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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 877: Line 877:


This user has a history of such behavior as seen here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Poeticbent].[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This user has a history of such behavior as seen here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Poeticbent].[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

* This report is obviously misplaced. It should have been filed under [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. However, dispute resolution is for editors who seek resolution, meanwhile, User Faustian is a committed wheel-warrior with an attitude problem, only beating around the bushes. Many times before I turned away from the article which Faustian – being Ukrainian – attempts to control, called [[Massacres of Poles in Volhynia]], written about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian nationalist during World War II. I know it hurts having to accept the responsibility for a genocide – as a nation – but it is a necessary ingredient in the process of future reconciliation between the two peoples. Faustian is trying to make the massacres sound like a military conflict with the genocide victims painted by him as as some sort of regular [[armed forces]] consisting of actual [[troops]] (these are his citations). What else can I say. --[[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font></small>]] 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:33, 31 July 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

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


    KeltieMartinFan reported by 162.6.97.3 (result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [12:41, 20 July 2009 162.6.97.3 (talk) (4,028 bytes) (undo)]


    • 1st revert: [KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 303123748 by 162.6.97.3 ]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]


    KeltieMartinFan has engaged in unprofessional edit-warring for at least three days, firing hostile complaints across the Wikipedia landscape. Rather than a real interest in sourcing, and absolutely no interest in the facts, KeltieMartinFan repeatedly demonstrates some odd, anti-Wikipedia agenda about the biography entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-07-20T13:49:54 Syrthiss (talk | contribs | block) m (3,945 bytes) (Protected Rebecca Quick: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: killing off the sockfest of ips ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)))) - does that help? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael H 34 reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 24h)

    This is a case of long-term POV-driven edit warring against consensus, rather than strictly speaking 3RR. Since being blocked twice[1] for 3RR on a related page (Parental alienation syndrome), Michael has been careful not to break the "limit" of four reverts. However, as can be seen below, there is both a long standing pattern of reverting editors, and today in a little over 24 hours 4 restorations (update; now 5 within 34 hours) of the disputed material (with three within 24 hours) The material sourced from an opinion column ("half of its members are women") does not have the agreement of other editors on the talkpage or at the RSN and this (and other aspects of MH34's editing), have been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage of the articles concerned. Recent edits

    1. 14:11, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "add attributed sentence and well sourced sentence")
    2. 16:18, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */ Better attribution; Minnesota Star Tribune article is a quality source for the attributed opinion of Sacks and Thompson")
    3. 17:16, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid the RSN disapproved the opinion article as a source for a fact; the statement in the article is now different and attributed")
    4. 15:59, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303412421 dated 2009-07-21 21:24:58 by Michael H 34 using popups")
    5. 00:14, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303551089 dated 2009-07-22 15:59:28 by Michael H 34 using popups")


    A more examples of the pattern of slow edit-warring against consensus on this article since mid June. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

    Per instructions above: here is an (incomplete) summary of the more recent disruptive editing from this account.[10]

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: has been blocked before for editwarring. However, in this talkpage posting I warned him that if he reverted once again to his preferred version without getting consensus for his edit, I would report him here. He did and so I am.
    • Endless discussion has been occurring for weeks on this talkpage. Here are some links [11][12]

    —Slp1 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No-one did anything with this because it wasn't clear-cut. Now its stale, sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. It's very hard for all of to know how and where to handle situations like this, I realize, though multo frustrating for those involved. :-( --Slp1 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's possible to reopen this; after the usual few days pause, he's at it again, with another revert of the same material[13]. --Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - This report was closed as stale on 24 July, at a time when the last reported edit by Michael H was on 23 July. Since Michael H 34 has once again (on 27 July) restored the disputed reference by Sacks and Thompson, he is blocked 24 hours. He should be aware that the talk page consensus is against him. If he agrees to get consensus on the Talk page before making any further changes to this article, any admin may lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ec- thanks, EdJ and just for the record, I'll just say I was coming here to report a second revert today of the same material [14].--Slp1 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Debresser reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: editing sanction for both reporter and reportee)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.



    Template:People by ethnicity

    Template:People by ethnicity/doc

    Template:People by nationality



    • No Talk comments for ethnicity or its /doc


    These templates parallel the long-standing (over 3 years) policy and practice. All agree the language is well known: "Which we all know." The templates exist for category descriptions, so that folks adding articles to the categories can clearly see the appropriate contents.

    As administrator Aervanath says on the policy page: the burden is on the editors proposing a change to establish consensus; see WP:BRD. Debresser has not done so.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd only like to make a few simple points. Please excuse the telegram style
    1. My edits were spaced by more than 24 hours each, and my first edit was not a revert at all, but a regular edit. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I made several constructive edits to these templates, with instructive edit summaries, which have been reverted by User:William Allen Simpson without any explanation whatsoever. In my understanding, the editor who does not seek to explain himself is almost always "wrong", because consensus is Wikipedia's central pillar.
    3. These templates worry several editors, and do not have community endorsment. I could bring several diffs to show this, including from the same Aervanath mentioned above. BTW, Aervanath's words have been ripped out of their context.
    4. I warned User:William Allen Simpson yesterday (sic!) not to start an edit war. Today, I added to that a warning not to try to wp:own these templates, see User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#Nationality_and_ethnicity_templates. It is meaningfull that the "own"-warning reads "Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing." Debresser (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverse report.

