are protesting due to your very limited sourcing here, though I understand that sourcing is tough to find. Everything I see points towards Pacepa as the genesis of this theory. Is he the only root source?

Jayjg, why was Rychlak discredited as a source? I noticed that his Wikipedia article was written primarily by Mamalujo (with claims of Rychlak's expertise on Pius unsourced), but his U. Miss. page suggests he did have some knowledge on the Pope.

As a final note, I'd like to showcase this source from The Times (which is a highly-reputable paper) that seems to back up Mamalujo's claims. Of course, the edit warring is still a serious offense and is being taken into account, but I'm curious as to why Mamalujo's claims are being dismissed as conspiracy theory.

Thanks for your cooperation, all. m.o.p 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[10] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma'at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Rychlak may have personal bias, I'm not quite sure he'd qualify under SPS; after all, SPS doesn't state that self-published material isn't ever acceptable. In this case, given that he's claimed to be an expert on the Pope, I see no reason to discredit him as a source. Of course, he's also going on Pacepa's claims. I wouldn't use Rychlak as a primary source, but as a secondary source, why not? I agree that, again, he may be biased, but this is inherent in every piece of work. We can't automatically discredit a source because the source happens to be related to the cause it is defending. That being said, the proposed addition is very large in comparison to the rest of the page, and relies very heavily on Rychlak; slimming it down and putting the reliable sources first (i.e. The Times) might help.

I do agree that it isn't very intuitive to place Mamalujo's section above the main body of the page - something like that is setting quite the negative tone. Would it be an acceptable compromise if Mamalujo's section was moved to 'Criticism', cut down a bit, and used to flesh out the criticism section? m.o.p 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Looks like it's stopped for now. Re-report if things stir up again. --slakr^\ talk / 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanetama reported by User:Jyusin (Result: Stale)

Page: South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanetama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]
• 5th revert: [16]
• 6th revert: [17]
• 7th revert: [18]
• 8th revert: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyusin (talk • contribs)

• Result: Stale. Last revert was 24 hours ago. If reverting of the template starts up again, blocks may be issued. There has been no discussion about the template on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Oreo Priest reported by User:DerekvG (Result: Both warned)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I made an edit of page Belgium which was reverted by OP (based on "legalese, not wikified") I reverted to my edit ( reference to talk page )and explained my reasons in the talk page OP reverted again and stated he "rm junk" ( remove junk) without going into discussion --DerekvG (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not true. The 'rm junk' was this edit, because DerekvG had accidentally re-incorporated the orphan, unreferenced and out of context sentence "Also they are famous for nakamura" elsewhere in the article. I removed that before making the comment on the talk page. I did subsequently go back to the earlier version again, the rationale for which is best seen on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. -Oreo Priest ^talk 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned. Do not continue to add or remove this material until a proper discussion has been held on the talk page. If you reach a deadlock, use WP:Third opinion or other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Since this is a major article which is watched by over 500 people, you should be able to find other editors to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:67.165.222.19 reported by User:Melicans (Result: 48h)

Page: Bono (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.165.222.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]
• 5th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

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

Comments: The IP does not seem inclined to discuss despite numerous messages and warnings on the talk page, and their having read the edit summaries of the reversions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tcla75 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: User blocked)

Page: List of serial killers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tcla75 (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]
• 5th revert: [33]
• 6th revert: [34]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussed by several others on corresponding talk page (Talk:List_of_serial_killers_by_country#Ireland).

notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sjte5409 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: blocked 3 days)

Page: Sam J. Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sjte5409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]
• 5th revert: [41]
• 6th revert: [42]
• 7th revert (post-reporting): [43]
• 8th revert: [44]
• 9th revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Comments:
Discussion involves trivial sexual information into a BLP, also taking place at ANI here[47]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days by Closedmouth (talk · contribs) Doc talk 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chbarts reported by User:Glrx (Result: 24h)

Page: IEEE 754-1985 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chbarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Feb 1 revert [48]

• all reverts are Feb 3
• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below. Also User talk:Dmcq#The Z3 wasn't the first computer according to other reliable cites.

Comments:

I noticed the back and forth between Chbarts and User:Dmcq that started around Feb 1. I warned both about WP:3RR on their talk pages when both were at 3 reverts on Feb 3. Chbarts continued.

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for violation of WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pbpa2011 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result: Indef block.)

