Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sourside21 (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 19 March 2010 (→User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:Sourside21 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    User:Undefeatedcooler reported by Gun Powder Ma (talk) (Result: protected)

    Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 11:37, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reach a consensus in talk page first, before any unnecessary removals !!!")
    2. 16:23, 12 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349426096 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page please !!!")
    3. 11:12, 13 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349495524 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Please let Mike Searson to deal with it, see talk")
    4. 03:10, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349696376 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) not 50%, this has been discussed before, stop messing up the article")
    5. 15:28, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349801919 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Look back on the history in talk page, Wing Chun section has already mentioned.")
    6. 16:52, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349822594 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) See Talk Page History !!!")
    7. 13:32, 15 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349994887 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Let Mike Searson to deal with the editing. See Talk")


    Comments:
    Undefeatedcooler reverts the removal of the Chinese family name template, even though other two other users (Talk:Bruce Lee#Template:Chinese name and Template talk:Chinese name#Bruce Lee a Chinese name?) also agree that it serves no purpose for "Bruce Lee", since the sequence of first and family name follows here Western convention anyway. He has been blocked for edit warring on the article in the recent past and he is a classic single-purpose account. Morover, he has thrown racist allegations at me for the second time.

    —Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: Single-purpose user continues his policy of mindessly reverting. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS: The single-purpose account reverts well-referenced material. He points to the talk page and request consensus, but at the talk page, he shows nothing which suppports his opinion, while he seems to suffer from the delusion that consensus would mean that no changes or improvements on the article can be made by other users until he agrees to them - which, of course, will never materialize. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PPPS: I made a different edit on the basis of well-sourced references, and although I warned him of edit war, he still reverts it. Just curious, but for how long do you want to allow a single-purpose account disrupting one of the most visited articles in the Wikipedia. How often can he call established editors "racists" and remove/minimize any scholarly references to Lee's substantial non-Chinese ancestry, before someone says something? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PPPPS: User continues to revert, even though I warned him of another revert in no unclear terms. The funny thing is he refuses to accept a reliably referenced statement by Bruce Lee's wife herself (!!!) that Bruce had German and Catholic ancestry. Another racist allegation (yawn).
    Just for your information, dear admins: The article has 300.000 visitors (!!!) being one of the most wanted reads in the whole of Wikipedia - and a single user has been allowed for weeks now to disrupt it seriously. Please tell us when you wake up and are ready to act. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for 1 week. Tim Song (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:119.161.71.12 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Stale)

    Hume Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 119.161.71.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 01:34, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ M31")
    2. 01:39, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ victorianhometruths")
    3. 01:42, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ supwangers")
    4. 01:44, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
    5. 01:46, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Victorian Hume Freeway upgrade projects */ 31")
    6. 01:49, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Views */ vicbyvics")
    7. 03:59, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
    8. 04:28, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */ no single carriageway hume in victoria.")
    9. 04:45, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Route */")
    10. 05:08, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted: "although most of this section is dual carriageway rather than freeway" -Legally, a freeway designated by the governing body -VicRoads. 'most' is grade-separated 99.9% too.")
    11. 05:32, 14 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 349747680 by Bidgee (talk) i didn't realise articles cannot be edited to display the facts within a short term time period.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale Tim Song (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OpenFuture reported by User:Ghostofnemo (Result: no action)

    Page: 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: OpenFuture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Before that, the disputed content was removed by another user: [2]

    Warning: I'm sorry, you're not being reasonable. I feel this material is highly relevant to the article and it is referenced by a mainstream news source, so I'm going to reinsert the material and the references. If they are removed again, I will seek outside assistance through the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. I feel OpenFuture (talk) is engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Notification: [3]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

    Comments:

    We've tried to resolve this on the article talk page. OpenFuture (talk) is not engaging in a rational discussion. After a long discussion with person who originally removed the material, as to why the material is relevant and should not be removed, OpenFuture removed the material again. It is referenced with a news source, but OpenFuture claims it is not relevant to the article because: "The section is about the WTC collapse and conspiracy theories concering it. The petition did not cause the collapse nor it is a conspiracy theory. It also gives undue weight to one of many petitions." --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC). He or she is being completely unreasonable, for reasons discussed on the article talk page. The petition in question, to reopen the investigation into the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings, has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers, making it highly relevant to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale No recent edit-warring. Consider WP:DR if the discussion breaks down. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up then. The material has effectively been excluded. The debate has gone on for days and days, that's why there has been no recent action. There is no point in me restoring the removed text, because he will just remove it again. I give up. He achieved his objective.Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jackieboy87 reported by 24.18.156.43 (talk) (Result: Semi'd)

    Lost (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 23:57, 13 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349693861 by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) Remove unsourced episodes.")
    2. 01:32, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349719115 by 66.30.12.197 (talk) Unsourced")
    3. 01:58, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349721330 by Dropmoy (talk) Not the title of the finale.")

    Comments: This has been going on forever, it was just notable that he did 3RR in the past couple hours.

    24.18.156.43 (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.; as the problem has resumed since the last protection, Page protected for 3 months. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wisdompower reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: protected)

    List of University of Toronto people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wisdompower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    1. 04:59, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349733798 by Abductive (talk) Don't do this. WP:BRD This list has equal rights as any other lists. No more vandalism")
    2. 06:30, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349753717 by Abductive (talk) You can't force us to do this. No general consensus was established.")
    3. 06:32, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349754373 by Abductive (talk) Just don't do anything. Leave.")
    4. 06:50, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, who cares if you 'go well' or not? Who do you think you're? The ref I added for Cassaday includes not only Cassaday, but also several others. (especially the redlink ones)")
    5. 06:56, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */")
    6. 07:02, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */ Abductive, that's all for today. No more whining. When we say, we're gonna do it. We really mean it. Plus, none of this was fabricated. (since you're so skeptical.)")
    7. 08:08, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
    8. 08:23, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768332 by Abductive (talk)")
    9. 08:24, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349768049 by Abductive (talk) Is providing citations not enough for you? What's wrong with you? Are you mad?")
    10. 08:25, 14 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Business */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I realize that Wisdompower was already notified, but I also left him a request to respond here. How do we know that he's been using an IP as well as his registered account? Since an RfC is now running on the talk page of this article, his edits look pretty uncooperative and warlike to me. Opinions may differ on what evidence allows inclusion of a person in a list, but he should wait for consensus to form, and then abide by it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected Actually I dealt with this while handling an RFPP request on this article. If any admin wants to revert per WP:PREFER, feel free. Further attempts to edit war after the protection expires would be looked upon very dimly. Tim Song (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:83.39.14.222 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24hr block)

    Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 83.39.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR warning
    Still going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.114.224.105 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: protected)

    Page: Michael Bisping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported 88.114.224.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    first edit
    second
    third

    Have tried to reason with the IP multiple times and the IP has been told to sign up for an account by admins. IP has not done so and continues to edit across multiple IPs, whilst sockpuppeting and 3RRing. See report here.

    User has been banned for incivility, 3RR and socking before. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loremaster reported by User:Dintonight (Result: 72 hours)

    Page: O: The Oprah Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    • 1st revert: [6]March 14, 23:18
    • 2nd revert: [7]March 14, 23:55
    • 3rd revert: [8]March 15, 00:06
    • 4th revert: [9]March 15, 00:40


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [11]

    Comments:[User:Loremaster made 4 reverts in less than 90 minutes, all in an effort to include a top 10 reasons to hate Oprah reference in an article about her magazine. I tried to explain that such contentious content is a violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that inflamatory material must be immediately removed, especially if poorly sourced (Loremaster's source is an unknown writer on an obscure website). Further other editors have tried to convince Loremaster to remove the living person violation in the past[12] but Loremaster not only insists on reverting them too[13][14] but when they try to compromise by placing a tag citing POV concerns, he/she removes that too [15]. It's Loremaster's way or the highway! It's also interesting to note that while Loremaster adds inflamatory material about a living person to a wikipedia article, he/she does not tolerate criticism on his/her talk page, choosing instead to immediately archive it[16] Dintonight (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Straightforward 3RR vio, previous block for edit warring. Filer has also violated 3RR, but I'm not blocking at this time as BLP concerns are paramount and we allow editors some leeway in that. However, I do have some concerns about the filer's familiarity with WP on their first day editing here, but I'll deal with that separately. Tim Song (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iadrian yu reported by User:Nmate (Result: 55 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    • 1st revert:

    17:30, 14 March 2010

    • 2nd revert:

    19:23, 14 March 2010
    19:28, 14 March 2010

    • 3rd revert:

    20:31, 14 March 2010

    • 4th revert:

    20:58, 14 March 2010

    • 5th revert:

    22:16, 14 March 2010

    • 6th revert:

    16:00, 15 March 2010

    familiar with 3RR

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[18]

    Comments:

    The user has been extensively discussed his edit on the talk page. However, he keeps attempting to force his theory on the relevance of John Hunyadi's origin into the article with ignoring 3RR. Even though there is no consensus for it and it has been removed by other users.--Nmate (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Tim Song (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    multiple 99. anons reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

    Page: Vaclav Smil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported:

    1. 99.155.156.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. 99.155.150.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 99.184.229.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. 99.39.186.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    5. 99.155.156.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    6. 99.184.230.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    7. 99.155.158.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    8. 99.155.156.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    • 1st revert: [19] (as part of a series of edits, reverting my edit here
    • 2nd revert: [20] (reverting most of [21]
    • 3rd revert: [22] removing {{verify credibility}}
    • 4th revert: [23] restoring [[Names for U.S. citizens|America]]
    • 5th revert: [24] to 4th revert.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] and [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] Well, I tried, but the anon doesn't listen to reason.

    Comments:
    How do you warn a dynamic IP, anyway. Anon clearly has no interest in collegial editing, see, for example [29]. As an alternative to blocking the ranges for a few months, indefinitely semiprotecting all articles related to climate change, no matter how slightly, could be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.12.5.73 reported by User:Matthew R Dunn

    Page: List of Criminal Minds episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported:

    1. 74.12.5.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The IP address doesn't seem to want the change in episode list tables (which have been improved, but the IP would rather have the old version) If you look at the IP's talk page, s/he was warned no less than three times, but still choses to ignore them. Requesting temporary block. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mbz1 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: no action)

    Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [33]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on related page:

    Comments:

    • Mbz1 was acting in good faith. She believed that by striking the comment in question, she was removing vandalism as permitted by WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits of the user filing this report should of course as usual be examined, and upon doing so it is evident that he too perpetuated this edit war. Here are two reverts done by Daedalus969: [39] and [40]. Also, it is fair to mention that user Factsontheground has joined in on the edit war with these two reverts: [41] and [42]. It is interesting to note that both users cited WP:TPO in their reverts, when in fact they were the ones violating this policy. The edit in question is a personal attack made by user Vexorg against Mbz1 on this AfD. The personal attack was a false claim that Mbz1 and a certain IP are the same user (ie: Mbz1 is using a sockpuppet). This comment came after a SPI was concluded and checkuser determined that Mbz1 and the IP were unrelated. Therefore, in line with WP:TPO, I struck out Vexorg's personal attack and added a note explaining why. Leaving the attack would influence other people's votes, because they would think that Mbz1 was using a sockpuppet and this would inevitably look bad and lead to counter votes. After my edit, the edit war ensued. It is also worth noting that these two users have shown a particular pattern of harassment of Mbz1 lately. They are not acting according to the WP:5P and certainly do not appear to be doing things that encourage positive collaboration and contribution on Wikipedia. I have already suggested that both of them drop this personal vendetta and find better things to do with their time. It seems that they did not take this suggestion to heart and have instead chosen to take the route of stalking Mbz1 and hounding her at any chance they can get. I hope an admin will consider this and take appropriate action. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: both Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have been warned on their talk pages by an admin to stop reverting the edits at the AfD. I sincerely hope that they will follow this advice. Breein1007 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Factsontheground was only recently warned (User:Factsontheground reported by User:Debresser (Result: Warned)) on 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC), Factsontheground made a bad attempt a few days earlier User:Mbz1 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: no action) --Shuki (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about me Shuki. I know you love me so much that you just can't stop thinking about me and I'm very flattered, but maybe you should keep your love letters on my talk page. <3 Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The growing incivility demonstrated by this same group of editors is beginning to be too much. I really hope that an admin will take definitive action this time to show that such comments and editing patterns will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. This is not promoting positive collaboration or contribution to the encyclopedia, and is only leading to added hostility between editors. So far, warnings have proven to be ineffective. Maybe it is time to consider harsher consequences for personal attacks and incivility. Breein1007 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sorry for adding a little levity to this discussion. I will try to stay po-faced and grim in the future. Factsontheground (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely about you if you choose to butt in here and defend the accuser while you yourself are also showing similar editing issues. --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Breein1007, It's interesting how you left out the fact that that same admin (Malik Shabazz) reverted Mbz1's alteration of Vexorg's comment and warned Mbz1 to stop doing it and to stop reverting in 2 separate warnings. It's almost like you were trying to put one over readers of this page by not telling them the whole truth, but I'm sure you were acting in good faith and have good reason to do so. Factsontheground (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, that is not how WP:AGF works. I note your sarcasm and hope that an admin will take these comments into consideration, because clearly your previous warning that Shuki is referring to didn't do the trick. What you fail to mention is that after the admin reverted Mbz1's edit and warned her, I alerted the admin about the policy at WP:TPO and for some reason, since then, the admin has not reverted again and has in fact requested that other editors stop reverting my striking of the edit. Breein1007 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop acting like you know the reason people do things. Sure, it's related, but you don't know for fact if it's for the reason you think it is. Second, stop with the spouting of AGF. If you truly followed AGF, you wouldn't be making bad-faith accusations of others. Instead, you're giving it to the person you deserves it the least, and not anyone else. The person who has continuously taunted and insulted others, and continues to do so with no signs of stopping.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will request that you back off and stop your offensive. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil, but it is difficult to respond to comments like that. I am unaware of any comments directed at you or anyone else that have demonstrated bad faith on my part. Could you please identify them for me? Breein1007 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look in the mirror, and stop playing off Mb as the victim here. They are just as to blame. You refuse to warn them of PAs and incivility even though it is obvious they are being so, instead you warn other users of the very things that Mb is doing, despite the fact that they have not.
    The following list is in no particular order. It is numbered so that when you reply, if you reply, you can reply in your own post without refactoring my own.
    1. Acting like I and another user don't know when to stop reverting, despite the blatant lack of reverting on my part, directly after Mal warned me to stop. It had been some minutes since the lack of reverting after that warning which you noted, contrary to the few seconds that passed between my two spoken of reversions.
    2. Calling our edits pathetic and deliberate twists. Clear bad-faith accusation, that you never retracted. Here you tell us not to comment on other people's motives, despite the fact that you just did that very thing in the previously linked diff.
    3. Bad faith accusation, and insult
    4. Accusation of continued harassment, despite the fact that I hadn't posted anything to the user's talk page since the ANI was filed
    5. Telling me I don't understand the definition of a personal attack, again violating your own rule about guessing people's motives
    There. All your bad-faith accusations, along with some hypocrisy, so if you could please be less offensive yourself, that would be great. Also, please practicing what you preach.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, like I said... you are showing a failure to understand the essence of WP:AGF. These diffs show no assumptions of bad faith on my part. I'll take one example, because I really don't want to keep wasting my time on this. #5: telling you that your understanding of "personal attack" is flawed. This has nothing to do with your motives, and clearly is unrelated to assuming good or bad faith. It's a simple observation that your comments indicated that you were misunderstanding the term. What did I say that had anything to do with your motives? Nothing. I put in great effort to assume good faith with all editors that I deal with, even when it is difficult in some circumstances. The examples you have cited do not demonstrate any assumptions of bad faith on my part. With that said, I am going to find a better use of my time now. Breein1007 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I like how you evade number two, which is a clear bad-faith accusation. You accused us of deliberately twisting his edits. How is that not bad faith when you don't know our motives. Again, take your own medicine.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only one instance in which is is acceptable to attempt to attach an IP to a user, and that's when it's done for the purpose of a sockpuppetry accusation, however, in this case since the user has already been cleared of being attached to the IP by checkuser the attempt to attach them is unfounded, and thus is simply outing (bear in mind that outing doesn't have to be correct). Mbz1 has every right to remove personal information about them-self. I suggest that the comment about the IP is removed from the AfD as outing, but that no punishments are handed out, as all the users appear to be acting in good faith. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What a pointless mess. For the record, Declined as the situation seems to have resolved itself. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, practically everything that factsontheground and daedalus969 are doing is "a pointless mess". Glad somebody understood it at least :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ari89 reported by User:Zencv (Result: )