    Please see Template:People by nationality, Template:People by ethnicity, and Template:People by ethnicity/doc that User:William Allen Simpson has violated the three revert rule (in 1 of them within 24 hours, and in 2 of them playing with the hours a little). This is not the first time: he has been blocked for this before, see User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I could add to this a recent 3rd level warning for Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and the fact that this editors likes to "shlep" people to wp:ani and other places like that without justification. This is just another example, where he is in violation, but tries to wikilawyer his way out of it here. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) See also User_talk:Aervanath#Request where we are again worried that this editor is trampling consensus under his feet. I recommend an extended block for this disruptive editor. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur with Debresser. WAS produces material which seems to bodge together phrases from different and generally irrelevant policy documents to give these 2 templates a spurious gravitas (supporting his own idiosyncratic POV on heritage and nationality categories) and then reverts anyone who dares to alter the wording. And then WAS compounds the offence by reporting legitimate edits to ANI. Occuli (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He continues reverting at Template:People by nationality. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction

    The edit war between you two is obviously getting out of hand. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't particularly care what the templates say, or what the naming conventions for categories are. I do care that this doesn't get further out of hand. Therefore, I'm going to place the same restriction on both of you: as of now, you both are restricted from editing any page that the other has edited in the last month, excluding discussion forums (talk pages, noticeboards, deletion discussions, etc.). Any edit to a page in which both of you have an interest must be performed by a third party, after a consensus on the appropriate talk page. Violations of this sanction will result in a block. This sanction will last as long as I deem necessary, or until a consensus of editors determines that it should be repealed or modified.--Aervanath (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this an arbitrary decision, which does injustice to the nature of this conflict. I have written so in more detail on User_talk:Aervanath#Really.3F. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically:
    1. User:William Allen Simpson has violated the three revert rule - I have not
    2. I engage in disucussion on talkpages (in previous cases of conlict with User:William Allen Simpson, not in this case), and add explaining edit summaries - User:William Allen Simpson does not
    3. Other editors make the same reverts of User:William Allen Simpson's edits as I do and support my version (in this, as well as in the previous conflict).
    Point 3 indicates my version constitutes consensus. This, together with point 1 and 2 shows that User:William Allen Simpson is the disruptive editor. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I might butt in, I have recently (rather by accident) come to have dealings with these two editors, and I can hardly believe that an equal sanction for both of them is the appropriate action. WAS, though undoubtedly caring about WP's quality, seems to display classic page-owning behaviour, frequently reverting others' edits multiple times with no explanation, rarely engaging in talk page discussion, typically being insulting and unconstructive when he does. Debresser always seems to me willing to discuss politely, to listen to others' arguments and change his position when they are persuasive. I can well imagine that after protracted dealings with this other editor, Debresser may have given up trying to engage in normal dialogue with him, since it is often impossible to do so. The matter of WAS's incivility has been raised multiple times at User:Aervanath's talk page - I'm grateful for the time and action this admin has taken to keep this dispute under some sort of control, but at this point I think it would be more appropriate to address this real underlying issue than to try to tar two editors with the same brush. --Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with D and K above. WAS is technically a highly competent editor but seems to consider himself more equal then others. WAS's replies (if any) consist of copying and pasting reams of irrelevant policy (often initially written by WAS) rather than replying in English. The talk page of Template:People by nationality is a good example, or many cfd discussions, eg about Tamils. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the temporary absence of Aervanath, and in light of the above comments, would it be appropriate to apply the "until a consensus of editors..." clause in the notice of restriction, and (for the moment at least) repeal the restriction on Debresser? --Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This 3RR report, as originally filed, shows a real conflict between these two editors. I would have no objecting to lifting the restrictions if the two editors would agree to some kind of a deal to avoid future conflicts. Let one or both of them make a proposal. Even a specific idea for WP:Dispute resolution might be a sufficient response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Ed, I've been busy/traveling, and had no idea this report was continuing to see activity. Updated this old report with continuing 4RR by Debresser. Also, Aervanath is clearly an involved editor (based on the User talk activity reported here by Kotniski, where the conspirators have been coordinating).

    The conflict can be stated fairly easily: There are explicit long-standing policy requirements, there are a few editors that don't like the policy (as that causes them to lose the argument at Categories for Discussion), so they attack the policy collaterally by removing the policy language from the related templates and category descriptions. My defense of these templates against changes against policy is explicitly condoned under the (pre-existing) WP:3RR – "Enforcing certain overriding policies."

    In this case, Debresser has repeated changed the templates and /doc, and refused to follow WP:BRD, by ceasing changes and initiating discussion. Note that BRD is only supposed to be used for "keeping discussion moving forward." It is Debresser's responsibility to convince hundreds or thousands of editors that the policy should be revised (a gang of 2 or 3 or 4 is not enough). The policy has been upheld repeatedly at CfD, and these templates were created following a series of recent CfD.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, lets stop the rhetoric at AN3. This is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion. The editing restriction can be appealed at ANI, the conduct can be dealt with at RFCU and content at RFC/medcom. Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Arab Cowboy (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    This article has been in dispute for months and currently a mediator, User:Diaa Abdelmoneim, has been kindly helping resolve this dispute. After an absence of two days, I returned to find User:Supreme Deliciousness had made numerous edits to the article, some of which were approved by mediator. When it was my turn to make my changes, improve, and add sources to the article, as agreed on the Talk apge with the mediator, and after having spent 24 hours of continuos work and research to properly reference the article with reliable sources and improve its flow, User:Supreme Deliciousness reverted all of my work within minutes. I had not broken ANY agreements made on the Talk page reached through discussion, espcially with the mediator. I have been following the mediator's instructions to the letter. Any substantive changes that had not been previously agreed on the Talk page with mediator, I placed here, also as instructed by mediator, and not within the article.