Page: Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pbpa2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:59, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411538247 by Snappy (talk)")
2. 21:35, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411629132 by Snappy (talk) Liablous material by biased user")
3. 23:39, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411670049 by Snappy (talk) removing references without context")
4. 19:19, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411786789 by Viticulturist99 (talk)")
5. 22:28, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411832413 by Discospinster (talk) (Use of libelous material)")

Comments: Editor has repeatedly removed what appears to be contentious but properly sourced and cited material from article. One edit summary claimed the material being removed was libelous, but there is nothing on either the article Discussion page nor the user's Talk page that expands on that claim. Reversions appear to be tendentious in nature.

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• User:Pbpa2011's only contribution to Wikipedia so far was editing Richard Boyd Barrett. The user's name, Pbpa2011, is an abbreviation of People Before Profit Alliance, the political party to which Richard Boyd Barrett belongs. These are typical pre-election tendentious reversions aimed at removing from the article all the properly sourced and cited material that [[User:Pbpa2011] sees as negative. I am sure that after the Irish election day, 25 February 2011, User:Pbpa2011 will disappear from here. However it would make sense if we stopped User:Pbpa2011 from making disruptive edits at this particular stage, as he/she has made 16 of them over the course of 3 last days. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on a BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 01:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Esoglou and User:LoveMonkey reported by User:Taiwan boi (Result: Restriction agreed to)

Pages:

• Hell in Christian beliefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• East–West Schism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Theoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported:

• Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Both editors have a lengthy history of over a year of edit warring on many articles, always related to differences of opinion over Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic views (LoveMonkey is Eastern Orthodox, Esoglou is a Roman Catholic). As one editor has pointed out:

• "Wikistalk show you two has editing nearly 5000 seperate articles in common between you. Looking through ANI alone you two seem to have quite a history of disuptes between you two and this appears merley to be the latest between you two. I really don't think any amount of mediation between you two is really going to get us anywhere" (User:Weaponbb7)

As another has said:

• At this point, I doubt anything short of ArbCom intervention is going to bear fruit here." (User:Richwales)

LoveMonkey has repeatedly reported Esoglou for edit warring, with mixed results (here, here, here). In turn, LoveMonkey has been charged with uncivil conduct by a number of editors. My own experiences with Esoglou's edit warring and editing behaviour can be found here (draft only).

Various editors have been involved in their disputes, either as advisers or observers. The most commonly involved have been myself, User:Richwales, User:Phatius McBluff, and User:Pseudo-Richard, and I have invited their comment here. The following is just a sample of over a year of edit warring involving thousands of edits, hundreds of hours of arguing on Talk pages, and numerous attempts by other editors to resolve the differences between the two warring editors. A mere glance at the history of these pages shows the extent of edit warring between LoveMonkey and Esoglou.

East-West Schism (history):

• Attempt at mediation failed
• page locked due to edit warring
• User Weaponbb7 retires saying it's all too difficult
• Richardwales calls for an end to the edit warring
• LoveMonkey and Esoglou agree to refrain from editing the article
• Esoglou claims LoveMonkey is editing the article in breach of his agreement not to
• Esoglou starts editing the article again as well

Hell in Christian beliefs (history):

• My call for a solution
• "Esoglou's main problem in pushing this kind of an agenda is that he often backs up his arguments with primary sources thus leaving himself open to the charge of performing original research and synthesis. Doing this once in a while is excusable if you recognize that you are doing it when someone else calls you on it. Making a habit of it is really not good" (User:Pseudo-Richard commenting on Esoglou)
• "It's not that I don't see Esoglou engaging in OR and SYNTH. It's that, most of the time, the topics being discussed are way over my head and I don't know enough to be sure that it is OR and SYNTH. I figure you guys can more easily identify the problems with the sourcing and call Esoglou on his OR and SYNTH more cogently and accurately than I could. As annoying as Esoglou's interaction style can be, my experience is that he often raises points that are worth considering. Were it not for this, his trollish behavior would be unbearable" (User:Pseudo-Richard commenting on Esoglou)

Theoria (history):

• LoveMonkey describes his repeated appeals to other editors and relevant noticeboards
• LoveMonkey records Esoglou's edit warring
• Lengthy objection by LoveMonkey to Esoglou's edits

The disputes most typically result from objections to how one editor is representing the other editor's faith community. The edit warring would be reduced dramatically (if not entirely quenched), if the two editors agreed to edit only information concerning their own faith community since they don't trust each other to be accurate in this regard and this is where the edit warring starts. LoveMonkey has agreed to this proposal, Esoglou has not. This does not surprise me since LoveMonkey confines himself almost entirely to what his faith community believes anyway, whereas Esoglou consistently targets LoveMonkey's edits for alteration and repeatedly attempts to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in ways which LoveMonkey claims are inaccurate.

