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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:17, 12 October 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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:NE2 reported by User:TimberWolf Railz (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Also alongside the above are mirror reverts falling under the same timeframe at: Monticello Railway Museum, Indiana Transportation Museum, Infobox rail museum, Illinois Railway Museum.

From what looks to be tendentious editing, User:NE2 appears to insist on reverting to a version that general consensus has not agreed upon. He has gone through five different pages performing a series of excessive reverts and removal of referenced information to meet an unverified point-of-view, all of which were appropriately rolled back as unconstructive by User:Wuhwuzdat and per extensive discussion at WP:CNB; though the user has continued to revert through multiple occasions within a period of 24 hours, avoiding discussion and consensus building, thus violating WP:3RR policies on each page. –TimberWolf Railz (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an update to this report, User:NE2 has continued to perform numerous tendentious reverts throughout the aforementioned pages without seeking dispute resolution and/or mediation after being requested to do so via other editors. Extensive discussion and general consensus was already reached at WP:CNB prior to these edits. The editor has also admitted on my talk page that anyone else's revisions will be reverted as vandalism. Further warnings regarding WP:3RR have been given here: [8] [9]

An administrative sanction and/or insight into this editing war is much welcomed.

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment here, except to say that it would be appreciated if someone uninvolved would read the discussion on the content noticeboard carefully. I will not reply anymore here, so don't reply to this and except a response. --NE2 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Protected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryulong reported by User:Powergate92 (Result: 24 h)

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

Ryulong knows about WP:3RR as he was blocked for violating WP:3RR on July 30, 2009.

Comments:
In March 2009 there was a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu where it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK. On October 4, 2009 User:Ryulong (the only user in that discussion who thinks number of episodes should not be in infoboxes) removed the number of episodes in the infobox in the Kamen Rider Double article, so I reverted has edit per the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu and he was edit warring over it until today (see the revision history of Kamen Rider Double for that edit war, diff 1 and diff 2 are from within the last 24 hours). After that he added a message to the article saying "This number does not need to be updated on a weekly basis. Only update monthly" but it was also agreed at the WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion that the numbers can be update weekly, so I reverted his edit per the WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion and then he started edit warring over that (see diff 3 and diff 4). Powergate92Talk 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the content in question which can be found at WT:TOKU#Infobox numbers. In the process of this two-sided edit war, Powergate92 got Black Kite to revert me for him. And the four reverts he has picked out are to different content. The first two reverts are undoing his preferred content for the article. The last two reverts are a hidden tag I added after I reverted myself and added back the content Powergate92 prefers, but he disagrees with the tag. Powergate92 does not edit the article regularly and has only shoehorned himself in for reasons I don't understand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page "I did not ask Black Kite to revert your edit, I asked Black Kite "What do you think about this?"" and "I was asking other user what they think about this, if you look, you will see that the users I asked (User:Ckatz and User:Black Kite) are users I disagreed with within the last month." Powergate92Talk 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there was only an agreement that the number could be there. There was no agreement on how often it should be updated. Right now there is a discussion to clarify what should and should not be on the articles, for which I am waiting more input from the editing community. Also, there have been no edits (contentious or not) to the article in the past hour and a half. A block at this point would be punitive and unhelpful to anyone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the March discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu, User:Bignole said "if a group of editors wish to update a number every week, and the community (in this case the Tokusatsu community) does not have a problem with it, then that's the way it should be." I said "I agree with Bignole." and User:Mythdon said "What I want to have done in this situation is fully my opinion. If you don't want to update weekly, then simply don't do it. Me and Powergate92 want to update weekly. Fair enough?." That sounds like a agreement to me. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last time I was blocked for 3RR it happened several hours after the edit war had ceased and Powergate92 decided to report me for it, regardless. The old discussion can be seen here. This is the second time that Powergate92 has reported me to this board simply because an edit war had occured and he feels someone needs to be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can really say about this that hasn't already been said is that Powergate92 is a rather contentious editor who has made virtually no content contributions to pages under WP:TOKU; nearly all of his work in this project consists of picking fights with Ryulong over formatting issues and performing mass date delinking, which IIRC is forbidden by a couple of ArbCom cases. jgp T C 03:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved editor checking in. I read the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu carefully and did not see a consensus, nor even a formal call for consensus, rather there were three editors carrying on a discussion, two disagreed with each other, one offered a neutral position while another editor (now banned) chimed in. Extrapolating a consensus here is wishful thinking. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As I said on my talk page "On September 3, 2009 I added some info to the "International broadcasts" section in the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight article,[10] on October 5, 2009 I added some references to the "Production" section in the Power Rangers: RPM article.[11] Also I edit other articles you know as I been editing the Stargate Universe‎ article and I made the article Spliced (TV series)." Also on October 3, 2009 I made a minor edit to the plot of the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight episodes "Kamen Rider Wrath" in the List of Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight episodes article.[12] And I made the article List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes [13] Powergate92Talk 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would to note that the March WikiProject Tokusatsu discussion was started as a discussion at WikiProject Television. Powergate92Talk 05:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no consensus determined anywhere. The WPTV discussion says, again, that the community who edits the particular pages should decide what happens. That has yet to occur.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, it has now been approximately six hours since any reverts have been made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now fifteen hours after I made that last statement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24h. The merits of the contested material, and who if anybody has consensus on his side, are irrelevant under WP:EW. The report is not stale, and the block not punitive, because the article remains in the version preferred by Ryulong and he has neither reverted himself nor promised to stop reverting, and has indeed made an additional revert of another editor ([14]). The block is therefore required to prevent continued edit warring. Sandstein 11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onefinalstep reported by User:BobMifune (Result: Warned)

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

1st revert: [15]
2nd revert: [16]
3rd revert: [17]
4th revert: [18]
5th revert:[19]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

User:Onefinalstep is repeatedly blanking the "Controversies and Criticism" section of the article, a section which is being debated and discussed on the article Talk page. In the last 48 hours, a spate of new and long-dormant editors (including Onefinalstep) have arrived at the Levin article and engaged in everything from blanking to outright vandalism, due to the article subject (a radio host) directing his listeners to deface the page here. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Onefinalstep's blanking is an offshoot of this campaign. --BobMifune (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; the discussion is still ongoing and he removed the content whilst the discussion was ongoing, first without explaination. Clearly violated the 3RR rule; suggest a temporary block until a concensus regarding the section can be reached. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this contretemps be construed more as a content dispute that needs to be resolved on the article talk page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently not. He's blanked it again. Action requested, please. --BobMifune (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have gotten involved. As a result, the section has been moved to the Talk section for further discussion. Therefore Onefinalstep has essentially been proven correct. This matter should be closed with no action taken against Onefinalstep. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was not correct in breaking 3RR over a content dispute, sorry. His interpretation of BLP is roughly summed up as "no criticism ever". Shall we allow him to edit war over every article using this interpretation? I think it's shameful he hasn't been blocked over a 5RR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, given the circumstances, I highly doubt Onefinalstep will be acting in that fashion again. I think he learned his lesson. The purpose of a block is to teach him a lesson and to stop the repeat reverts. That purpose has already been achieved, and Onefinalstep has been working again with the community. Had the block come sooner, I would have had no problem with it. But as time has passed, it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended. So, like I said, I agree with you, but time has moved on and a block at this time is not appropriate, at least in my opinion, for what that's worth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to reluctantly agree. While the lack of prompt response to this complaint is unfortunate, it's a long time since the offense, and he's stopped, so there's no real point in blocking him now. A discouraging official word would be nice and would drive the point home in case he hasn't gotten it, however. Gamaliel (talk)

Cool. I've been friendly to him. Perhaps you ought to leave such a message for him--I'm not an official!! ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... I didn't get notice of this until just now. I would like to say that I think I was proven correct in my actions because the article in question is a BLP and the deletions I made were of controversial material. I simply want to have the material discussed on the talk page before it goes up. This is in line with the BLP guidelines. Both Gamaliel and BobMifune are also guilty of reverting my edits in unison more than three times. So if I am blocked I at least ask that they be blocked also so that cooler heads may take this issue up on the Mark Levin discussion page. ThanksOnefinalstep (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to add that I am not a "dormant" editor or editing because of some call to arms by Mark Levin. Removing the section is not vandalism it is in line with WP guidelines. The discussion page has come to an agreement to discuss the material before it is added to the BLP which, I believe, is the proper "conservative" stance.Onefinalstep (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proven exactly why you should be blocked. You've fragrantly broken the 3RR and when you go unpunished, show up here to proclaim in triumph that this administrative oversight proves you are right, then compound that obnoxious behavior by making a blatantly false accusation against me. Either immediately retract your statement that I broke the 3RR or prove it by providing links. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onefinalstep, I've been supporting you here, but I have to say I'm disappointed with your comment. And Gamaliel is in no way, shape, or form acting like that other editor. Did you even read what has been said about you here? Why you would come in here and say those things about Gamaliel after he said what he said is beyond me. I'll make the assumption that you are just having a very bad day. May I suggest that you politely apologize to Gamaliel and retract your statement about his behaviour. Everyone will then forget this and move on. Cool? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was that he and bob were reverting my edits as well. "Say those things?" Didn't he say the exact same things about me? I don't mind that he said them but why are you guys upset that I also said them. It's not as if I am calling him names.Onefinalstep (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also said "more than three times", which would make it a violation of the 3RR policy, a policy I take very seriously, but you evidently do not. You made a false accusation against me and again I demand you retract it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Warned. A number of admins have been watching the article and adding their advice on the Talk page. User:Manning Bartlett has put semiprotection on the article. The submitter of this 3RR complaint, BobMifune, is concerned about the repeated removal of a Criticism section by Onefinalstep. If he continues to do that from this point on, a block may be issued. Meanwhile it appears that there are enough regular editors working on the article to make it likely that a balanced version of the article that is fully in accordance with WP:BLP will emerge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported by User:Elkman (Result: )

There has been a long running edit war between Polaron and Doncram on geography articles and historic places. Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been attempting to mediate this dispute, but Polaron and Doncram are still at it. These two have been steadily reverting each other's edits and working up to 3RR on individual articles, but they've gone over three reverts in this series of diffs:

Polaron edit 17:16, 5 October 2009

Doncram revert 1 22:29, 6 October 2009

Polaron revert 1

Doncram revert 2

Polaron revert 2, plus another edit thereafter

Polaron revert 5 20:49, 7 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't specifically warned Polaron and Doncram of their behavior, but they've been warned by others. [22] is Acroterion's latest warning to Polaron, while I believe Acroterion's correspondence to Doncram has been at User talk:Acroterion.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] is the current version of User talk:Acroterion. User talk:Acroterion#Mediation contains a long, drawn-out description of this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Winter Island Historic District and Archeological District -- raises a general procedural question is also an example of the argument.