    So far, User Supreme Deliciousness has reverted the article 4 times in a matter of less than 2 hours, as shown above, although I warned him each time against restarting the edit war and to discuss the changes to which he objected on the Talk page. He did not heed the warnings and proceeded with his 4 reverts, undoing my 24-hour worth of hard work. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not revert the article 4 times, first time I did, then I took back the info backed up with sources he had added and restored the sections he had vandalized. Mediator asked for adding of sources to the article, what Arab Cowboy did was to change the whole content of the article without agreement at the talkpage first, as the mediation has been so far, he changed several areas without providing sources or references to fit his agenda. This is vandalism. Arab Cowboy has then edit warred.

    --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, I have provided sources to all of my text, to the extreme best of my ability. This is what took me 24 hours of hard work to do. There was no vandalism of any shape at all done by me. "Fitting my agenda" is not an excuse for your reverts and your edit warring on this basis is forbidden by Wikipedia. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop lying, you changed the Atrash Section, you deleted that Sulaf Fawakherji is a Syrian actress, although that is what the source say. You deleted that Suwayda is her familys home town, which is also sourced. You deleted part of the lead of the article, This is vandalism! These things were sourced and had nothing to do with what the mediator asked you to do which was to ad sources to the article and improve text backed by sources, You went on a vandalism spree removing everything you don't like to fit your agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=304289862&oldid=304193933 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In spite of the rudeness of your language here and elsewhere, I have NOT removed any sourced information at all. This is the first diff that you reverted with your edit warring. In fact, you removed a lot a information that was very properly sourced by doing this first revert. Responding to your specific false accusation of vandalism:
    • The article is not about Sulaf Fawakherji and her nationality is irrelevant to the Asmahan article, and the ref was not placed after the nationality but after the name, which I did not change. You had added this nationality during my two-day absence. Are we going to list the nationalities of all the actors in the series? This is irrelevant information.
    • On homeland, mediator had instructed that all reference to a homeland be removed. Mediator's exact words on 13:09, 25 July 2009 were "I think we agreed at the beginning that homeland was not to be used".
    • "Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" was not sourced and was redundant; it was like saying "Supreme Deliciousness is Syrian and belonging to the Syrian Deliciousness family." This is redundancy on an unprecedented level and is very poor writing style. Mediator's exact words on this matter on 16:52, 23 July 2009 were "Syrian-Lebanese is doubtful as there is no proof that she got the Lebanese citizenship."
    • Any proposed changes that had not been previously agreed, I placed very neatly here, on the Talk page, as per mediator's instructions, and not in the article.
    ALL of my changes were legitimate and previously agreed or approved by mediator on the Talk page of the article. Again, your 4 reverts of what you think was "fitting my agenda" is exactly what the 3RR is for. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You deleted sourced info, you deleted she is Syrian, and you yourself had previously added that all actors and directors she met was "Egyptian" if this is relevant to the article, the actor who played her is also relevant. You delete sourced info.

    Yes mediator said that "homeland" was not to be used, but you deleted "her familys hometown" which is a different thing, which was also sourced.

    You are twisting what he said, the Syrian-Lebanese thing was about was she should be called in the lead, It had nothing to to with ""Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" which has to do with descent and not citizenship.

    You are a liar! your edits was not approved at the talkpage, we have been been editing the article with mediator help and agreements at talkpage, now Arab Cowboy has destroyed the whole article, he changed it to fit what he himself wants without any kind of agreement! This is vandalism!

    Also his meatpuppet Nefer Tweety has showed up --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The vulgarity of your style only reflects on you and your cause. Even if what you blurb above is true, which it is not, it does not give you the right to revert my work 4 times in less than 2 hours. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted my work 4 times in the same time and your meatpuppet also reverted my work. I reverted because you deleted sourced info and was not following the mediation process of talking in the talkpage and agreeing to changes by the mediator.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes to show who the liar really is; you've already posted what you claim to be 3 reverts done by me, not 4. While you in fact have done 4 reverts in less than 2 hours, of MY work. My edits were a restoration of my own work that you had reverted. Your attempts to deceive the system, as you have done with your "Supreme Allah" username, by copying and pasting the old article instead of actually "undoing" will not fly by the admins. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    3 time you reverted the page, and 4 including the first time when you reverted the info I had added before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question: I just noticed that it's been two days since this report was filed, and no one seems to have touched it. Is there any particular reason why? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pantepoptes reported by User:LibStar (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    The editor in question has refused to discuss article concerns on the talk page like I have with other editors. I placed the POV tag on the article and proceeded to discuss changes. I asked Pantepoptes to look at the talk page but s/he refused to. Following my 3RR warning, Pantepoptes reverted one of my other recent edits on a different article with a personal attack in the edit summary of [28]. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Pantepoptes has now commenced discussion on talk page after I raised this 3RR report. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:LibStar has been engaged in a number of edit wars in numerous articles. See German-Turkish relations. Pantepoptes (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    that is not relevant to the reporting of you. anyone can see there is zero edit warring in German-Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LibStar (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a personal vendetta issue with Turks and Turkey. Pantepoptes (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    rather ridiculous assertion, why would I then be bothered building up and spending time researching German-Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? LibStar (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No action - Though Pantepoptes is technically at 4RR I think he undid one of this changes, which brings it down to three reverts altogether. I am concerned at the rapid-fire pace of editing, without waiting long enough for meaningful discussion on Talk. Further reverts without discussion may lead to sanctions. Pantepoptes now seems to belatedly agree with LibStar that the article has too much 'cruft', so perhaps peace and harmony are about to break out after all. (His recent edits took out about 40K of a 60K byte article). Please discuss patiently on Talk where the article should go from here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - 1 week. I have replaced my original close of this report. For a while it appeared that Pantepoptes was adjusting to others' views. No longer. After his original edit war on 26 July, where he removed the POV tag more than once, Pantepoptes has returned to the same article. He continues to edit aggressively, with no attempt to reach consensus, and with incivil edit summaries that accuse other participants of vandalism. His new war started right after the expiry of another block for edit warring at Anatolia. His efforts to tilt this article to a pro-Turkish POV are hinted at by a comment he made above to the filer of the 3RR complaint:"You seem to have a personal vendetta issue with Turks and Turkey." EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chensiyuan and User:66.210.61.224 reported by User:Dabomb87 (Result:Page protection )