    Page: Ahmed Deedat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Ari89 (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: [46]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    Comments:


    He has reverted 3 times within 24 hours. He had previously attempted to include the same controversial change 2 month ago here for which a discussion can be found here [48]. This user clearly want to make controversial changes without trying to form a consensus and is apparently not keen on debating the changes before changing. Zencv Whisper 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversial? Multiple sources (including academic peer-reviewed sources) make it clear that he is an apologist. This is not controversial in anyway. You have made it clear that you object to the inclusion because of your personal prejudice, but I wasn't aware that that POV pushing was a legitimate reason for excluding verifiable content. --Ari (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And a fifth time , no discussion at all, ignoring the two editors that are objecting to the edit, nothing at all on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) Different content was added and (2) despite your claims, it is being discussed. The only reason you seem to be giving against it is that the guy is still alive and it required extraordinary evidence. Evidently, the subject is not alive and there are multiple sources from a wide spectrum backing up the non-controversial claim which makes me wonder if you have even read the article and provided citations. --Ari (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He has reinserted it again , that is a sixth time now, desperate to insert a comment that is objected to by two other editors. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Ari89 is not willing to discuss a controversial change which he want to insert into the lead of a semi-protected article, despite being told by 2 editors on two different occasions. Yesterday, I deliberately avoided further reverting so as to give him a chance to avoid hitting 4 RR, but he seem unwilling to listen. By the way, the biography is not a BLP is not a reason to introduce controversial labels to the lead of the article Zencv Whisper 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been discussing the issue, but I am still waiting for an objection to the content to be made. You continually refuse to discuss your clearly POV and obstructionist editing on the talk page which is waiting for you. --Ari (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miss-simworld reported by Hobit (talk) (Result: protected)

    Pan-Arabism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miss-simworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 06:23, 16 March 2010 (edit summary: "Jews for Justice is an organization NOT an editorial")
    2. 06:52, 16 March 2010 (edit summary: "a non profit Organization dedicated to Jews expelled and persecuted from the arab world is not a realible source?")
    3. 08:14, 16 March 2010 (edit summary: "If you want to remove the editorial piece about coca cola then fine but most the sources are NOT editorials")

    Edit war here again, I'm probably as guilty as anyone but there is now a technical 3RR violation. Discussion on the talk page has been useless. —Hobit (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Of all the edit warring on the page this is the one that gets the report? Booooo. Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You deleted sourced information, you claimed the sources were not reliable which i proved false, you didnt have a response to the reasons after for your continuing to revert the edit, now this is your tatic? funny it had to be another user to inform that I had been reported not the claimant itself which is just being sneaky.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources you have used are reliable and you have refused to respond to issues with the sources on the talk page. See Talk:Pan-Arabism#Current sources. nableezy - 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Now Nableezy you are clearly lying because I HAVE responded on several occasions to your queries so have other editors but you respond only by stating that it is unrealible without even going into explaination yourself in why it is and getting editors and admins themsleves who have no knowledge on the topic purposely to back your corner by crying fowl, since you know the edits cannot be rationally refuted.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I dont see any chickens here. And you have "responded" if "respond" means posting irrelevant diatribes about how I am a brainwashed racist and not addressing the points raised. Unfortunately that is not what "respond" means. nableezy - 17:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected Fully protected for 2 weeks. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has the page been protected and set in aspic for two weeks, when the issue is a) rubbish content and b) a clear 3RR violation? Isn't that the worst of all solutions? N-HH talk/edits 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys could've got "Miss-simworld" banned for at least 24 hrs, if only you had at least 4 reverts in 24hrs, 3 reverts doesn't violate 3RR. I knew this would not succeed, I was hoping it would since this user is extremely disruptive. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You know Qvxz9173 wikihounding and stalking is not a healthy habbit, you have to get over yourself. You tried to prove falsely that me and Lanternix were socks and were proven wrong. You went complaining about civility when when I have evidence of your VANDAL racist name calling edits on a section you keep deleting that you gone because I dont push for your racist agenda and Yes you want me banned and blocked because you can't just face REAL impartiality or different aspects of an arguement being brought back like the rest of the bias Arabists gang of wiki censors you can't refute my sources or even how I stipulate my editing, your hiding behind wikipedia. a big SHAME to you and this ridicolous compalint who did not even have the face to warn me first they had filed a report. :-)♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alpha-ZX reported by User:Riversider2008 (Result: 48h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [49]