Comments:

I am not involved with any of the revert cycles. I have been involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, where it's obvious that I'm frustrated with the edit wars and with the project in general. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried working with both parties here, but it's clear that they intend to use the letter of 3RR to further their conflict. My efforts have yielded occasional fruit, but it has reached the point that their behavior must be modified by a more formal and enforced process. As part of my mediation I stated that I wouldn't use blocks myself to enforce good behavior, but it is clear that behavior modification must be backed up by sanctions. Both editors' positions are so entrenched that, while they've occasionally reached an accommodation on a single issue, the truce has been swiftly broken by one party or another. Both editors make valuable contributions, but must understand that their actions have poisoned the air around the NRHP wikiproject. I'd suggest they be formally restricted to 1RR (I'd informally asked them to abide by 1RR, but that's been cast aside), enforced by blocks of appropriate duration. An entire ban on splits and merges by the two editors, and submission to binding mediation might be indicated. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ec) Acroterion seemingly would prefer for the conflict to disappear by my allowing the unsourced assertions and the combative redirects to stand, thus handing the field to Polaron and allowing him to keep extending the battleground. The battleground is every article he touches, where he has shown by past behavior that he will edit war to protect his personal knowledge-based judgements. It's also more complicated as there are other editors involved. I object somewhat to Acroterion's implication that the conflict is among two equal editors.

Before ec, what I wrote was: What this relates to is a broad campaign by Polaron to redirect and merge town/village articles with NRHP-listed historic districts. In hundreds of cases, Polaron has unilaterally implemented redirects replacing existing articles, or create new redirects, and in some cases edit the merger target articles, all without providing sources upfront and without complying with Wikipedia style and content guidelines. Polaron also makes related edits in articles making unsourced assertions. In general he has either been unable or unwilling to provide wp:RS reliable sources supporting his assertions. He has shown extraordinary stubbornness to defend redirects and unsourced assertions by edit warring to restore them, supported only by edit summaries in which he asserts that what he wrote is true. In many cases however his personal knowledge has proven wrong and/or his judgment that a merger is appropriate has been found to be inappropriate. About a hundred redirects that he set up have been deleted in 7 batches at wp:RFD.

While I cannot delete the redirects that Polaron creates, I can delete the unsourced assertions and have been doing some of that; these cases are in that category. In one of these instances, the San Ygnacio one, Polaron has eventually provided a reference in an edit summary but not composed a reference in the article. In two recent cases he has eventually coughed up relevant sources that other editors then put into proper references in the articles.

A mediation process in which Acroterion was invited by Polaron and myself to be the mediator has plugged along slowly in dealing with several hundred cases in CT, VT, and RI. The bulk of the dispute may be seen at Talk:List of RHPs in CT and Talk pages and articles linked from there. At Talk:Poquetanuck is an extended discussion which was perhaps close to reaching some grandiose compromise between Polaron and myself, but which may not have met with agreement of Orlady, another determined participant. There was a ceasefire some time ago which Polaron has been enforcing a "status quo". However, the ceasefire and general process has seemingly failed in recent days, with expansion by Polaron to perhaps a hundred more cases nationwide and no action by Acroterion to actually curtail expansion of the conflict. Polaron has not stated this, but I suspect he is irked by the lack of progress in hundreds of disputed merger/splits, and has chosen now to escalate the problem.

About the 5RR count, I was unaware of being over 3RR in the San Ygnacio article. This shows a lack of skill on my part in edit warring. In previous active reverting back and forth with Polaron, he has been one ahead of me in the reversion process because he had been the one reopening a dormant problem case. He is meticulous in his counting and is absolutely reliable in practice in going up to 3RR. After i had opened a wp:3RR report about two months ago, Polaron advised me of his familiarity with the 3RR processes and that no action would be taken given that 4RR was not reached and that reporting was initiated by an involved party, which turned out to be exactly correct.

In my view, what's needed here is for Acroterion to step up and handle a process of reviewing the hundreds of disputed mergers and redirects, or for other WikiProject NRHP administrators to step up to that. A number of NRHP members have expressed embarrassment or similar emotions about the conflict, but there is no effective process to address the rising number of disputed cases. Unfortunately Acroterion has seemed to regard the problem as being the dispute itself, not the substance of the dispute. doncram (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The battleground is every article he touches" indicates that Doncram has been following Polaron around and reverting his edits. It's also unfair to ask other WP:NRHP administrators and editors to get involved in the dispute. The project doesn't have many administrators, and those who are administrators have their own opinions about the dispute. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so it's now my problem that you're edit-warring? No. You may not edit-war. Period. You have ignored polite requests to restrict yourselves to 1RR. Your dispute doesn't give you license to behave as you have, and I've explained to you that my time is limited, and if you want me to judge "hundreds" of merge-split issues, I expect your behavior to be exemplary. I'm not going to read a wall of text for each one, followed by rebuttals and arguments of bad faith by various parties.

I was out of town all last week, and my time this week is restricted. I am a volunteer. You seem to believe that any criticism of your behavior is an endorsement of you opponent's, which is emphatically not the case. You must realize that the issue to be addressed here at AN3 is your behavior, not the editing dispute. The article issues may continue to be resolved as my time and that of others permits. The disruptive behavior must stop before any substantive work may proceed. Acroterion _(talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Responding to Elkman: No, the battleground was defined by Polaron's practices following his creation of several hundred redirects of CT NRHP articles in July 2008 more than a year ago. I eventually bumped into his edit warring on those when i had occasional cause to create NRHP stub articles (usually to support NRHP disambiguation). Others including Nyttend and Swampyank had also experienced Polaron's combative editing to defend his redirects. I became concerned that this was a minefield for potential NRHP editors who would not be able to deal effectively with an adamant edit warrior. I began addressing the problem a couple months ago, mostly organizing discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. Following advice at previous 3RR report, i opened an RFC which was on that Talk page. At some point later Polaron and I discussed possible mediators whose judgments we would intend to accept, including two who had indeed expressed opinions already. Acroterion was one of those and he accepted the invitation to serve in that role. I note he was recently away from wikipedia for a while and has communicated he has little time to spend on this.

Responding to Acroterion: No i endure and accept plenty of criticism. I appreciate that you and me and everyone else involved are volunteers. If you focus on just the articles where there is reverting back and forth, though, you are condoning Polaron's creation of new redirects and expansion of his watchlist, where his past behavior shows he is committed to defending his personal knowledge-based opinions. What do you say, if not here then in some other Talk page, about the disruptive behavior of extension of the conflict by Polaron to articles nation-wide. There needs to be some limit on extension of the problem, and some progress in addressing the contested cases. Actually i think most old and new cases could be dealt with rapidly by deleting redirects (requires an admin) and supporting removal of unsourced assertions, in all cases where no reliable source describing relationship between HD and place is provided (which is almost all cases). Almost all of these are premature mergers, when obtaining the stupid NRHP document, which only I have done for any of these cases (except for one or two cases where Orlady found one online), would provide clear information. doncram (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elkman that the edit warring between Doncram and Polaron has spiraled out of control. Acroterion made a noble effort to mediate, and has made some progress, but the continuation of senseless reverts indicates that additional action is needed.

This warring has hurt Wikipedia in many ways. One is the time absorbed by the fundamentally pointless activity of seemingly endless discussions of topics about which nobody actually has any information (see Talk:Poquetanuck, for just one example). Another is the demotivating effect on the NRHP Wikiproject, which is already noted here. There also is damage to articles. Much of the warring has been repetitive merging and splitting of articles, which often damages the articles because bits and pieces have gotten lost in the process. I can also point to numerous cases that I consider to be disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, including (but not limited to) the insertion of nonencyclopedic speculative statements (such as saying that a particular building may or may not be in a particular historic district) into article space.

It's no secret that Doncram and I have had issues for a long time. My perception has been that he was convinced that I was out to get him, so he started following me around and doing things that could be predicted to provoke a reaction. I've tended to be sympathetic to Polaron in this, partly because there were some instances where I agreed with him, but also because I perceive that Doncram let up on his harassment of me and started following Polaron around instead. At this time, however, I judge that both parties are fully engaged in warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't condone the edit warring. But nowhere has anyone provided an real alternative between the edit warring or letting Polaron spew his messiness wherever he wants. Doncram has repeatedly and in many forums asked for help with the fundamental problem of Polarons unsourced. personal knowledge based redirects. All anyone ever does is say "stop fighting". It's impossible to deal with every one individually. What IS the venue? I'll take it there and ask for help, if Doncram has damaged his credibility. Is the only answer anyone is espousing to let Polaron have his way? Asking Doncram to stop reverting Polaron is in effect allowing Polaron's disputed edits to stay everywhere he feels like putting them. Lvklock (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lvklock for commenting. Following is my reply to Orlady that i put in without seeing your comment.