    • Previous version reverted to: [29] (the edit warring has been going on for days, but 3RR was breached only today)


    66.210.61.224
    Chensiyuan


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] (IP warning)
    • I did not warn Chensiyuan; this was an honest mistake. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

    Breaches of 3RR by both parties; I hope that this does not come down to blocks, but I don't want the edit warring continued. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page until some sort of resolution about his height is sorted out on the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: Moot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [diff phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates&oldid=304236064


    --Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale However, GoldDragon has been blocked per EncyclopediaUpdaticus's report below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.241.185.12 reported by User:MuZemike (Result: 31h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46], [47]

    User continuously adding POV and unreliably-sourced information, labeling Fine Gael and some of its members as "fascists" or "Nazis". MuZemike 02:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Realjduck1979 reported by Jduck1979 (Result: 72 hours)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=209113247 Original from when i had to fix it in April 2008


    Story: on the morning of Sunday 26th July 2009 I found someone following me over at Twitter mocking / harrassing me.

    Later that same day I checked my Wikipedia user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jduck1979 It had been modified by persons unknown from IP Address 74.196.172.31 So I had to undo their little additions, which included a taunt people used to bully with since primary school in the 1980's.

    I've just checked again at 5:50am BST on 27th July 2009 to find somebody had deleted a load of stuff off my page, and replaced more text... the offender being person using this Wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realjduck1979

    I believe this to be the work of the person behind this cyberbullying attempt over at Twitter: https://twitter.com/realjduck1979 This is my real one: https://twitter.com/jduck1979

    Result - 72 hours to Realjduck1979 for disruptive editing. Since Jduck1979 registered his Wikipedia account back in 2006, he is the owner of that name for Wikipedia purposes. It is not important here who uses the name 'Jduck1979' elsewhere on the web. If the more recent Wikipedia editor known as Realjduck1979 continues to mess around with the other guy's user page, I suggest an indefinite block. In addition, if 74.196.172.31 (talk · contribs) continues to misbehave that IP should be blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [48]



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


    Attempted Dispute resolution took place on user talk pages.

    • Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk pages: [54], [55]

    Despite my providing references that a regulatory branch of the US Federal Government recognizes IRYM as the reporting marks for this museum, NE2 removed this information 4 times within 24hrs. WuhWuzDat 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that your references don't back up what you're saying. Nowhere do any of your references state that IRYM is the reporting mark, just a convenient abbreviation. It can't be the reporting mark, because a museum would have a "private mark" ending in X; marks ending in M are for common carriers. I also took it to WT:TWP and got no response. This is a case where obvious misinformation is being inserted into the article. --NE2 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned both editors and asked them to agree to stop edit warring. One editor is technically at 4RR and the other at three. It appears there are strong feelings on both sides. Under conditions like this, both parties are often blocked. Still, it is uncommon to sanction an editor who has publicly agreed to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, in fact, have strong feelings about the insertion of misinformation, which I am 100% sure that this is. Is 3RR flawed in specialist topics? --NE2 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - Both warned. If either user continues to revert at Illinois Railway Museum they will be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. For example, ask at WP:3O for another view, or ask at WP:RSN to see if the references can properly support the conclusions that were drawn. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did ask at WT:TWP, which seems like the best place. --NE2 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Solas eile reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [56]
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] [62]


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biofase reported by User:RicoCorinth (Result: Editor has agreed to stop)


    • Previous version reverted to: [63]


    1. 19:37, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "no need for a separate section on this") (S/he deletes a section I'd created and my post.)
    2. 19:50, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "Let's try keeping discussion of one topic in one section PLEASE!!!") (Converts the section I'd created into plain text, so that it is no longer a section.)
    3. 02:43, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "Let's try keeping this contained in its own section") (The deletion of the section I'd created, is seen on the left-hand side, halfway down -- not to mention the moving around of other people's posts, including mine.)
    4. 03:33, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Less emotionally-charged example */ Fine, just keep everything in it's appropriate section please so constructive debate can take place. And stop making accusations of destructive edits.") (The bottom left, in red -- for a fourth time -- you see that s/he has deleted the text of the same section (already pre-destroyed by him/her). I created this section, not Biofase! Note, also, s/he changes a subsection I made, into a section.)