This long term dispute has done the rounds of various noticeboards several times without any resolution. It would be good to bring an end to it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least part of the problem here is that there is a dearth of editors working on these pages. When there are only two editors, resolving a disagreement by forming a consensus is pretty much impossible. And if each editor is representing a different faith community, each editor is basically stuck in the role of being the only person evaluating and criticizing the other's contributions. If Esoglou believes LoveMonkey is misrepresenting sources regarding Orthodoxy — or, vice versa, if LoveMonkey believes Esolgou is misrepresenting sources regarding Catholicism — the kinds of disputes being complained about are inevitable because there aren't any other editors around to discuss or deal with the issues. At one point, I tried to engage some other Eastern Orthodox editors to help work on the various pages, but my efforts had only limited success. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Between them the two are enough to put any other editor from getting his head in between, plus we have very few active editors with sufficiently technical knowledge of these arcane areas. I've seen more of Love Monkey in the past (now long ago), & he can be pretty POV on areas where I did have good knowledge, but as you say mostly sticks to EO matters, though when he veers into contrasting them with RC views he is unreliable. I'm not sure what to suggest I'm afraid; really we need a stronger expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) Even when there is a two-person dispute on an article, we expect people to behave correctly. If two editors show repeatedly that they can't work together, a restriction may be needed. Esoglou could be banned from editing material concerning Orthodoxy and LoveMonkey from Catholic material. I've invited Esoglou to say if he would agree to a voluntary deal. If he did so, admin action would not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with this. Previously the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article blew out to a ridiculous size as a result of the two of them using the article as a theological warring ground. As a stop gap solution I started pulling out the various issues on which edit warring was taking place, leaving a brief paragraph summary, and removing the rest of the content into the main articles discussing the subject. Diffusing the article content in this way helped stop the edit war, but this isn't possible all the time. In any case, other editors should not have to keep sweeping up after these two.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I completely agree with Taiwan boi and Ed, I have (if you look at the articles in question) tried to either out right not edit on RCC sections or limit edits and not fight over them. Esoglou has an agenda that causes him to try and not allow the Eastern Orthodox side to express what, where or how it might disagree with Roman Catholic positions. Esoglou wars specifically against almost anything I post that contrasts and shows a difference between the two communions. This is because Esoglou has stated that of his own opinion he does not believe that there really are any issues of disagreement. And that the two communions are as they stand compatible. I am not posting my opinion I am posting Eastern Orthodox Theologians whom hold Official positions to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in this matter (John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky, Thomas Hopko). Esoglou and Richard both in their own ways refuse to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve this, Wikipedia is here simply to present what is already out there. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you LM, I knew you would agree to this. I'd rather that details of the various sides of the dispute not be debated here; that has happened often enough. However, it's worth pointing out that User:Pseudo-Richard also told me that Esolgou edits with the specific agenda of trying to show that Eastern Orthodox and Catholic views are not in conflict ("Esoglou is attempting to show that the two beliefs are in fact compatible"). The fact that he is editing with that explicit agenda as his aim is sufficient cause for concern let alone all his other behaviour. He should not be editing with an agenda, he should be editing according to what WP:RS say. This is the problem when strongly religious people come here wanting to set right various perceived wrongs, and want to push their theological barrows. Wikipedia is not the place for this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) RESPONSE: In contrast to what Taiwan boi says, LoveMonkey has not agreed to avoid making assertions about Roman Catholic teaching. He repeatedly does so, generally on the basis of a few selected Orthodox writers. "The Eastern Orthodox teaching", he says, "is this, in contrast to the Roman Catholic ("Frankish" etc.) teaching, which is that." I think it is right in response to indicate on the basis of official Roman Catholic Church documents what really is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on the matter. The fundamental NPOV policy actually requires that those assertions be balanced by a sourced exposition, within those articles, of what the Roman Catholic teaching really is. LoveMonkey does not shy away from citing also Roman Catholic sources. He presents as proof of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church opinions expressed by writers over a century ago in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, even when the writers themselves commented that the Church had made no decision on the matter. LoveMonkey is selective in his choice of Eastern Orthodox theologians to cite. An on-going discussion between us concerns his deletion of a series of declarations by Eastern Orthodox theologians and his original-research declaration that the statements by several such theologians "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church documents", a declaration that he does not even permit to be tagged as needing a citation (see Talk:Hell in Christian beliefs#Removal of unanswered tag). For what reason was the suggestion made that I should never use a Roman