Response to Orlady: That's funny, I am pretty sure it has been you following me around. Having Orlady involved and somewhat taking Polaron's side has always complicated matters. I believe it has emboldened Polaron in making unsourced statements in articles, in edit warring to destroy articles actually under merger proposal at the very moment, and to expand the contested area. I think Orlady once or twice somewhat mildly condemned the edit warring by Polaron. She has raked me for every possible fault in something i wrote (like my writing a true, non-speculative, statement that a building might or might not be in a given historic district, a statement that I would never object to having corrected or moved to a Talk page, but is not harmful and is not wp:POINTY) but effectively condoned statements added by Polaron which might or might not be true at all, and which almost always are unsourced, and which Polaron will edit war incessantly to restore. In some cases Polaron may indeed have a source, but he is not able or willing to share it, and I cannot tell the difference between those and other cases where his judgment turns out to be wrong. I have perceived Orlady's efforts to round up sources that actually bore on the question to be generally helpful in spirit, although usually not adequate to answer the relevant questions. Questions which would be answered easily by the NRHP document that no one but me has been willing to obtain by request to the National Register. (It then turns out that sometimes Polaron's guesses on whether a merger is appropriate are sometimes on target and sometimes not.) Polaron has been exploiting the fact that redirects are easy to set up but hard to remove, and that he can easily set up a lot of them and edit war to protect them, without providing any mainspace statements and sources supporting their implicit assertions that the redirect topics are significantly related to the target articles. I would have hoped that Orlady, general a stickler for sourcing, would have facilitated removal of redirects and other elements of the unsupported mergers being set up and enforced by Polaron, which are effectively unsourced assertions. Also, Orlady's concern that true statements describing the situation but exposing lack of certain knowledge (like that a historic district includes part or all of a given hamlet or vice versa) cannot be allowed in mainspace, has effectively blocked using such statements as compromises until definitive sources can be found.

The long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck was not about that one article; it was about what to do about merger proposals where information was lacking and no one was willing to get the NRHP document that would be definitive (which applies to almost all of the contested cases). An agreement between Polaron and me was actually reached on that one article, as a sort of test solution, and then Orlady promptly claimed not to understand the agreement and repeatedly edited contrary to it. This seemed to derail an approach to resolving the hundreds of CT cases, because if Orlady couldn't accept it and abide by it then there would be little prospect that it could be applied elsewhere.

About being fully engaged in edit warring, that is Polaron, whose practice has been to set up unsupported redirects and watchlist them and all related articles, like laying a minefield, and edit war when anyone else blunders in. The commitment by Polaron to edit warring is on, full-time, on all of these, you just don't observe it. What you do observe is where I have occasionally been setting off some of those mines by removing unsourced statements. Also, previous flareups happened when I occasionally created stub articles in replacement of redirects. You do not observe me adding unsourced statements to articles and battling to protect them. doncram (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notes for Orlady and Acroterion trying to get some ideas for how to close this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think the participants might agree to a deal. This is now being explored at Acroterion's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - On hold. Need to sort this out. If no agreement can be found at User talk:Acroterion, the case should be reopened and handled like a regular edit warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a few suggestions for how the underlying dispute might be solved. Discussion happened at Acroterion's talk page. Doncram did not like the proposed deal, and Polaron did not respond. Further suggestions are welcome, especially from members of the NRHP WikiProject. The project could deal with the underlying issue if they would use an RfC-like process to create guidelines for treatment of historic districts. I am not inclined to close this case myself. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I sympathize with your frustration, EdJohnston, but I hope that something can be done to get past the current impasse. Things have calmed down, and we can hope that they have improved permanently, but I don't truly believe that the matter has been resolved.

A capsule restatement of Doncram's objection to the proposed resolution is that his ego has been bruised and he believes he should not be subject to restrictions because he is totally blameless in this dispute and editing restrictions would damage his aspirations to becoming an administrator. Meanwhile, he seems to be avoiding content areas related to the dispute, but is instead contributing inconsequential stubs like this one -- whose quality is not of the caliber expected from a contributor with his experience and capabilities. In effect, he is abiding by the proposed resolution by staying away from the topic, but because he does not acknowledge any blame in the edit warring and clearly doesn't have his heart in work that he is doing instead, I think it likely that he is itching to get back into the area of the dispute after the dust settles here.

I think that you are the LAST person who should be allowed to provide a "capsule restatement" of Doncram's feelings about anything. I have, in fact, several times seen him explicitly ask you NOT to do so. Let's just say that this is you OPINION, which clearly does not ASSUME GOOD FAITH. As far as "inconsequential stubs like this one", if you looked at the edit history, I'm sure you noted that it was part of setting up a disambiguation page, and was done, I believe, in order to make that entry a blue link so that it could stay in alphabetic order geographically, which has been disputed by some DAB editor recently, who insists that blue links must come first. Isn't staying away from the topic what everyone has ASKED him to do? But now, he's doing it, and you're still going to assume the worst. And, yes, clearly he must be "itching" to have the issue settled. That's been the point, all along.

Meanwhile, although Polaron did respond to the proposed resolution, he also appears to be trying to abide by it. In so doing, however, he seems to be continuing to seek historic district names that possibly could be redirected to existing articles, but he is asking others to intervene instead of creating the redirects himself. Also, a few of his recent edits, such as this series, have been fix-ups of earlier work by Doncram.

I think you meant to say although Polaron did NOT respond. Right. Polaron is still working to advance his cause. And yet, you clearly are not condemning him, but instead are condemning Doncram for the way he is staying away?! Earlier work, for sure....nine months old...before any conflict between them. So, is Polaron following him around, looking for things to make him look bad? Yes, Doncram has a habit of writing editorial stuff into articles, thinking he'll get back to it and then not doing so. That type of note clearly belongs on the Talk page. It doesn't have anything to do with this current dispute, but is apparently being brought up here to further the "beat up on Doncram" tendency I have noted elsewhere. Lvklock (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this situation will not be resolved until the underlying issues on historic districts are resolved. I had hoped that uninvolved NRHP Wikiproject members could mediate this, since Wikiproject members are most likely to understand the issues, but I'm not sure that there are any WP members who are both uninvolved and willing/qualified to mediate. Notwithstanding that view, I don't think that resolution of the underlying is ever going to occur within the NRHP Wikiproject, however. First off, Polaron not "officially" a member of that Wikiproject. More significantly, I believe that the underlying problem is a difference of opinion/perspective between (1) some (many?) of the Wikiproject members and (2) other Wikipedians who contribute articles about U.S. places and historical topics, but aren't particularly interested in the NRHP per se as a topic. I don't think that a permanent resolution this underlying conflict can be reached within the Wikiproject, due to many participants' views that appear to hold that (1) the NRHP listing is the primary source of notability for an area that is designated as an historic district, (2) in some cases, the "standards" (my term, intended to avoid using terms like "guideline" and "policy" that have specific defined meanings) of the Wikiproject supersede Wikipedia-wide "standards", and (3) articles about NRHP-listed properties are diminished by inclusion of information that is not directly related to the NRHP listing or the physical attributes of the listed properties. (Note: I predict that Doncram, Lvklock, and perhaps others will dispute my last statement, which is admittedly an oversimplification that likely does not precisely reflect anyone's opinions.) --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak to my own views. I do not believe I have ever asserted that "NRHP listing is the primary source of notability", just that it is A source of notability, and therefore that separate articles should be ALLOWED. I'm not even going any further here. It's all been said before. I would just note my objections to Orlady's comments being considered AT ALL objective. Lvklock (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston's proposal concerning the edit-warring parties is in line with those proposed and enforced in similar situations. It was my intention to await resolution of the edit-warring issue before working with the historic district issue. This may not be possible. Polaron's suggestions at Talk:Poquetanuck represent the best existing material for future action. Since no editors appear to wish to compile a list of articles for examination or arbitration, and nobody has come up with a better methodology, an RfC may be the best opportunity to develop a codified policy, using those suggestions as a starting point, and drawing the issue away from the NRHP project, which clearly can't solve the problem on its own. That would also (I hope) draw the issue away from personalities and personal feelings. Acroterion _(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Since no editors appear to wish to compile a list of articles for examination or arbitration"? What about User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list? I note that Doncram continues to try to RESOLVE these issues, while Polaron is ignoring the whole process. Lvklock (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually caught on that Doncram had put it in my userspace; I had missed it in overlapping new messages. We are trying to direct the discussion away from editor X vs. editor Y, so this arrangement may be better than what I proposed. Let's stop casting this as one editor vs. everybody else, please. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamer112 reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Both warned)

Reason: Disruptive editing, while unwilling to engage in any discussion

Two weeks ago, Gamer112 reverted one of my actions (1st revert) and justified his 2nd revert later by requesting prior discussion ("please refrain from removing large chunks of material without prior discussion"). Fine, I did exactly that by giving my reasons on talk page, but since then Gamer112 has refused to engage in any discussion and simply continues to revert my edits without forwarding any reasons at all:

3rd revert: [24]
4th revert: [25]
5th revert: [26]
6th revert: [27]

Notably, his pattern of contributions shows him to visiti Wikipedia mainly to undo my edits. I notified him of being in danger of an edit war ([28]), but he did not react. Since no-one else takes an interest in the dispute, and since Gamer112 steadfastly declines to talk to me and explain his rationale, I don't know what to do anymore. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested comment by Gamer112. Currently, I am inclined to warn both editors that they will be blocked if they continue the slow-motion edit warring. The last revert was 2 days ago, so no immediate block is required. Sandstein 11:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on blowing such a trivial issue right out of proportion. To be blunt & efficient; my main gripe with the state of the article (Cataphract) as it is now and Gun Powder Ma's contributions is simply put, his holier-than-thou attitude and complete disregard for the hard work and months of contribution I have made to greatly improve this burgeoning article. Without so much as a peep on the discussion page or even brief blurb about his changes in an edit summary he significantly alters half the article, with an overall poorly referenced, poorly worded and slightly-POV pushing edit:[29]

Fair enough, I assumed good faith and left a friendly invitation to work this issue out through open dialogue on his talk page: [30] He took offence to my reverts (and I use "offence" in the strongest sense possible, as it seems the mere thought of someone reverting his changes seems like a literal slap in the face to him), although I would like to point out, without any prior discussion, any elaboration or significant attempt to try and have full partisan support of other editors on this article such as myself, his contributions were wholly uncourteous and completely disrupted the flow and overall quality of this article. I reverted them a mere three times prior to contacting him directly and instructing him to discuss the issue there within the edit summary.