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] / [65]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [67]

    S/he keeps mangling, editing[68] and deleting my sections -- and moving people's posts all over the place (including mine). I can't keep track of it! S/he just does what s/he wants with other people's content. It's like, it's up to him (her?) whether or not I can have a section I made. Biofase's contributions history goes back to June 19, 2009, but s/he gives every indication of having been around a lot longer!
    Also, s/he made two comments and then prevents me from replying to one of them -- again and again moving my reply out from in between his or her two comments. Dealing with this impossibly disruptive user is extremely frustrating.
    In five years of editing, I've never seen anything so extreme. -- Rico 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just gone through pages and pages of diffs on the Talk:Neutral POV page --over 150 edits, the overwhelming majority of them by RicoCorinth--and the biggest problem I see is Rico, who seems to take a brute force approach to talk page discussion: multiple edits in a short space of time, usually to make small changes to his own posts (often well after they were posted, which is not desirable); constant repetition of the same thing over and over; refusal to accept consensus; and a habit of personal attacks, among other things.
    He makes rapid-fire edits, often several in the space of a minute, making small changes to his posts and effectively preventing others from getting a word in. In a couple of cases, such as here, he appears to be changing the time stamp on his own post for some unknown reason.
    He characterizes any formatting change to his own posts by other users (such as adding colons to preserve talk page flow or moving unrelated posts to a different section) as vandalism, while he himself here deletes another user's post entirely, and here makes substantial changes to another user's post.
    He has been warned several times about making personal attacks on other editors; here's one example, in which he writes "Cconning people on a 5P talk page to get NPOV changed just to hep you is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that."
    I've attempted to have discussions with Rico myself, as on the Talk:Carrie Prejean page (see the Breast implants (again) section for the most recent), in which he displays the same type of behaviour, and have found it extremely frustrating and ultimately fruitless.
    In short, I see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits. On the other hand, I suggest any admin making a decision here closely examine Rico's posts to the relevant page (starting at 18:29, July 28, 2009, when it appears he first started participating in the discussion)in light of the notice at the top of this page, which reads: "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Exploding Boy (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exploding Boy, this is WP:BATTLE (which is disruptive). You have a GIANT conflict of interest in evaluating a situation involving me. You cannot possibly be expected to fairly and neutrally evaluate it. As an editor that has fought me (and others) hard over whether it was okay to have an attack coatrack for Carrie Prejean, you should not be commenting on this 3RR, for that reason.
    You should not be commenting on any dispute that involves me, and not you, because of Wikipedia:BATTLE. ("Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges [...] or nurture hatred or fear.")
    It would be of zero surprise, to anyone that has observed interactions between us -- and your behavior in general -- that you would conclude: "the biggest problem I see is Rico," "I see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits," and "suggest [...] the person filing the report may also be blocked."
    No one would expect you to conclude anything else, regardless of the facts. I figured you might try a stunt like this.
    This was the edit I called vandalism, in which you added a colon to a reply of mine, turning it into a reply to a different post of yours. It was obvious which post I had been replying to, because I quoted you in my reply.
    I've seen other editors replace their sig, time and date stamp with "~~~~" -- when making a minor change to a post that no one's replied to -- and it seems to be the most honest thing to do. If that's not what we're supposed to do, I'd be happy to read the rule that says what we are supposed to do. We can delete our own posts, if no one has replied to them. When we make some minor change to a post that no one's replied to -- and replace our sig, time and date stamp with "~~~~" -- it's in effect deleting our posts, and reposting, simultaneously.
    You write you, "see nothing actionable here as regards Biofase's edits." They are four edits that mangled, edited or repeatedly deleted a section I'd created -- with the end result always being that the section title no longer existed. You expose your well-known bias against me (not that I'm the only one you're biased against, as InaMaka and others would attest to). Also, who else would go through 150 posts, just to make a case (against a Carrie Prejean adversary)? Who else would go through "through pages and pages of diffs," just to get revenge?
    I've blown the whistle on you for breaking the rules[69], and I don't expect you loved that.
    Why haven't you confessed your COI, like about how we've gone round and round at different noticeboards over the Carrie Prejean attack page? Almost every time I post, you accuse me of violating some rule, no matter how much of a stretch it is (or just flat-out wrong). I'm not the only opposing editor I've seen you do this too, and it's pretty clear why you do it.
    What you refer to as me making "substantial changes to another user's post," was me putting a reply of mine back where it was before Biofase moved it. Biofase had two posts, one after another -- with the same number of colons -- and apparently considered them part of one big post, and wouldn't let me reply to just the top one. When I tried, Biofase would move my post.
    You make rapid fire edits, as anyone can see from the Carrie Prejean history.
    I wrote, "Cconning people on a 5P talk page to get NPOV changed just to hep you is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that." This was exactly what happened -- and if you went through it all, you know that -- but I don't expect you to admit that.
    You have found our discussions "extremely frustrating"? Is that why you're here writing that I'm a big problem and there was nothing wrong with what Biofase has done, and that an admin should consider blocking me? C.O.I. WP:BATTLE
    I have found our discussions extremely frustrating, too, especially when you kept trying to say that a lack of consensus meant that a slag was supposed to be included in a BLP, even when I kept quoting policies that made it obvious that the exact opposite was true. -- Rico 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rico, please stay calm. Exploding Boy wasn't evaluating or acting on your request, he was just leaving a comment for the evaluating admin to consider. Writing long rants like this isn't helping your cause; the more you write here, the less anyone is going to want to read it. And this sort of back-and-forth "I know you are, but what am I?" in your comments like "you make rapid fire edits" is unconstructive and irrelevant to this discussion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I know it is uncommon to issue blocks for wars that involve talk pages. Nonetheless Biofase has technically broken 3RR by undoing the actions of other editors four times. I am leaving a notice for Biofase that, if they will agree to stop changing others' comments on this page, even moving them or formatting them, they will not be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rico has made numerous personal attacks against me and Zachary Klaas. He has accused Zachary Klaas of lying and conning people (us). It is not uncommon for off-topic (and inflammatory) edits to be removed entirely as per WP:TALK. Rico insists on discussing other editors (derogatively) in a section about another topic so I moved all that to one section, Rico claims I "can't just take these liberties with other people's content" but has himself removed my comment entirely telling me "why don't you reinsert it". He claims I have no right to move his comment which he inserted in the middle of my post after he did the same to another user's post which I had to reinsert.