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

    A previous warning for the same behaviour by another user: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] The talk page is dominated by a discussion of the use of the term 'neoliberalism' to describe Labour's ideology, leading ultimately to a consensus to include the term as one 'ideological current' within the party. Multiple references to authoritative published sources are cited to ground this consensus on valid evidence. User has been invited to participate in the discussion on the talk page multiple times.

    Comments:
    This is not technically a violation of WP:3RR as the edits do not occur within a 24hr period. However this is clearly edit warring, as the same edit has been made persistently, without any attempt to engage with other editors on the talk page or with the published material cited, so the report is for edit warring rather than for a breach of 3RR. Riversider (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear edit-warring. User has shown he is unwilling to discuss his changes by constantly blanking any warnings concerning his behaviour. 48h. yandman 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexikoua reported by User:Kushtrim123 (Result: )

    Page: Northern Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User being reported: Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Northern Epirus: Reverts include: removal of this map [62], readd of [63] and edit-war over the use of the word state vs. region.


    Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis: Reverts include: use of the word Argyrocastron and use of the word Turcoalbanian.


    Comments:
    [70] with the latest block being about 2 weeks ago with a duration of 3 days. He has also being warned numerous times about edit warring the latest warning being [71] about a week ago. Also in Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis he's reverting using as a source an online forum and a timeline column of a newspaper.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though the 3RR has not been breached I am surprized how Alexikoua would make a case to bring the Turkoalbanian word three times, even wikified. The word is a pejorative one for the Albanians who worked under the Ottoman Empire Administration. Notified the user here [72] as I noticed that Kushtrim123 hadn't done it. --sulmues (talk). 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kushtrim123 is a disruptive, revert-only account that uses hostile edit summaries and follows his opponents around (i.e. myself and User:Alexikoua) while cynically trying to use the rules to get them into trouble. Just days ago he filed an ANI report against me that was duly ignored by the community. Today he's at it again. This is WP:HARASSMENT and has got to stop. As for the report itself, no need to comment, really. The bad faith is evident, as none are reverts to the same version. In fact, some of these "Reverts" aren't even reverts at all. Athenean (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They all are reverts, don't try to decept the community to "defend" him. Since we're talking about harassment maybe the admins should check this report where you were asking admins to block me without checking if I was a sockpuppet of a user you thought me to be. Of course it turned out that I had no relation to him. [73].--Kushtrim123 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only one trying to "decept" is you, since there is no 3RR violation, nor are they reverts to the same version (bet you don't even know what that means). Also pretty rich of you to accuse others of edit-warring, when all you do is follow me around and revert me [74] [75]. All of you contribs consist of either reverts or filing of "reports" designed to harass others. Athenean (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Athenean you have filed a false report of an SPI on me (here) when you thought I was Guildenrich, and endorsed Alexikoua (here) when you both were convinced that I was Sarandioti in this other false SPI report against me. And you continue to not believe in the result of the report according to this [76]. Now you know pretty well that edit-warring is inclusive but not limited to the 3RR. I think you should calm down and be less arrogant in your own edit warring because even when I talk to you in the talk page I get only agressivity ([77]). --sulmues (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this is another one completely bad faith report. I'd kindly advised [User talk:Kushtrim123] in his talk page to respect the basic rules, but his answer was to blank his talk page [[78]]. His short contribution period in wiki consist of reverts [[79]] and some national advocating the last days. For the record, he had been extremely disruptive in: Vasil Bollano [[80]], Gjin Bua Spata [[81]] (both pages were semi-protected as result of the edit wars he actively participated), deleting sourced content using wp:idontlikeit 'arguments' on both cases [[82]][[83]] or using 'accidentally' irrelevant edit summaries [[84]][[85]]. As for Sulmues I've advised him repeatedly to respect his civility parole [[86]] but til now it seems to be fruitless.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    About Kyriakoulis Argyrokastritis, Kushtrim claimed [[87]] that this is a forum ([[88]] but it's actually a historical e-magazine in pdf form, and this is a newspaper [[89]], but it's a book.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I see the 'reverts' claimed by Kushtrim have actually nothing to do with reverts [90][91][92] and [93][94][95]. About 'Argyrokastro' it is obvious that a link between the personality and its home place should be established (Argyrokastro->Argyrokastritis). Also I hadn't removed the official modern name. There should be an explanation in all this mysterious report.Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I searched about this after finding you all discussing here and it is a forum Alexikoua. It's e-magazine phorum.gr which is an online published amateur e - magazine by phorum.gr, a Greek forum. The editors are members of that forum as described on it's first page. Also it isn't a "historical e-magazine" because not only are members of phorum.gr its editors(and actually there is a disclaimer on its first page that artilces written in the magazine express the views of the members and it even says in Greek Online Community: phorum.gr, but also in this "historical e-magazine" the majority of the articles have nothing to do with history: such are Voices of Poetic Worries(the forum member publishes (his/her) poems), Greek (football) League:Where is the meter?, Why I Like Football and...What is National-Socialism(the article glorifies nazism), while the e-magazine has 10 articles all in all. About the other sources Kushtrim is probably talking about the ethnos newspaper column, written by this guy [96], who isn't a historian but a lawyer.
    • Let's talk about what a revert is. After being reported endlessly while having no relation as proven to anything I learned a bit about what is and what isn't a revert.