I fail to see the serious breach in Wikipedia guidelines I have allegedly committed. All three reverts were on completely separate days and Gun Powder Ma, whom the burden of proof falls upon here, as he edited the article not I, made no attempt to try and reason the issue out with me, instead just kept on reverting my reverts. Why exactly am I responsible for his lack of communication?

He seems to be under the impression that only HE is allowed to edit and revert articles without prior discussion or notification while other users have to abide by his "unwritten rule" mentality. I really do not see the big issue here. As it stands now, the article includes both of our shared contributions in a relatively ad-hoc manner, but nevetheless readable and conforming to encyclopaedic conventions. I propose it be left this way and both of us barred from editing it until we manage to reach some mutual compromise.

Gun Powder Ma's explanation as to why certain parts of my material are not deemed "fit" to be included within this article basically amounts to a juvenile "because I said so" reasoning with little rational basis behind it:[31] Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spare myself replying to your rant and expect you at the talk page for providing a rationale to your edits. You should be aware that the only reason why we both are not blocked is because I refrained from another revert even though you confined yourself for two weeks to stubborn reverting without commenting on it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Both warned, per Sandstein's comment. Any further reverts that do not enjoy a talk page consensus may result in blocks. The policy on WP:Dispute resolution is there for a reason. Please consider using it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donhend reported by User:Andrewponsford (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

I am trying to highlight that there are a number of verifiable errors on ESPNsoccernet with this one author and readers should be aware. Donhend wants to hide this and will not engage in a conversation of any kind to find a resolution. Andrewponsford (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)andrewponsford[reply]

Result - Protected one week, since the edit war has continued. Neither party to this complaint seems to have figured out yet how to make neutral contributions that are backed by reliable sources. Please use the talk page to try to persuade other contributors to support your changes to the article. You need to do more than add your personal opinions to the article. What you add should be based on publications that have written articles about this website. Comments by individuals that are made in this website's own forum are not usable per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.80.162.186 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 3 days)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

1st revert: [40]
2nd revert: [41]
3rd revert: [42]
4th revert: [43]
5th revert: [44]
6th revert: [45]
7th revert: [46]
8th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Blocked 3 days by Juliancolton. Sandstein 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.99.50.71 and User:76.16.133.201 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page.

Comments:User is changing IP addresses to avoid violating 3RR. See edit-warring on October 2. Report was filed, but no action taken by admins.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Protected three days. I note that the IPs are participating on Talk, and I see no evidence that any party is waiting for consensus before reverting. WP:Dispute resolution gives advice on what to do when parties disagree. After protection expires, continued reverts by anyone (who can't demonstrate Talk page consensus for their edits) may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:GVU reported by User:Abecedare (Result: 24hrs)

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

12:05, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
12:08, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Norway is not international reaction because it is an award awarded by Norwegian politicians, hence, the opinion of the opposition in Norway is an internal matter")
13:10, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:26, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "this is sourced below and needs to be mentioned in the lead")
13:53, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
14:25, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "pathetic")

—Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] and [56]

Also see discussion at : User Talk page and article talk page. User is also edit-warring, and has broken 3RR at Barack Obama over the same issue of trying to label the award as "controversial".

12:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
13:58, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
14:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
14:24, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")
14:33, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "NPOV - the section on the Peace Prize is not neutral because it only contains praise and does not mention the widespread and well sourced criticism")
14:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Nobel Peace Prize */")

Note that both articles are on article probation, but I am not taking this to AE since it is a straightforward case of edit-warring and user has no prior history on Obama related articles. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Comment: User refuses to grasp policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP. Contentious use of templates here, here, and here. DKqwerty (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.144.70.15 reported by Verbal (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

11:54, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
12:59, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:15, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318862221 by Verbal (talk) No need for this "right" wing tag, they don't care about small gov")
14:03, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318867168 by Verbal (talk) Pointless tag, see discussion")
15:16, 9 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 318876693 by Snowded (talk) It's a pointless tag, it's a pointless tag...")

Continued and continuing removal of "far right" against talk page consensus and reliable sources, and other policies. Some diffs are made up of several edits. —Verbal chat 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ongoing problem, user switched IPs: 82.29.1.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Verbal chat 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both IPs blocked for 1 week for edit warring and sockpuppetry. AdjustShift (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing problem at English Defence League, now with 195.228.173.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:PRODUCER reported by User:Aradic-es (Result: stale)

Couple blind reverts:

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

Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you BOTH reverted like five times. --King Öomie 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summa summarum:he deletes what he dislikes, does not care if he commits some collateral damage.He is an SPA edit warrior.Añtó| Àntó (talk)

I don't see any 'blind' reverts, actually. --King Öomie 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Chris Benoit (Result: Already protected)

It appears that there an edit war by people attempting to violate WP:Undue, and WP:Verifiability. These edits have included making the absurd claim that the information placed is unsourced, unverified, and or speculative despite the use of legitimate sources, and citing to legal findings of fact. It seems the underlying basis behind removing the information, or using weasel words in violation of WP:Avoid weasel words while also making speculation as to what occurred. According to at least one poster rationalization, the possibility that Benoit did not murder his family is .000000001 and despite government findings and media reports, he is not a murderer. It appears edits like these have been occurring for several months. Talk page use has done nothing but make the users more hostile and irrational, including them using a crystal ball argument despite the obvious verifiability of the facts and disinterested third parties stepping in to give their opinion contrary to what they are attempting to do. It seems like it is time for administrators to step in. Principle users involved include user:GaryColemanFan, and user:Gavyn Sykes. Any aid in bringing this edit war to a close will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Article protected by User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CraigMonroe reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Already protected)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

1st revert: [65]
2nd revert: [66]
3rd revert: [67]
4th revert: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chris Benoit#Murderer

Comments:

I love your trickery. You get reported, so you report me. One problem, unlike you, I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours as required by the rule. In fact, a poster even pointed this out in the history for the Chris Benoit article. Admins, please take notice of this. I am trying to make this place better, and posters like GaryColeman seem intent on trying to change history. I keep asking for evidence that Benoit didn't do it so I can at least understand the dissaproval of the edit but instead get the response that the murder is unverified despite the facts, news reports, legal findings, etc. In fact, the majority of logic agaisnt me seems to be "I don't care what the papers say, I know better." Without question, such edits are clearly questionable. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts were:

18:27, 8 October 2009

11:32, 9 October 2009

15:55, 9 October 2009

17:40, 9 October 2009

Clearly, this was all within a 24 hour period. The article history shows that I did not, in fact, violate 3RR. Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you posted my violation here prior to the fourth edit which was not a reversion so the argument about it being a "warning" is asinine. Second, where did I revert for the fourth time within 24 hours, unlike you? Come on, I am still waiting for you to explain your logic. Saying the investigation MAY be wrong is not a valid reason. What can we do to compromise and make the article better? I have repeatedly asked you to explain your reasons but the best you have stated is that a coroner's inquest is only an opinion. I guess if a person stretches logical reality it may be. Then again, if that is true, so is a court's decision, admissions of guilt, video of a crime, etc. Looking away from this, what can be done to compromise? (Which, by the way, my fourth edit was an attempt at and was not a reversion). Admins, do you see what I am dealing with now? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he edited his post substantially. Note the absurdity of his claims: <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=318925251&oldid=318924621</url> —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - The article has been protected by User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and what about the violation of 3RR? GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncommon for someone in a 3RR case to be blocked when the article is already protected. (Since the article is protected, the war can't continue). Ask the protecting admin, User:Bibliomaniac15, if you believe there is a continuing problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, even though CraigMonroe deliberately violated 3RR after being warned about the consequences, the "solution" is just to reward his edit warring by locking the article on his preferred version? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is traditional to protect the Wrong Version. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, please just let the Admins do their job. If we had worked this out on the talk page, this would be unnecessary. Also, you violated 3RR. So Don't play so innocent. CraigMonroe (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GaryColemanFan is now questioning Admin action, and accusing admins of being "spineless" and "ignorant:" ^[1]. Is there any way to get a ruling so that further attacks by GaryColeman can be stopped? I am simply trying to improve an article and he seems steadfast in not allowing improvement for some unforeseen motive and talking down to anyone trying to follow Wikipedia policy. When will it end? CraigMonroe (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) CraigMonroe is now engaged in wikihounding, as he is following all of my edits and posting numerous follow-up notes to each of them. (2) Any editor is perfectly entitled to question administrative action. Administrators makes mistakes and I think it would be hard to find an administator that does not believe that he or she should be held accountable by other editors. (3) CraigMonroe is deliberately misquoting me, as I have never called an administrator ignorant, let alone multiple administrators, as he has claimed. (4) I provided the diffs to prove that CraigMonroe violated 3RR. His claim of innocence is a blatant lie. (5) His claim that I violated 3RR is also a blatant lie. If diffs proving otherwise can be provided, I will apologize fully...but they won't be, because they simply don't exist. (6) As I said before, Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being disingenuous in any way. See EdJohnston talk page where Gary states: "What does this teach him? That Wikipedia administrators are spineless and that acting like a bully will get him his way." Additionally, he states "As an administrator, you should be open to giving a straight answer to a reasonable question instead of making the situation worse with such an ignorant response." In response to an Admin pointing out the rules, he states "The issue at hand is the attitude with with you replied to my question and your failure to apologize." I am sorry if he thinks my act of responding to him discussing ME when he is trying to get me banned is wikihounding. Also, talk about hypocrisy. He claims this isn't the proper place to take a dispute yet still comes back here forcing me to respond, otherwise being accussed of ignoring his half-truth argument. Now he continues to lie about his innocence and me. The fact remains--despite his lies--that if a rule was broken by one person, they were broken by both of us, except in the case of a 3RR violation since, unlike him, I did not violate the rule. Meanwhile, I still want to solve the problems with the article but instead, Gary wants to play these games. Admins, is there anything you can do to help?CraigMonroe (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. Anyhow, can I please get a straight answer from an administrator that takes his or her position seriously? I have two "yes" or "no" questions. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but I would like a simple "yes" or "no" so that the talk of false accusations can be put to rest. (1) Did I violate 3RR on this article? (2) Did CraigMonroe violate 3RR on this article? Thank you in advance for your two-word response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deaththrow reported by User:Hammertime2005 (Result: Already blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318921156
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318897640
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318773825
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318924774