    His main point is that I "can't just take these liberties with other people's content" when I move it to the appropriate section after he deleted it and I actually restored it. He has accused me of trying to WP:OWN a policy and when I pointed out that this can be considered an attack as stated in the policy he continued with the attack statement. Biofase flame| stalk  17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdJohnston: I respectfully request some time to examine the edits provided before I comment on this. Biofase flame| stalk  17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [70] I was merging sections which can be considered related. I did not consider this a revert.
    [71] I will concede that this is technically a revert due to that I remerged the section again.
    [72] I will concede that I remerged the section again. I did not however remove his text as he had claimed as I must have duplicated it accidentally (it's still contained in his section heading as can be seen at the bottom of the diff) so I consider this simply undoing my own mistake.
    [73] Technically I did remove his edit here as he didn't give me enough time to complete my edit before reverting it himself. A Mistake on my part.
    I can see that I technically made 3 reverts here, nontheless I will agree to your request and stop (have stopped) until there is consensus for the merge. Biofase flame| stalk  18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - Closed with no action, with the understanding that Biofase will not move or reformat any comments by others on this page unless consensus is obtained first. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What about User:RicoCorinth's personal remarks about other users as mentioned by myself, Exploding Boy, and Zachary Klaas I believe. Constructive debate cannot take place among this and he should be warned to refrain from WP:ATTACK. Biofase flame| stalk  19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rtr10 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: PP 72h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [74]
    • 1st revert: [75]
    • 2nd revert: [76]
    • 3rd revert: [77]
    • 4th revert: [78]
      • Please note that the fourth revert has a deceptive edit summary, but it is a revert nonetheless.
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
    • It should be noted these were not just reverts of personal opinion. A legitimate reference/citation from an article from TIME Magazine and User:Malik Shabazz continued to revert and threatened that I would be banned if I reverted to the referenced content. The last edit was not meant to be "deceptive" it was clearly just a recap of the edit, adding a citation needed tag. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sugar coating biography page. The bias of User:Malik Shabazz has become quite obvious and his first intention being sugar coating an article, rather than providing the actual information. Rtr10 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your "source" doesn't say what you claim it says, and your last revert re-inserted the disputed material. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a revert. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – While you (Malik) have not technically violated 3RR, you both have been revert warring these past few days. You two have not made an attempt to resolve the issue; giving Rtr10 a warning on his talk page does not constitute resolving a content dispute. Therefore, the page has been protected for 3 days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Enemymakes2 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: PP)

    • Previous version reverted to: [80]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    User is seeking to add a mugshot to a BLP, replacing another, more neutral image, wherein the subject of the article - an eminent scholar - was arrested before the charge was dismissed within days. There is something rather ugly going on. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note – It looks like Hands234 may be a sockpuppet of Enemymakes2. Hands' first edit came just 5 minutes after Enemymakes' last edit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. by Ronnotel. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon reported by User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus 2nd attempt (Result: 24h)

    Please ignore first post. Saved in error. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Previous version reverted to: [83]


    • The contentious phrase that GoldDragon keeps removing is "In 2003, Now Magazine cited this voting pattern in naming Holyday Toronto's worst councillor.". Other text was also added by this user that is not currently contentious.
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

    I have warned the user on his talk page and started a discussion point on the Doug Holyday talk page but GoldDragon insists on reverting even though I have asked him/her to desist while the discussion is open. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours His first revert in the 24-hour period is technically not a revert, but since he has edited the page before, the first revert is indeed a revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: Malformed)

    This is the second time I am reporting Destinero for plagiarism. The first time -since he was a new user - he was warned by an admin. Nevertheless, repeated plagiarism is continuing. See the Talk page for LGBT parenting.Tobit2 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Please provide diffs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: Page protected)