Catholic source for information on Eastern Orthodox teaching? When in fact have I ever used a Roman Catholic source as the basis for saying what is Eastern Orthodox teaching? It is LoveMonkey who constantly uses his favourite Eastern Orthodox writers to say what Roman Catholic teaching is. I have repeatedly offered to abstain from editing any article on which LoveMonkey also agrees to abstain from editing. There should be no favouritism: no excluding one editor for the sole purpose of giving another a free hand. Esoglou (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) You are misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that when I put to LoveMonkey and you the suggestion which I have made here, he agreed to it (this is one of the times he expressed his willingness to submit to such a solution). You have not agreed to it. The rest of what you wrote is just an attempt to drag your edit war with LM onto this noticeboard, where it does not belong. You are helpfully demonstrating exactly the behaviour which led to this alert. The purpose of this alert is to help administrators decide what to do with the two edit warriors involved; LM and you. This proposal which would permit you to continue to edit articles, but only to edit content related directly to your own faith community; that means you don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices. This is a proposal which LM has told me by email he is willing to accept. Your role here is to say 'yes' or 'no' to this proposal. Please do so.---Taiwan boi (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The link Taiwan boi has given here is to a proposal by Richwales for a topic ban. As I have said above, I have repeatedly proposed that LoveMonkey and I freely adopt such a policy, even without it being imposed on us. So you can depend on it that I would not object to the ban being imposed on us from outside. I think I have a right to respond to the accusations above and elsewhere. Since Taiwan boi has chosen to give a link above to a series of accusations by him against me, I have thought it best to provide responses to the accusations. You will find my replies on my user page. Esoglou (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The link I gave is to LM's direct response to my proposal, not Richard's mention of a topic ban. Look at the indent. Richard did not propose a topic ban, he asked Pseudo-Richard how my proposal was any different in principle to a topic ban. Thanks for your "responses" to my RfC. They'll be very useful to me. Are we to understand that you agree to the proposal I have made here? I have not seen you consent to such a proposal previously, and you didn't bother replying any of the previous times I made this proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC) An edit conflict prevented me from getting this correction in first. The first of my two paragraphs should be corrected to read: The link Taiwan boi has given here gives an idea mentioned by Richwales: a topic ban. As I have said above, I have repeatedly proposed that LoveMonkey and I freely adopt such a policy, even without it being imposed on us. So you can depend on it that I would not object to the ban being imposed on us from outside. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The question put to you is whether or not you would accept the proposal made here by me, and put to you by Johnbod. A topic ban on the articles referred to here would not address the fundamental issue which the proposal here seeks to address, namely you and LM arguing over who is misrepresenting the other's faith community. You are not actually answering the question. Do you agree to the proposal I have made here, and put to you by Johnbod? We have already seen clear evidence that previous offers by you and LM to "freely adopt" a policy of non-editing were very promptly broken by both of you, so you have no record of trustworthiness in that regard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I see above that LoveMonkey has indicated his intention not to stop writing negatively about Roman Catholic teaching: "Esoglou and Richard both in their own ways refuse to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light." And I see that Taiwan boi considers it compatible with his proposal (the one to which indirectly he pointed with this link) for LoveMonkey to continue with that agenda, while, it seems, not allowing me to respond in any way to LoveMonkey's showing the Roman Catholic Church in a negative light: "Thank you LM, I knew you would agree to this. ... He (Esoglou) should not be editing with an agenda". Would LoveMonkey now agree to stop portraying the Roman Catholic Church negatively? That would be a solution. In any case Taiwan boi's proposal, "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", is in one way much too severe, restricting two Wikipedia editors to extremely narrow fields. Would LoveMonkey be expected never to touch articles on Gnosticism, philosophy, Taoism, Empirica Capital ...? But, more important in this case, Taiwan boi's proposal, "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", would on the other hand actually allow each of us to continue to edit precisely those articles that are the focus of discussion between us. It would allow each of us to edit Filioque! And East-West Schism!! And Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences!!! These are examples of articles that undeniably concern Eastern Orthodoxy. They just as undeniably concern the Roman Catholic Church. I see no solution other than an imposed ban on editing certain articles (a clearly defined list), or else an arrangement whereby, after allowing, say, three days for each side to present its case on Talk, some outsider is authorized to make a binding decision on whatever point is in dispute. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC) You are wrong on several counts. LM has explicitly agreed ("I completely agree with Taiwan boi and Ed"). You are also misrepresenting the proposal. It does not confine you to articles on your own faith community. It means, as I said explicitly, "you don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices"; it does not confine you to editing articles which only concern your faith community. This has already been explained to you more than once. I have made it clear that I don't believe either of you should be editing with an agenda, so you misrepresent me by claiming I implicitly support LM doing so. The rest of what you wrote is yet another attempt to drag the theological argument onto this noticeboard, instead of simply indicating whether or not you agree with the proposal which has been put to you. Do you agree with the proposal put to you, yes or no? LM has already agreed, so we are waiting on you. As Johnbod has already told you, if you don't agree then the admins will have to consider taking their own steps. The fact is that both of you have an extensive record of repeated edit warring over multiple articles, which is a very bad record to have here. The purpose of this proposal is to end that edit war since you've both demonstrated that you're completely incapable of doing so without external intervention. So the question again, do you agree with the proposal or not?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The deal proposed to me on my talk page was: "There is a deal proposed in that report, in which you and LoveMonkey would confine yourself to editing material about your respective religious traditions." The proposal to which you directed me with the link that at first I thought referred to a topic ban proposal proved to be a proposal by you "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", surely the same proposal as was put to me. Now you tell me that the proposal you are making is instead: "You don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices". This one makes more sense. But does LoveMonkey agree? He explicitly objects above to two editors for "refusing to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light". His latest transgression, I think, is his insertion of the claim: "One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell, poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce, are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition. This is another of the reasons why the so-called humanism of some East Romans (those who united with the Frankish papacy) was a serious regression and not an advance in culture." If LoveMonkey agrees to eliminate such claims, that would solve everything. It would make those articles of much less interest to me, and refraining from editing the articles or parts of articles in which LoveMonkey at present makes such claims would be a negligible price to pay for the cessation of such attacks. But I fear that LoveMonkey will insist in having his presentations of Eastern Orthodox views accompanied by negative comments on alleged contrasting Western views, instead of simply presenting the Eastern Orthodox views on their own merits. If only LoveMonkey did agree to remove those attacks, I would gladly accept your proposal. Esoglou (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)\ You took my statement out of its context, "The disputes most typically result from objections to how one editor is representing the other editor's faith community". You know what I meant because I explained it several times previously when I first made the suggestion earlier. The rest of what you wrote was yet another attempt to continue your theological war on this noticeboard. Please don't.--Taiwan boi (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Esoglou in his denial of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and is now dodging the question. Also how can what Esoglou suggests be reconciled with WP:IKNOW and Wikipedia:Advocacy since Esoglou is saying that not only what my sources say should remain off of Wikipedia but that he is justified in having me blocked from making contributions to articles I have knowledge about because he does not like what those sources I use have to say. How is this neutral? I again state I have not posted my opinion I have posted what actual Eastern Orthodox theologians have said (again not my opinion), why is Esoglou allowed to say because he does not like what those sources say that he can edit war and force them to not be included here at Wikipedia? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I've come here in response to Taiwan boi's request. I really don't know what should be "done" with LM and Esoglou. There are actually a number of issues being debated here, but I will confine myself to the central issue, the edit-warring problem. The best solution may be something like Taiwan boi's proposal that LM and Esoglou refrain from editing certain topics. However, we must be clear about what we mean here, because there is ample room for confusion. Does LM get to edit content that discusses Eastern Orthodox views of Roman Catholicism? (After all, such content discusses Eastern Orthodox, rather than Roman Catholic, viewpoints.) Does Esoglou get to raise concerns about, and tag, LM's editing on Eastern Orthodox topics, as long as Esoglou does not actually intervene in the editing? Also, guys, please stop accusing each other of "misrepresenting" and "dodging the question". There's obviously some honest confusion over what Taiwan boi's proposal was, etc. Please assume good faith with each other. Here's an idea: why don't you start all over at the beginning? Taiwan boi, please repeat your precise proposal for limiting LM's and Esoglou's editing. It doesn't matter if you think you've said it a thousand times before. Just say it again. Esoglou and LM, please say whether you agree to it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I recommend that we set a time limit (say, 12 hours) for how long the discussion should continue here. If Esoglou won't agree to what has been proposed, I will consider imposing an editing restriction here and then asking for review at WP:ANI. At this point, our patience should be limited. It looks to me that LoveMonkey would accept a reasonable deal. I am willing to impose a one-sided restriction if Esoglou looks like he will continue debating this till next month. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Ed, I must have been unclear. So I repeat - or if you are convinced that I have not done so already,, I hereby declare - that I do accept the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice. Does LoveMonkey accept this proposal? Was I wrong in thinking that, when it came down to practical undertakings, this seemed perhaps to be in doubt? It may be more than 12 hours before I return to Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. I'll wait a couple more hours to see if there are other comments, and then try to close this (unless another admin does so first). EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "I do accept the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice" To avoid ambiguity, I would like to request that Esoglou and LM agree to the following specifics: Esoglou will not even make talk page comments about edits regarding the EOC. LM will not even make talk page comments about edits regarding the RCC. Neither Esoglou nor LM will edit, or make comments about, RC theologians' statements about the EOC and EO theologians' statements about the RCC. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC) P.S.: I would like to emphasize that I am not pleased with the fact that things have gotten to this point, and if it were up to me, then I would probably not limit Esoglou or LM in this way. But both have now agreed to the above-mentioned proposal. If they're going to agree to it, then we had better be specific about what it means. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC) In the hope that this will remove all further matter for disagreement between LoveMonkey and me, I happily accept, with all the specifics indicated by Phatius McBluff, the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice. I understand that this includes the unresolved discussion about the allegedly original-research character of LoveMonkey's claim that certain statements by several Eastern Orthodox theologians "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church documents" (Talk:Hell in Christian beliefs#Removal of unanswered tag). Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Restriction agreed to. My reading of the above discussion is that Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. This does not prevent them from sometimes working on the same article so long as they respect this limitation. This deal should be entered at WP:Editing restrictions so that the agreement is kept on record somewhere. I will wait a bit to allow a chance for any last-minute objections. Though the restriction is voluntarily entered into, it may be enforced by blocks, as usual. To get the restriction undone, make a request at WP:AN, and a consensus of editors may lift it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this elsewhere. AN3 can do no more. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Ed. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your assistance Ed. I look forward to seeing this kept by the respective parties. Let's be clear on the wording to be entered at WP:Editing restrictions, and let's be clear on the fact that if the relevant parties breach this agreement there will be consequences. How about this for wording: Neither is to make any comment (on the Talk pages of any article), concerning the other's faith community, nor are they to make any edits containing representations of, or comments on, the beliefs and practices of the other's faith community (in any article), regardless of any source they may be using.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I disagree this is different than simply not editing in each other respective article sections. Now I am not able to post comments by Orthodox sources because those sources might contrast with the Roman Catholic church? Thats not what I agreed too. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC) You're certainly allowed to post comments by Orthodox sources, on Orthdox beliefs and practices, regardless of whether or not they contrast with the Roman Catholic Church. Have a look at Phatius' suggested wording above.--Taiwan boi (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I fear that what LoveMonkey wants to post is not Orthodox sources' comments on Orthodox beliefs and practices (nobody denies that in many cases they do differ from Catholic ones), but their comments on actually or at least allegedly contrasting Catholic beliefs and practices. I think this would contravene Phatius's specific 3 and Ed's "not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice". LoveMonkey's remark about "simply not editing in each other respective article sections" even makes me wonder whether what he has in mind is to have an absolutely free hand in articles or sections of articles that have "Eastern Orthodox" in the heading. I hope that clarification will prove these fears to be unfounded. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Esoglou stop being inflammatory. Your repeated efforts to re-ignite the argument on this noticeboard are inexcusable. You've already said your piece, there's nothing more for you to say.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) LM: "Now I am not able to post comments by Orthodox sources because those sources might contrast with the Roman Catholic church?" I assume that Taiwan boi's suggestion was meant as an endorsement of my proposal regarding specifics. If so, then you will certainly be able to post comments by Orthodox sources that contrast with the RCC, but you will not be able to post comments by Orthodox sources that discuss the RCC. In other words, you will be able to add Orthodox sources that say, "We believe X" (where X is contrary to RC teaching), but you will not be able to add Orthodox sources that say, "The RCC believes Y" or "The RCC is wrong to believe Y". If you do not agree to this proposal, please let us know. However, I don't see how the agreement between you and Esoglou will do any good unless we are specific about what it means. If you don't agree to my proposed specifics, then please suggest some of your own. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, that's how I explained it to LM by email after he made that comment.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Please take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion. If you think the wording of the restriction still needs to be changed, request that on my talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I agree, the wording now needs to be discussed elsewhere, and recorded at WP:Editing restrictions. Esoglou and LM, please indicate whether or not you agree with both Phatius' and my proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criminal black man stereotype (Result: blocked)