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Jett

Comments:

Hammertime2005 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Already blocked by User:FisherQueen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammertime2005 reported by User:Deaththrow (Result: Submitter blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Jett&oldid=318924774]

1st revert: [71]
2nd revert: [72]
3rd revert: [73]
4th revert: [74]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:

Deaththrow (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through all of the dispute, but notice that the article history shows you, Deathrow, repeatedly calling Hammertime2005 a "NAZI". I would strongly recommend choosing a different way to voice your displeasure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Deaththrow is already blocked for edit warring by FisherQueen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Welshsocialist reported by User: Riversider2008 (Result: No vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [76]

1st revert: [77]
2nd revert: [78]
3rd revert: [79]

Diff of edit warring [80]

Diff of edit warring [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Diff of multiple attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments: I've posted multiple citations showing that Labour is described by many authoritative published sources as neoliberal on the talk page, and in the article. I've added more citations as the edit war has continued, including one quoting a senior Labour Party figure Lord Mandelson "We are all Thatcherites now". Despite the overwhelming weight of this published material, WelshSocialist persists in POV reverts, without attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page, or to produce published material to back his position. It seems likely that Welshsocialist is a member of the Labour Party, and as such has a conflict of interests in editing that page, and also finds it difficult to understand rules on NPOV and Verifiability in relation to a subject close to his heart. Even he however has admitted "New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal" (sic), yet persists in removing this description from the infobox.

This is the first time I've had to report someone for edit warring, in my whole previous experience of editorial disputes it has been possible to find a resolution through talk page discussions, and I feel sorry that I have been left no alternative but to do this.
Riversider (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - No violation. There must be four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. You do seem to be making a significant change in the article by making the Labor Party 'neoliberal', and I don't yet see anyone on the Talk page who supports your view. You are expected to abide by the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help here. I was reporting Welshsocialist for edit warring, not for a violation of WP:3RR a narrow technical definition which there was never any question of him violating. I feel I have done everything right, finding plenty of authoritative published sources that establish that there is a sizeable body of opinion which describes Labour as 'Neo-Liberal' in it's ideology. Welshsocialist reverts this, without explanation, and without seeking consensus by using the talk page (if this is not edit-warring, what is?). How can we find a consensus if he does not use the talk page? I would appreciate it if people who understand rules on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI were to come to the talk page and to advise all of us there, perhaps this will help prevent the edit warring there getting worse. Riversider (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the two of you are the only participants on the 'neo-liberal' issue, ask for a WP:Third opinion. Otherwise a WP:Request for comment is logical. Keep in mind that the 'neo-liberal' issue has been discussed many times in the past, and consensus has so far not supported putting that label in the infobox. Past discussions have occurred at:

EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that guidance Ed - I've seen the past discussions, and the one common factor is that nobody bothered to do the spadework of finding the citations from authoritative sources. Instead people tended to base their arguments on personal opinion, rather than citing published material. Now that I've done some of this spadework (and it was surprisingly easy to find many many citations), the weight of the sources should persuade anyone who is not a Labour apparatchik of the need to include the neoliberal label. Your guidance is very helpful, and I think the request for comment route sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks! Riversider (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment (from me at least), while I didn't get the result I wanted, I still think this has been a helpful exercise, particularly in the advice and guidance I've received as a result. When a wiki works, it really does work well, by harnessing all that knowledge, experience and wisdom that exists out there. Thanks to all. Riversider (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Born2cycle and User:Pmanderson reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: stale)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This is complicated. I'll include diffs that I think are reverts or claimed to be reverts, and let the closing Admin decide to lock the page. Again.

Consider the changes only to the Consistent clause only, please. There may be incidental changes to other sections.

B2C#1: 22:05, October 8
Pma#1: 03:19, October 9
B2C#2: 17:47, October 9 but only a quasi-revert. It's a paraphrase of a previous version.
B2C#3: 20:07, October 9 he's added {{dubious}} to that section before, making this a quasi-revert, also.
Pma#2: 21:57, October 9
B2C#4: 22:02, October 9 straight revert
Pma#3: 22:03, October 9 revert section to a previous version (at least that's what he says he's doing)
B2C#5: 22:30, October 9 adding {{dubious}} to that version
Pma#4: 22:43, October 9

I also have 2 reverts in the past 24 hours, User:Kotniski may have 2, and User:Philip Baird Shearer may have 1.

I'm sure all of the editors in question have been warned for 3RR a number of times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It won't help. B2C will not accept anything which has Consistent as an unadorned principle, and Kotniski, Pmanderson, and I will not accept it other than as an unadorned prinicple, (myself unless all the principles are given similar "except when other principles conflict" or "except as established by other Wikipedia guidelines"; I can't speak for Pmanderson or Kotniski).

B2C has been arguing for a particular interpretation of this policy and related guidelines for over 4 years, sometimes reaching a limited consensus for part of his point of view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems these two editors settled down completely after this report. At any rate, this report is Stale. Krakatoa Katie 21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crackenstein reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: protected)

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

1st revert: [84]
2nd revert: [85]
3rd revert: [86]
4th revert: [87]
5th revert: [88]
6th revert: [89]
7th revert: [90]
8th revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:
Take a look at the edit history of this page. There are many more reverts than this (most without explanation). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected three days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:HalfShadow reported by User:Malleus Fatuorum (Result: Stale)

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

[98]

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

Comments:

Nice try. The third edit is to my own page, therefore, the four edit rule hasn't been violated. HalfShadow (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that you don't need to explicitly violate the 3RR to be "guilty" of edit warring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what I was reverting, I feel comfortable in my actions. HalfShadow (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit more skeptical unfortunately. WP:RPA suggests that derogatory comments directed at a specific user may be removed if deemed necessary. In this case, I see no such personal attacks. Malleus' remark was not necessary, but it wasn't so severe as to justify edit warring over its removal on Ottava's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, this is Stale now. I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Malleus falsifies a 3RR report and you're okay with this? Despite your stating that four edits aren't strictly necessary, I only made three edits, which he knows isn't enough to make an official 3RR report, so he basically 'makes up' a fourth edit. Oh yeah, and he's a liar,too; I didn't edit the page in question after recieving his charming little warning. HalfShadow (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neither endorsed his request nor took action against any of the involved parties. However, this is the edit warring noticeboard, so all reports of potentially disruptive edit warring are acceptable, regardless of whether or not the user in question breached the arbitrary 3RR. That said, there's noting that can really be done at this point, other than remind editors to remain civil and cooperative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Afaprof01 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

1st revert: [100]
2nd revert: [101]
3rd revert: [102]
4th revert: [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:
Editor changing consensus on the lede in controversial article Marriage, was warned about 3RR and asked to take it to the talk page to discuss. He made one comment on the talk page, then reverted again with a different edit summary [106] for his fourth reversion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just logged on, can't believe this one is still here eighteen hours later. For the attending admin, Afaprof01 is now also at a contentious 3RR on Christianity. Dayewalker (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 24 hours for edit warring. Editor seems to be POV-pushing on the lead of Marriage to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman. This appears to go against a previous consensus on the Talk page. In the last two days he has done many reverts at other articles such as Christian. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.32.195.203 reported by User:Law Lord (Result: No action)

Pat Robertson page history

Comments:
Introduced personal opinion after reverts.