    This is the second time I am reporting Destinero for plagiarism. The first time -since he was a new user - he was warned by an admin. Nevertheless, Destinero's plagiarism is continuing. The last Talk page entry on Talk:LGBT parenting provides details of most recent incident, including information about the warning which was given to Destinero. Earlier entries on the Talk page document other cases of Destinero's plagiarism that were handled under the previous warning. Tobit2 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected Seems very fine line to me - I agree with you that you have attempted to adjust the copied sentence so as to show that the sentence can be modified so that it meets our what is not plagiarism guidelines. The trouble in my view appears to be with your word "well-being" and the original quote of "emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment". I am left wondering whether your simplified version covers these aspects well enough. That said Destinero by simply returning the quote is showing disregard for attempting to form consensus is dangerously close to being blocked for edit-warring. Perhaps the only way forward is to fully protect the article and force consideration as to how to move forward. I intend to do that now for 1 day so that all editors can calm down. Parties should carefully read the aspects of WP:plagiarism and perhaps WP:copyright during that time. If it is required that a further and longer protection is needed in the future please feel free to come to my talk page directly.
    --VirtualSteve need admin support? 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Plagarism#What is not plagiarism: "some examples where attribution is generally not required: Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Editors who claim that the phrasing at issue is plagiarism must show that there is an alternative phrasing that does not make the passage more difficult to read. If a proposed rephrasing may impair the clarity, or flow, of a paragraph, they must propose a rephrasing that avoids such side-effects, possibly by rephrasing content preceding and following the disputed passage, or even the whole paragraph." Once again and loudly: One short sentence presenting facts followed by references is not plagiarism. And if somebody think so, he should be able to rephrase perfectly or suggest quotation. It would be more constructive approach than was going here and complain. --Destinero (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Daa-gamma reported by User:Ratel (Result: )


    Daa-gamma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) first inserted a joke image of a teenager fooling around with a plastic bag on the page Suicide bag as an anonymous IP, and when reverted he created an account and re-inserted the image again and again. I have nominated the image for deletion, but in the meantime the new user is in full flight. Sorry, tired, off to bed...► RATEL ◄ 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thikkamasala reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [90]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Thikkamasala--no diff, since there are plenty of attempts; see also edit summaries in article history.

    I've tried to clean this article up, letting the main editor (who also seems to be unaware of WP:OWN, see edit summary) know each time what I was doing and why. (Note: first series of edits I made at work, as an IP.) I've left plenty of messages, but editor only communicates in the occasional edit summary. Editor keeps on reinstating non-encyclopedic, unverified material, a bunch of MySpace and Twitter links, information on the subject's family, etc. Most importantly, there is only one single reliable source in the article, but editor keeps reinserting 'references' to entirely unreliable sources. Given that this has now turned into something of an edit war, I'm taking it here, but since there are more issues, I would appreciate any advice you all can give me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 24 hours. Editor has been working on this article for two weeks, adds promotional material, ignores feedback and warnings, removes cleanup tags, and has never responded on Talk. His behavior (and the tags on the uploaded pictures) suggest a possible COI. Block can be lifted if he will agree to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Radiopathy reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [96]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

    It appears that User:Radiopathy wishes to keep comments about the notability of the subject and the possibility of a merger into the series article off of the talk page. User:Colonel Warden has also removed comments as stale and inappropriate topics. within 12 hours of posting. [105] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor is referring to the talk page of a BLP article. He has been disrupting for several days now, adding comments that either have nothing to do with improving the article, or are just downright uncivil: [106].
    I addressed his opinion about deleting/merging the article here, and explained that the talk page was not the proper venue for a protracted discussion on notability.
    He's been notified about all of these issues on his talk page.
    Radiopathy •talk• 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see here i warned User:Radiopathy however that got dealt with swiftly here referred to as "trolling" , after i had initially warned in this edit summary. You may not have liked what was said, you did in fact remove one of your own comments, but that does not give you free reign to continue reverting after a warning. Uksam88 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) You also did edit a comment by editor who reported you because it backed up a point you deleted one of your own posts. I'd suggest you both step away from the talk page, because neither of you appear to be backing down any time soon. Uksam88 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned [107] This must be the third edit-warring report about a talkpage in so many days. Anyway, Radiopathy's first removals of a discussion session were inappropriate, which was obvious. Since then, though, the talkpage discussion has descended to the point that it's not very useful anymore either way. Radiopathy, it's not appropriate to remove other people's comments if they were meant to be constructive (Jezhotwells' first post was a good-faith attempt to discuss the article's status), and dismissing them as "trolling" are not appropriate; we have all seen trolling before, and this is not it.
    I'm going to restore the original discussion that was removed, and hope the rest of the fighting here will end. The bottom line is that people shouldn't be removing other's posts, Radiopathy was wrong to do so, and hopefully there's nothing left on that matter to discuss. If the thread is removed again Radiopathy will be blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WRONG The user came to the article to disrupt in the first place; there already was a tag at the top of the page with links to all three deletion discussions. His continued trolling was inappropriate.
    This is the talk page of a BLP article; my actions were totally justified. It's not like vandalising a user's talk page.
    You need to reverse your warning and give a more balanced comment. Radiopathy •talk• 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that there have been other deletion discussions doesn't preclude a user from offering his opinion as well. Again: you might not agree with it, but that does not mean he's being disruptive. I suggest you read WP:Disruptive editing, because you do not appear to understand it.
    I've made my warning and won't be "reversing" it. All you need to do is understand that removing good-faith talk messages is not appropriate. If you continue doing so, and disruptively accusing editors of trolling, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to Talk:Barack Obama and tell them what you've said here and see what kind of response you get. The people who WP:OWN that article make sure that nothing is discussed that they don't want to hear about - not the same thing that I'm doing. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Powergate92 (Result: agreement)




    Ryulong was warned for edit warring / 3RR warning back in 2008 so i did not warn Ryulong for edit warring / 3RR warning as he knows about WP:3RR. Powergate92Talk 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours (Ryulong and Drag-5) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a stale report where the reported party had self-reverted. Can you take another look KoH, and perhaps lift the blocks? –xenotalk 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked both parties. Please check your email as well. –xenotalk 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was afk the last two hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Duke53 reported by User: 63.88.64.5 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [108]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