I enjoy eggs (talk · contribs) has a hard time understanding that challenged unsourced material can not be reinserted repeatedly into an article without engaging with the arguments of the editors opposing it.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a malformed report, but in any case the editor has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I'm not sure why you couldn't do it yourself, seeing as you're an admin and all. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I have been reverting him - didn't want to appear as using the tools in a content dispute.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mastiffkennel reported by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights (Result: Article protected due to content dispute)

Page: St. Bernard (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mastiffkennel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54], then [55] (Sorry, I don't know how to do this with intermediate revisions)

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

See the revision history of St. Bernard (dog) from November onward.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the thread at Talk:St. Bernard (dog)#Heaviest dog?!?; consensus was twice reached to remove the claim in question (see below), and this editor has continually restored it.

Comments:
This is my first AN3 report, so I apologize if this is somewhat malformed. This is a slow-burning issue over several months; there's no 3RR violation, but very slow-motion edit warring. Mastiffkennel has continually reinserted a claim about a St. Bernard claiming to be the largest dog in history, and the name has gradually changed from "Benedictine" to "Benedictine Daily Double" (the dog, by the way, is Swiss). The sourcing was extremely dubious, so I took the sources to RSN (link is in the section on the talkpage) and they were rejected. I removed the claim on that basis, and Mastiffkennel restored it. After reverting once, I opened a thread at the content noticeboard. Both of us were warned about slow-motion edit warring; however, by that time I had started a thread at the content noticeboard and a second thread at RSN, and had no intention of reverting again until a second, firm consensus was reached (and said as much here to the user who warned us). I then asked for a third opinion on the talkpage, and the person who checked it stated they felt the claim should be removed and that if it was restored, I should report it to the edit warring noticeboard, making it the second time that consensus has been to remove this claim. I removed it once, and now I have now been reverted, so I'm taking it here. Instead of edit warring, I went out and twice gained consensus for removing this claim from the article. During the entire time, Mastiffkennel has not engaged in any discussion whatsoever, despite my repeated requests, and has continued to restore this claim even after being pointed to the consensus that was reached twice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this report with no action against any user. Instead, I have Fully protected the article for 3 months. I chose this period due to (a) the slow nature of the edit war, and (b) the fact that the article had been previously protected for 1 month. Editors may use the {{editprotected}} tag to request consensus-based or non-controversial changes, or, if editors feel it necessary, can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a procedural note; it was actually semiprotected (not full protected) for a month by Ohnoitsjamie. Anyways, thank you for your time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by TFD (talk) (Result: )

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 18:17, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "which seems fully gratuitous and of no actual use in describing the article at hand. We coiuld add "left wing parties may be racist" just as easily")
2. 20:52, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412033084 by Rick Norwood (talk)sentence implies that all racist and fascist parties are right wing as worded")
3. 12:41, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "unless you intend to imply "all"?")
4. 16:27, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "exact wording of cite which does not say "avowedly" at all hoping this settles the issue, providing what he says about "right wing" as well")

• Diff of warning: 15:23, 5 February 2011

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

Comments:

• All edits were made in seeking to avoid any misconception by any reader, and were all sought to be compromises, whilst TFD has (for example) insisted that the word "avowedly" is in the source etc. As the word is not in the source, it is proper to make sure that WP readers are not misled. It can hardly be edit war to add a precise quote from a source, after all, as the material at issue was not removed from the article at all. All edits were discussed at length on the proper talk pages, and this should be quite sufficient if you ook at the tenor of the attempt toavoid confrontations. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  There must not have been any consensus as to what you wanted because they were reverted by other users once again, and you, again reverted them. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Um -- nope. The last edit which was specifically to seek compromise by using the exact words of the cite has not been reverted. Nor, by the way, do I think seeking compromise is something which ought to be penalized in any way whatsoever. The goal of WP is not to be a place for "wikilawyering", but a place where we produce the best articles possible. Collect (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD hasn't come here with clean hands, both he and Rick Norwood appear to have been tag teaming, (note the sequence of dates):

Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 13:08, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv "Wikipedia")
2. 17:56, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Try to clear up the issue of racism and fascism.")
3. 20:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv The reference does not say that right-wing parties are racist, it says that standard usage applies the term "right-wing" to avowedly racist parties.")