This looks a bit more like silly vandalism and the ip is gone now, he only has three edits in total, perhaps keep your eye on him and if he comes back and continues with the actions then report him again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this IP comes back one more time to add nonsense, a block seems appropriate. He has not edited in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacurek reported by User:M.K (Result: 1RR agreed)

1st revert: 2009-10-09T22:52:38
2nd revert: 2009-10-09T22:59:34
3rd revert: 2009-10-09T23:05:34
4th revert: 2009-10-10T15:17:32 ([107])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Jacurek was multiply times blocked for the 3RR, edit warring vio [108], and was warned for the specific case too [109]. IP (78.34.218.97) actions should be investigated alongside. M.K. (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 reverts must be about the same thing in this case they are NOT and is not even on the same day but if I indeed broke the rules please apply necessary blocks. I also would like to point out that it is quite possible that I'm being set up. Right after this report a new account has been created by somebody who deleted this complaint.[[110]] This is really strange because I'm constantly being accused of using socks[[111]] or I'm being provoked by strange new accounts[[112]] into the edit wars. Could somebody examine this please? Please note that user MK was not editing Roman Polanski article [[113]]but was monitoring my edits to file this complaint. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see very unfortunate, that you instead from distancing yourself from edit wars (this time for real) you continue old claims, that "reverts must be about the same thing" (like you did here [114]), while definition of reverts is clear -reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. And it is plain silly to engage in edit warring on high traffic article, like MR. Polanski's one, which is watch listed by dozens of editors.M.K. (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not make any contributions to the Polanski article, but you were "just watching it" and "just" noticed that I was so terribly edit warring there, that you had no choice and you had to report it :) o.k.... Why did not you report an anon IP[[115]][[116]][[117]] who I was "edit warring" with? Any comments on that? After all your only concern is "the good" for Wikipedia and not to get a specific editor, right? Any comments on the mysterious account which immediately deleted your complaint[[[[118]]]] to make look, like I was using a sock? I'm sure this is just a "coincidence", right?--Jacurek (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

See at first I thought that 3rr had to be on the same day, but they totally don't, just in the same 24hr period. Also, what you are reverting doesn't matter, because as long as an editor "makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period". It appears the the user has some fixation of soviet whitewashing where poland is concerned. WookMuff (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your block log is quite impressive. Your last block ended just two days ago. Thanks for commenting.--Jacurek (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my knowledge of 3rr is strong. I don't think casting aspersions on my record makes me less able to see you are biased. WookMuff (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your agenda here? Could you please take your comments to your or my talk page if you want to discuss me being "biased" etc.? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda here. I made a comment, to which you responded with a snarky passive aggressive comment about my block list. WookMuff (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue on each other talk pages if you want, o.k.? This is not a place for this "constructive" conversation. THE END--Jacurek (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek, please take my advise and try to adhere to 1rr on this article (and it is a good policy in general). Yes, 3rr applies to a 24h period and does not have to be the same content (although I don't know if the edit 4 reported above is a revert). You may want to take a day or two break from that article and edit other things. Take a cup of WP:TEA and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that no problem, note that 3rd was not even a revert and 4th was next day completely unrelated but I can do voluntary 1RR of course. What I worry about is that in my opinion I'm being followed around by somebody or group of people who are trying to set me up, see my comment above.--Jacurek (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly investigating your contributions, it is evident that revert wars of your is a problem, and actually you cant keep your word of 1RR as we see, some background: promise to stop edit warring on the Edit warring noticeboard,notification of editing restrictions, inducing note on reverts, another complain of your reverts, another friendly warning on revert wars, your promise to fallow 1RR rule (which it seems was broken as well [119]), and now we have revert war on Mr.Polanski's article , even after the another warring to stop was issued. Of course London Victory Parade of 1946 was your recent place of edit war as well ([120]). M.K. (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No M.K. on Victory Parade I have chosen to back off[[121]] and I stopped editing the article because in my opinion I was being provoked by yet another mysterious new account[[122]] which was created with the purpose to get me into the arguments. Somebody is trying to frame me and set me up and I hate to say that but I think that you are taking a part in it.--Jacurek (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MK could you explain why you are following me around? Also I see you have a lot of fun here[[123]] what made you so happy, the fact that you didi something good for the project or the fact that you "got somebody" you were after? --Jacurek (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I would just like to point out that someone, using an ip address rather than a username, left a vulgar piece of hatespeech on the complainant's talk page after this complaint was made, under the heading "regarding 3RR". Also, according to Jacurek's talk page, he already agreed to limit himself to 1RR about two weeks ago. WookMuff (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you WookMuff to rather watch your own behavior and be civil yourself[[124]], maybe then your lectures will be taken seriously.--Jacurek (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited Jacurek to agree that he will follow a personal 1RR from now on, which can be enforced by admins if he deviates from it. (That's one revert per article per day). The period would be 3 months. If he does so, I suggest this case could be closed with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I agree.--Jacurek (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Jacurek has agreed to accept a 1RR restriction for six months. It expires at 17:36 UTC on 11 April 2010. If he exceeds one revert per 24 hours on any article, it can be reported for action here at this noticeboard or to any administrator. I updated the period to 6 months based on Jacurek's agreement to the new duration. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.142.8.221 reported by User:Cenarium (Result: 31h)

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

1st revert: [125]
2nd revert: [126]
3rd revert: [127]
4th revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:99.142.8.221 (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#99.144.255.247 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wilhelm_meis_reported_by_User:_99.142.15.209_.28Result:_No_vio.29)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, consensus is against the inclusion of the category, reverted by multiple editors, including previously uninvolved editors Cenarium (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
NOTE: A complaint regarding 3RR Gaming and willfull ignoring of Talk Page Discussion has been opened at AN/I. It may be found here:[129]

Editors are simply Gaming the system by reverting without discussion an edit which has been subject to lengthy and serious discussion. Essentially my edits have reverted a form of Vandalism in which people have stripped out content without even attempting to overturn consensus or engaging in Talk in any form.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary data

Adding of category (without consensus) since the unlocking of Roman Polanski (Most recent first)

NOTE: (dynamic ip?) All adds by same ip user (lower pair of numbers shift - user gave notice of shifting ip - took a few edits to complete)

DEL 02:45, 11 October 2009 -User:Cenarium (admin)
ADD 02:44, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221
DEL] 02:39, 11 October 2009 - User:JBsupreme
ADD R02:38, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221
DEL 02:31, 11 October 2009 - User:Will Beback (admin)
ADD 02:27, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221
DEL 23:39, 10 October 2009 - User:Rd232 (admin)
ADD 17:02, 10 October 2009- 99.142.8.221
DEL 16:57, 10 October 2009 - User:Off2riorob
ADD 16:00, 10 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 User_talk:99.142.8.221
DEL 14:09, 9 October 2009 - User:Physchim62
ADD 14:06, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86
DEL 13:50, 9 October 2009 - User:Wilhelm meis
ADD 13:20, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 User_talk:99.142.5.86

NOTE ALSO: 99.142.1.147 User_talk:99.142.1.147 48 hour block 17:42, 4 October 2009

COMMENTS: (I have observed)

99.142.x.x participates on talk page, but argumentatively asserts sufficient consensus to add category, but does not have consensus.
99.142.x.x's assertions are often misleading/misdirecting etc.
Disclosure I have been in contention with 99.142.x.x over the past few days (most lengthily and absurdly over talk page management, to wit: whether a topic can be removed or collapsed on the talk page). I have directly asserted that some of 99.142.x.x's messages are Misleading bs (and have, for the first time on Wikipedia, I think, used the whole word "bullshit") It is not my habit to do so, but such is the nature of the communication patterns described. Other contentions around undoing of a few things I've reverted (with full edit summaries and talk page discussion.) BOTTOM LINE: Lots of BS. Lots of wasted time. 3RR fully broken and crushed. etc etc.

-- (data & comments) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies the subject wasn't contentious and difficult - there actually may have been dozens or more reverts on the subject of tag by a number of editors. But many ignore the fact that the subject was discussed intelligently, at length and with reason - and that consensus was reached and described without objection as "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus on the Talk page then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is only adding a category which fulfills WP:COMMON in every sense. Polanski molested and raped a child and was convicted of it, so the category is hardly a matter of honest dispute. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 07:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urban XII reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: Self-revert)

1st revert: [130]
2nd revert: [131]
3rd revert: [132]
4th revert: [133]
5th revert: [134]
6th revert: [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136] User has a few warning on his talkpage recently.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Herta_Müller

Comments:

Here is what he thought of his last warning . Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad faith report by a user who is wiki-stalking me and who has been involved in unrelated disputes with me. The material that was removed at Herta Müller was clearly soapboxing, inappropriate, unsourced (there was a source but it did not support the claim) and unencyclopedic, as explained to the user who added it at the talk page (actually, adding that a Nobel Prize winning author whose works have been translated to over 20 languages is a "little known writer" immedeately after the Nobel information amounts to simple vandalism and can be reverted as such). The alleged "warnings" were posted by a user who is solely engaged in disruptive edit-warring/POV pushing, which is evident when you look at this Special:Contributions/Feketekave. Urban XII (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this report in good faith and I feel it is beneficial to the wikipedia, the diffs are reverts, as in..removal of other editors good faith additions. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. The diffs are removal of obvious disruptive edits to an article that is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the claim of 6 reverts is false. There were not actually 6 plain reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban, a revert is any removal of another editors good faith addition. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Not all the edits you cite were complete removals. Editing a page 6 times, in order to uphold encyclopedic standards, is no crime. Also, removal of unsourced material from the biography of a living person is a BLP issue, hence, 3RR does technically not apply. Urban XII (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were other edits, I was very careful only to bring the reverts. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not all reverts. Urban XII (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were refering to WP:GRAPEVINE which states "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", nothing you removed was contentious at all, it was just that you disagreed with it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was contentious. Urban XII (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look in any way contentious, you do realise that it is not a daily revert total, it is any 24hour period. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That claim that she "was little-known outside Germany" was contentious and unsupported by the source that was cited. It was of course also unencyclopedic, soapboxing and undue to give such an unsourced and obviously incorrect claim the same weight as the Nobel award. A Nobel Prize winning author whose works prior to her Nobel Prize had been translated into more than 20 languages and who had received such awards as International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award years before is by definition not a "little-known writer." If someone had added that Barack Obama was a "little-known politician", I had also reverted it. Urban XII (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing on the same path without any understanding of the complaint here, perhaps you have a point for removal, but there was nothing that desperately required removal and the place to go was the talkpage to ask the other editors what they thought. You know all this though. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per request, I have already undone my last edit to the article[137]. I hope someone else will remove the soapboxing material, especially because this article is featured at the main page at the moment. Urban XII (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - No action. User has undone his last revert, per this request, and has agreed to stop edit-warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captain Occam reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

21:42, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319115151 by Muntuwandi (talk)")
22:05, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Please discuss this on the talk page before continuing to change it. I'm trying to discuss it there; you're reverting without discussion.")
13:13, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ As I said on the talk page, if we're going to mention that this was done by a blogger, we need to say what the analysis involved. If you disagree, please discuss it there.")
14:29, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319231653 by Ramdrake (talk) This doesn't accurately describe the Behavioral and Brain Functions study.")
15:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This is being discussed at length on the talk page. You can express your opinion there if you think this is mis-cited, but just sticking on a tag with no further comment isn't helpful.")
15:19, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Synthesis problem fixed; tag removed.")
15:38, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This edit is an obvious NPOV violation.")
15:50, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This issue was brought up and resolved on the RS noticeboard. If you wish to dispute its conclusions, you need to bring this up there.")
17:32, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Following suggestions from RS noticeboard.")
19:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Trying to be NPOV about this.")