    I have tried to add a legitimate definition of "Dook" (a frequently used slang reference of Duke University), but user with name "Duke53" (the username itself indicates a bias for this article, and therefore I believe he should not be allowed to revert my edits) keeps reverting my edit without providing any legimate reason. He keeps claiming it is "vandalism". Note that earlier in the history of the article, other users have added a similar entry to mine, and the same "Duke53" user reverted those edits claiming "vandalism" and using words such as "childish" and "moronic". That, in my mind, clearly indicates a lack of objectivity. Please also consider the Talk page of user Duke53 - he appears to have a history of invalid edits and confrontations with other users. Now Duke53 is claiming on the Discussion page that this issue has already been discussed at length, even though the Discussion page previously only had one sentence! Wikipedia is about sharing information, and my definition was truthful, so his claim that a decision was made to leave out that definition would go against the spirit of Wikipedia. 63.88.64.5 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)63.88.64.5[reply]

    HalfShadow reported by 70.253.80.212 (Result: Nice try, no cigar)

    HalfShadow reverted contributions to the discussion page of this article 13 times in 28 minutes, as follows:

    His last reversion occurred after he was warned:

    70.253.80.212 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nice try, no cigar. Thanks for the extra proxy IPs that need blocking, though. Black Kite 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HalfShadow reported by 70.253.80.212 (Result: sock blocked)

    HalfShadow reverted contributions to the discussion page of this article 11 times in 27 minutes, as follows:

    His last reversion occurred after he was warned:

    Note this user's long history of being blocked. Also note his bragging about his edit warring prowess while engaged in the above: "I'm fully capable of doing this all day. If you think you can 'wear me down' you don't know me. All your doing is adding to my edit list." 70.253.80.212 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like HalfShadow was reverting edits by the IPs of blocked user Chidel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Which according to WP:3RR is not a violation of the policy. I also suspect this IP is a sock of Chidel's. MS (Talk|Contributions) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pantepoptes reported by User:meowy (Result: )

    Pantepoptes has been edit warring over multiple articles. As well as the above two articles, also see Accession of Turkey to the European Union. He has recently been given two topic bans for edit warring on Anatolia and Accession of Turkey to the European Union: [127], [128]. He refuses to engage with any editors in the articles' talk pages, and he is abusing edits summaries by placing offensive messages in them rather than explaining his edits, see [129] and [130] for examples of this. On his talk page I warned him warned about his editing style [131] but he simply deleted my warning. He also deleted both his topic ban messages, and gave the edit summary comment "death to cockroaches" [132]. I think this editor should be placed under these arbitration restrictions: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement and given a topic ban for the Anatolia and Erzurum articles. Meowy 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lvivske Reported by User:Fire_55

    He has continually reverted edits (not only mine) that make Alexei Ponikarovsky page show a canadian flag. Alexei IS a Canadian Citizen, but his explanation is that you have to play for team Canada. First, that explanation doesn't make sense because you can only represent one country under IIHF rules plus he ignores the fact that Steve Yzerman and Brett Hull have to flags yet have only played one one national team. I've tried discussing it on his talk page (link here) by saying either show me where is the rule that nationality is what country you represent, but refuses to respond to me and just reverts my edits.--Fire 55 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the report before because he started to talk about it, but he was told by User:MrDolomite "FYI, as of this time, the automatic flag icon is part of the nationality and nationality2 fields in the template. User:Lvivske is having issues with it on individual articles, (see these talk page sections: here, here and there) and I have suggested he come back here to resolve them (he never came back)." (The link to the disscussion here). He tried to change Steve Yzerman's nationality too, but got turned down and doesn't edit ear against it. this user is of Ukraine decent and I think that's the reason behind this. Just to add I really don't care about blocking users all I want is this user to stop reverting an edit he knows himself that is right.--Fire 55 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Poeticbent reported by user:Faustian

    For edit warring and abuse and other issues. He seems to be a Polish nationalist based on the fact that this behavior is directed towards stuff that doesn't fit in with a Poliosh nationalist POV. His edit warring and violation of 3RR here: [133]. I had attempted a discussion here: [134] and was met by abuse such as this: [135]. I tried to start another discussion here: [136] also with no results. This is, moreover, only the latest of his actions on this page.

    Prior to these incidents User:Poeticbent had been caught completely falsifying a source. Here was how he changed a referenced statement: [137] (scroll down tot he second green section). He changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches" to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches", with Subtleny as the source. Fortunately the original source is on googlebooks: [138]. The third paragraph on this page states "the authorites ransferred about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." This I suppose falls in the category of "Sneaky vandalism." [139].In yet another incident he attempted blanking info taken a book that had previously been online but no longer was (the book was properly referenced, though, with the title, page number and publisher). The entire conversation was here: [140]. Note the torrent of abuse when this was brought up.

    This user has a history of such behavior as seen here: [141].Faustian (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This report is obviously misplaced. It should have been filed under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, dispute resolution is for editors who seek resolution, meanwhile, User Faustian is a committed wheel-warrior with an attitude problem, only beating around the bushes. Many times before I turned away from the article which Faustian – being Ukrainian – attempts to control, called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, written about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian nationalist during World War II. I know it hurts having to accept the responsibility for a genocide – as a nation – but it is a necessary ingredient in the process of future reconciliation between the two peoples. Faustian is trying to make the massacres sound like a military conflict with the genocide victims painted by him as as some sort of regular armed forces consisting of actual troops (these are his citations). What else can I say. --Poeticbent talk 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=305221231"