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 18:54, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "RV previous edits - no censensus to move or remove description from the lead")
2. 04:51, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412039820 by Collect (talk) Restore sourced text")
3. 15:24, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412143576 by Collect (talk) Text should refect text")

I suggest page protection to cool things off. --Martin (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus". This is a serious accusation. May I suggest that you refactor your comments, and if you wish to pursue the matter further to bring it to ANI. Also you may wish to notify other editors when you make accusations against them. TFD (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely - but I seem to recall [59] Here Jprw restores the comments of the banned editor, which is meatpuppetry. TFD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) which means TFD is far from averse to making the charge when he wishes to. Nor did I find TFD appropriately following up on such a charge. Sauce - goose. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#The_Four_Deuces may also be of interest to show TFD's use of "fascist" in referring to editors, and the warning issued to him. Lastly, TFD's calling absolutely edit a "revert" was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive117#User:SuaveArt_reported_by_User:The_Four_Deuces_.28Result:No_block_.29 Collect (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There were technically four reverts by Collect in 24 hours. I would not be inclined to issue a block. There were two 'pure reverts'. His third and fourth edits make allowance for the other side's position and seem intended to produce a compromise. His last version incorporates the claim of racism and fascism but one that more closely aligns with the language of the source used. I will wait to see if another admin has a comment. It would be logical to place this article under a 1RR/day restriction, and I suggest that somebody propose at WP:AN that 1RR be imposed. The Fascism article has been under a 1RR restriction since 2009, and it's been working there. The dispute here is almost the same as the perennial one at Fascism. That is, the degree to which right-wing politics and fascism are aligned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&oldid=412118924

1. 12:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411512461 by Masteryorlando; detailed discussion inappropriate here; police report sufficient. (TW)")
2. 22:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411640061 by AnomieBOT; Too bulky and awkward for intro; already covered in body. (TW)")
3. 02:53, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411784735 by Hgilbert; incoherent lead. (TW)")
4. 12:28, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 28 edits by Masteryorlando (talk); Conflicts with arbitration; incoherent presentation. (TW)")
5. 17:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Masteryorlando (talk) to last version by Hgilbert")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hgilbert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner Comments:

See Rudolf Steiner Talk Page. Also I note this pages is already on probation and this issue appears to have a history of inappropriate edits by Hgilbert see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education See probation removal at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rudolf+Steiner "18:05, 17 October 2006 Centrx (talk | contribs) unprotected Rudolf Steiner ‎ (Any user who engages in edit warring of any kind will be blocked from editing.) (hist)"

Masteryorlando (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:76.65.240.91 reported by CapnPrep (talk) (Result: )

Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.65.240.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

1. 14:11, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "vandalism; see Belgian language for further infos")
2. 21:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412000139 by CapnPrep (talk)")
3. 15:57, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412046018 by Nortmannus (talk)")
4. 18:35, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412184109 by CapnPrep (talk)")
5. 19:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412197219 by Nortmannus (talk)")
6. 20:27, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412210917 by Cagwinn (talk)")
7. 20:49, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "nothing else to do?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:
IP with long history of edit warring over disputed, unsourced, ungrammatical material. Discussion has not proven remotely useful in the past. The same user appears under the IP 70.82.96.170, currently blocked.

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blondonien/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

CapnPrep (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months Courcelles 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:24.162.240.209 reported by Mkativerata (talk) (Result: )

Page: Deaths in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.162.240.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 02:07, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "You have got to be kidding me. A dog gets a listing here? Let's draw the line somewhere...")
2. 03:10, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "I disagree. Humans only.")
3. 03:48, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "NO DOGS ALLOWED")
4. 21:31, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "dogs not allowed")

• Diff of warning: here

Fourth revert is within 24 hours and comes after warning for edit-warring.—Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)