Diff of warning: 9th October

—Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has already warned others that he will engage in a revert war diff Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

Comment The user's belligerent attitude is clear, but it's not clear to me that this is a 3RR violation. The sequence of the above edits by Captain Occam and edits by others seems to have improved the text over time. Another administrator might see things differently that I do. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'd go forum-shopping with this, but if this isn't a clear case of 3RR, isn't it at least a rather clear case of edit-warring? Wouldn't it at least be worthy of a warning from a thirdt party (as I doubt Capt. Occam will heed a warning from someone involved in the situation - already tried on the talk page).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of forum-shopping, I noted that the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers. I'm leaving this open, but I think it likely that resolution of this issue will occur in the WP:RS discussion. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks!!--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not resolved, I have added more diffs. I believe we have at least two 3RR violations. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be a one-sided edit war? Fixentries (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for User:Captain Occam, pointing him to this 3RR case and asking him to explain the ten edits within 24 hours. I hope that he will respond in time for the closing admin to take this into account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see how there can be a on-sided edit war. One-sided 3RR violation might make sense, but edit warring takes more than one person. Ramdrake makes the following reversions within a 24 hour period on the article:

[138] 20:36, 11 October 2009 (apparently this is counted against 3RR too)
[139] 17:34, 11 October 2009
[140] 15:46, 11 October 2009
[141] 14:22, 11 October 2009
[142] 21:45, 10 October 2009

It's a waste of my time to have to dig through that. I would rather be editing neglected and "less important" articles some of which are badly in need of it. I wish the litigiousness (wikilawyering?) and careless/POV edits would stop and people would just try to work together. I'm about to remove this article from my watch list because the nonsense is distracting me from more useful things. Fixentries (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixentries, why do you give me a nasty feeling of deja vu? Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence was recently placed under full protection. That protection expired at 07:46 UTC on 10 October. The protecting admin, MuZemike, has commented on the situation here. At this time he favors blocks in lieu of a new spell of protection. If his advice were followed, Captain Occam and Ramdrake would need to be checked for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on this, so here's what I have to say.

As Fixcentrics has pointed out here, the race and intelligence article has a lot of issues that involve more than just edit warring. He mentioned some of the issues in his comment, and I described them in a little more detail here and here. If I've contributed to this problem by violating 3RR, I'm willing to accept a temporary block for that, as long as it's part of a larger effort to fix the problems with this article.

Alternatively, if the rest of these issues can be addressed, I'm willing to promise not to violate 3RR anymore. My repeated reverting of the article was done out of frustration at some of the other POV-pushing edits that were occurring, and while I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have made the problem worse rather than better, fixing the rest of this article's problems would nevertheless remove my motivation for involving myself in it. As I mentioned in the comment on my user talk page, previous attempts to resolve this problem through the proper channels have been unsuccessful.

Either way, the one thing that I ask is that administrators come up with a solution that addresses all of this article's problems. It's had these problems for upwards of two years, and I'm willing to accept a block if it's necessary as part of a long-term solution. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm being called into question for possible edit warring, I'd like to point out that out of the 5 edits I made within 24 hours, one was a simple rewording to make a sentence more descriptive of the situation, and of the remaining four, I'm quite certain they don't point back to the same revision/version of the article (unless someone can point out to me the revision in question). In other words, while I've threaded quite close to 3RR in this case, I don't see that I have broken the rule per se.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lanternix reported by User:Nableezy (Result: page protected)

Previous version reverted to: reversions of different edits, each explained below

1st revert: [143] reverting wording "While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." seen in this edit, rv of this edit
2nd revert: [144] rv of this edit
3rd revert: [145] removal of sources that says "Ninety percent of the population are Eastern Hamitic Arabs" saying in its place that "No statistics are available", source added in this edit
4th revert: [146] same as above

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Arab_people#World_Factbook_on_Ethnicities

Comments:

nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these were changes made to the article and explained on the talk page, not reverts. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each revert is listed with the edit that it reverted from or to. nableezy - 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "revert 1" is clearly different from this version [148]. What you call "revert 3" makes absolutely no sense. How can I revert something at 15:41 if you wrote it at 16:27??? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I put it in the wrong order. I fixed the order. Rv 4 (now listed as 3) was the revert of my edit, and rv 3 (now listed as 4) was the revert of my revert reinserting the material. There should not be any confusion now. nableezy - 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, even after the changes you made, what you call now "revert 1" and "revert 3" make no sense as reverts. They were insertions and rearrangements. Check again. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rv 1 reverts the wording Generally-speaking, Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs, while most Copts do not consider themselves Arab. added in this edit and restores While some writers believe that Egyptian Muslims are considered Arabs but Egyptian Christians are not, others state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs. that you first put in this edit. You reverted to the exact same phrasing as before. It is a straight revert of this edit.
rv 3 is pretty simple, you completely removed a source and what it supported (90% of Egyptians are Eastern Hamitic Arabs) that was added in this edit. nableezy - 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Page protected I almost blocked both of you for this nonsense, but I instead protected the page for 24 hours. There are hundreds of articles that manage to use multiple sources for multiple views without edit warring. Work it out but don't return to this back-and-forth reverting behavior. It leads nowhere. - Krakatoa Katie 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Jk54 (Result: )

Page: Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

Comments:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I closed a 3RR case involving Jk54 and the Quilliam Foundation back in February, 2009. He was given a 24-hour block for edit warring at that time. Though Jk54 has received plenty of advice from regular editors, none of it seems to sink in. He is back again charging other editors of Quilliam Foundation with vandalism in this edit summary. In the cited edit, made on 26 September 2009, he blanket-reverts the work of others, and triples the length of the article using his own favored material. This is the same editing pattern he displayed last February.

Here is some background:

In Feb 09 Jk54 was blocked as the result of this edit-warring complaint

I issued Jk54's previous block

Jk54 discussed the matter with me in Feb 09 on my talk

A case against Jk54 was filed recently at 3RR. The closer declined to take action here, but forwarded it to WP:NORN

The NORN discussion attracted no comments from anyone but Jk54 himself

A case about this article is currently open at WQA. Some people have observed that Jk54 is adding original research as well as POV criticism of the Quilliam Foundation

I consider the behavior of Jk54 to be long-term edit warring. It would be logical to warn him that he will be blocked if he restores his own version of the article again. Let him know that he must not make further changes to Quilliam Foundation unless he can find support for his edit from at least one other person. He is welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page. Since I took the previous admin action on this article, in February, I hope that another admin will consider the matter and close the case as they deem appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was mentioned here without being informed. The issue is currently being actively discussed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:Jk54 - with an apparent consensus so far against Jk54's insertion of NPOV original material. In the meantime I've been undoing JK54's reversions pending the end of the discussion, since that seems the sensible thing to do? In his latest reversion he states that "Avaya1 is a Quilliam employee". Making this kind of accusation is surely POV (and reflects his/her POV editing style), and also against wikipedia etiquette. I hope some adminstrators can assist us in this case. Best Avaya1 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came to this via Wikiquette Alerts, and agree with Avaya1. What Jk54 keeps re-adding is entirely hostile WP:SYNTH, and the repeated demands for discussion smell of WP:TE; we're not obliged to discuss every detail of something that is wrong in so many ways: POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS. Nor does Wikipedia work by inclusion by default, then everyone has to discuss what should be removed. The way to go is for Jk54 to propose changes, incrementally, on the Talk page - but I'm not sure how this is going to work since he doesn't seem to 'get' fundamentals of what constitutes original research, why blogs are treated as unreliable, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After edit warring by some parties on a previous occassion, the last version of this article that EdJohnson and the editors involved at the time approved to remain and locked down was the version I have reverted - the advice provided was to work off this version and remove and POV/original research etc that may exist. I am working off te version on which there had been a concensus at the time. For reference see:

03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (59,396 bytes) (Add semi-protection template) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) m (59,366 bytes) (Protected Quilliam Foundation: Edit warring by IPs who do not participate on Talk ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)))) (undo)

Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included. I have requested POV or original material to be removed if it can be demonstrated to be the case as this article has been vandalised by those supporters/employees/sock puppets of the Quilliam Foundation who cannot bear to see any balanced critique of the organisation - Avaya1 has repeatedly removed 3/4 of an article which no doubt includes non-wiki approved material but importantly includes non-POV, non-blog and non-original material. Whenever I have done a revert it is simply to replace the large quantities of material that has been incorrectly and arbitrarily labelled as POV/original material. I would be obliged if facts were represented as they are and not how Avaya1 is choosing to portray them.

I would suggest the full article is used as a basis to reduce what may be objectionable or against Wiki rules rather than the other way round as the vast majority of the content is valid and some material needs to be removed - this approach was being explored until the arrival of Avaya1 - one simply needs to look at the article's discussion forum to see sections being debated in a sensible manner and what has been shown to be POV / original material etc was agreed to be removed with concensus.

Finally, I would request the editors to consider Avaya1's IP address to check if he is a sock puppet of the Quilliam Organisation. If one simply looks at Avaya1's history, the sole focus has been this article and since I have raised this point, he has over the last couple of days started editing other articles which makes it appear he is contributing towards other wiki articles. Jk54 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.6.87.112 reported by User:HalfShadow (Result: 48h)

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

1st revert: [149]
2nd revert: [150]
3rd revert: [151]
4th revert: [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:209.6.87.112#I've mentioned a minimum of two times how season numbering works here.

Comments:
User keep changing the page from 'standard' season numbering format (1**, 2**,3**), which the page was previously using to their own numbering format. IP makes no attempt to communicate at all, simply reverts to their numbering, sometimes adds edits that often have to be reverted as well due to being moderately incoherent. I've had to go as far as to have the page protected for two weeks just so it'd stop, only to have him come back when the page was open again.

I'm not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to the proper numbering system that has always been used until this IP showed up. He won't stop and he won't communicate. HalfShadow (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result - 48 hours. Semiprotection has been tried, in late September, and this IP continued his edit warring on 11 October after the two weeks of semi expired. The IP is not inclined to discuss - he has never left a talk message of any kind. If a short block has no effect, escalation may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sgjin reported by User:C.Fred (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [153] and similar. Key issue is the removal of tags from the article, including but not limited to the COI tag.

1st revert: [154]
2nd revert: [155]
3rd revert: [156]
4th revert: [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: mentioned in this warning [158]; explicit use of 3RR template [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160] — both the warnings inlcuded a request for the user to take this matter to the article's talk page; (s)he has refused to do so.

Comments:

As I've been one of the main people involved (and have hit three reverts myself), I need a fresh set of administrator eyes to look at the edits and tag removal. Additionally, I'm not sure I'm independent in regards to this article any more, per my comment on the talk page about the lack of sourcing, where I'm contemplating deletion of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has now been deleted by DGG. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Don1962 reported by User:Dottiewest1fan (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [161]

1st revert: [162]
2nd revert: [163]
3rd revert: [164]
4th revert: [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]

Comments:

About a few hours ago, I reformatted Linda Ronstadt's singles charts up to standards, so they could meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, however my edits are being continually reverted by user User:Don1962. He or she continually adds the old singles chart that does not include the rest of the Canadian chart positions, as well as the other separate singles charts. The user claims I have failed to add who originally recorded the song (as Ronstadt has recorded many cover versions of songs by other artists), but this is not required on a singles chart and it keeps getting reverted. It was not discussed and if they need to see who originally recorded it, they can look on the song page, right? It is Ronstadt's version that matters after all because it's her discography.

Previous reverted versions from most recent to least recent:

Please help me in whatever way you can. There is obvious fancruft here. Than you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed the report and added diffs. Both Don1962 and Dottiewest1fan broke 3rr. Neither was warned, but D obviously knew about the rule. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShadowRanger reported by User:Crossmr (Result: protected)

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

1st revert: [167]
2nd revert: [168]
3rd revert: [169]
4th revert: [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before, he's aware of the policy.

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

Comments:

Protected for a week. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres reported by User:M.nelson (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

1st revert: [172]
2nd revert: [173]
3rd revert: [174]
4th revert: [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176] Warns that the user has "already" broken 3RR, giving in essence a second chance; [177] Giving "third chance"; [178] Elaboration on "third chance"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Basically the entire section of Talk:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park#Role as a monument (and the comment directly above) is explaining my change to the page, and User:Ahunt's support. User:Stoneacres continues to revert (amid warnings) but does not address the underlying faults of his version.

Comments:
There is applicable discussion on the article's talk page, as well as in Talk:Gatineau Park, where User:Ahunt and I (do our best to) act as a voice of reason. Also of note is discussion at User talk:Stoneacres, particularly Ahunt's statement at User talk:Stoneacres#Some words of advice. Note that the article remains in Stoneacres' version, as (though I believe to have explained my reasoning clearly) I don't want to get caught up in 3RR myself.

Also, I just realized, user has reverted four times in Gatineau Park: [179], [180], [181], [182], as well as a fifth revert on different text [183]. Should this be a separate report? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the changes made by the above were whimsical and their consequence was to delete important information which viewers are entitled to know to obtain a balanced view of the subject. My edits were made to ensure accuracy and verifiability.

There is a broad consensus that the park needs protection. Unfortunately, comprehensive information on the park is very difficult to obtain, save on wikipedia, as editor Alaney observed some time back.

The Politics of Gatineau Park article, in my view, respects the spirit of wikipedia which is to inform and be easily accessible. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly clear. 24h, Black Kite 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BluefieldWV reported by Verbal (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Version reverted to (initial edits): diff
Warning about edit warring policy: 2 October

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

14:54, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "sources are used for "facts" not opinions, unless those opinions are directly attributed in the article")
16:06, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "its the opinion and POV of the reporter, not anything directly attributed to Watts.")
16:08, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "these look like they should be included under WP:EL")
16:30, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "the 'novel' discription given in this article appears no where in the link "About surfacestations"")
17:40, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "the phrase "peer-reviewed" exists no where in the source")

—Verbal chat 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, you and two other editors are deliberately introducing material into the article that is found nowhere in the sources you cite. One of you actually admits as much, but prefers the other version. In addition, since this is a BLP, removal of such material is not subject to 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only BLP removals are not subject to 3RR. Two of your edits refer to a website, not a person, and the other two the word "conservative" which is sourced and not subject to BLP either. Verbal chat 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "conservative", while sourced, was not properly attributed. It was the opinion of the author and should have been reflected as such. The inaccurate description of the website is WP:NOR and is not allowed in a biographical article,. You might have a case if the material was on a page specifically about surfacestation, but it wasnt. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the opinion on WP:BLPN, but it is irrelevant here. 5 clear reverts well within 24 hours. Verbal chat 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it has only been up several hours and all the contributors happen to be the same people involved in the article dispute, that’s hardly a solid example you have set forth. Or as another editor said on the talk page (where several of the editors involved in this back and forth are surprisingly absent): Here's a fact: "Surface stations is not a ball of yarn." That is an entirely true and uncontroversial statement, and yet we don't include it because SS doesn't ever claim to be anything related to yarn, one way or another. I've not seen any evidence that SS claims to publish, nor that it denies publishing, and no reliable source has made these points either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to include what they don't do. BluefieldWV (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring disputes here. That doesn't explain your reverts, and has been answered on the article talk (no one has proposed a yarn entry). The way to address these issues is by consensus on the article talk page, not by edit warring. Verbal chat 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it explains the reverts as it is a quite humorous illustration of the kind of garbage that is filling up a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston

[1]

@@ Line 1,051: / Line 1,051: @@
 :::'''Comment''' -  I was mentioned here without being informed. The issue is currently being actively discussed here,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:Jk54 - with an apparent consensus so far against Jk54's insertion of NPOV original material. In the meantime I've been undoing JK54's reversions pending the end of the discussion, since that seems the sensible thing to do? In his latest reversion he states that  "Avaya1 is a Quilliam employee". Making this kind of accusation is surely POV (and reflects his/her POV editing style), and also against wikipedia etiquette.  I hope some adminstrators can assist us in this case. Best [[User:Avaya1|Avaya1]] ([[User talk:Avaya1|talk]]) 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::::'''Comment''' I came to this via Wikiquette Alerts, and agree with Avaya1. What Jk54 keeps re-adding is entirely hostile [[WP:SYNTH]], and the repeated demands for discussion smell of [[WP:TE]]; we're not obliged to discuss every detail of something that is wrong in so many ways: POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS. Nor does Wikipedia work by inclusion by default, then everyone has to discuss what should be removed. The way to go is for Jk54 to propose changes, incrementally, on the Talk page - but I'm not sure how this is going to work since he doesn't seem to 'get' fundamentals of what constitutes original research, why blogs are treated as unreliable, etc. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
-:::::With the greatest of respect, after edit warring by some parties on a previous occassion, the last version of this article that EdJohnson and the editors involved at the time approved to remain and locked down was the version I have reverted - the advice provided was to work off this version and remove and POV/original research etc that may exist. I am working off te version on which there had been a concensus at the time. For reference see:
+:::::'''Comment''' - After edit warring by some parties on a previous occassion, the last version of this article that EdJohnson and the editors involved at the time approved to remain and locked down was the version I have reverted - the advice provided was to work off this version and remove and POV/original research etc that may exist. I am working off te version on which there had been a concensus at the time. For reference see:
 # 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (59,396 bytes) (Add semi-protection template) (undo)
 # (cur) (prev) 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) m (59,366 bytes) (Protected Quilliam Foundation: Edit warring by IPs who do not participate on Talk ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)))) (undo)
 :::::Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included. I have requested POV or original material to be removed if it can be demonstrated to be the case as this article has been vandalised by those supporters/employees/sock puppets of the Quilliam Foundation who cannot bear to see any balanced critique of the organisation - Avaya1 has repeatedly removed 3/4 of an article which no doubt includes non-wiki approved material but importantly includes non-POV, non-blog and non-original material. Whenever I have done a revert it is simply to replace the large quantities of material that has been incorrectly and arbitrarily labelled as POV/original material. I would be obliged if facts were represented as they are and not how Avaya1 is choosing to portray them.
 :::::I would suggest the full article is used as a basis to reduce what may be objectionable or against Wiki rules rather than the other way round as the vast majority of the content is valid and some material needs to be removed - this approach was being explored until the arrival of Avaya1 - one simply needs to look at the article's discussion forum to see sections being debated in a sensible manner and what has been shown to be POV / original material etc was agreed to be removed with concensus.

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