    A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. As for the "it's not the same material" the rule says whether or not the same material is involved

    • Sulmues edits [97] Alexikoua partially reverts [98]. Sulmues again edits [99], and Alexikoua again reverts [100]. Sulmues edits [101] and Alexikoua reverts [102]. On Northern Epirus:

    Alexikoua reverts [103](clear revert). Sulmues edits [104] Alexikoua reverts [105]. Sulmues edits [106] and Alexikoua reverts [107].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite weird for a new (6 days) user [[108]] to have a desire to explain what's a revert. By the way the explanation is completely wrong and misleading, far from being a revert war. No wonder the conclusions of the spi reports [[109]][[110]] founds that we have 'possible mutpuppet activity'. Actually this mysterious and combined obsession to report me is the definition of meatpuppetry. Also, 3 of the 2 accounts ([[111]][[112]]) are new ones in wiki, making this possibility even more obvious.Alexikoua (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They say Unlikely so stop this! And now you're saying I'm a "meatpuppet"??--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The explanation is a copy paste from the beginning of the page!!! Is the policy misleading then? Or did I copy pasted it wrongly?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the use of the term 'Turkoalbanian' which Sulmues, as part of his combined accusation, claimed that it is a pejorative one for the Albanians, it seems that bibliography has a different opinion, [[113]][[114]], it's actually about both Turks and Albanians, in general describing Ottoman forces. Quite weird to feel offended by a term which is practically obsolete since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1923). (I've expressed my views about Sulmues' behavior here [[115]])Alexikoua (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation)

    Page: Chris Adams (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Calvera (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Crusio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [116]


    The same with Calvera (Character) article. As for their reverts: Actually it's really not so important that all these people have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Barry Keith Grant had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more than such description by anonymous user in the Web. But, if we add that this Barry Keith Grant is a Doctor of Arts, professor of Brock University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

    I warned both of them

    This is what Crusio eventually responded on his talk page:

    ... Please don't post on my talk page any more, I am done with you. --Crusio (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    with posting the same edit-warring warning.

    And this was EEMIV' respond:

    --EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    We have a looong discussion of all these and other their actions in this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persecution, but still there is no authoritative decision nor a comments.

    Comments:

    You see it. I had no comments.

    User:Cygnis insignis reported by User:Durova (Result: None )

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


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

    User is edit warring to remove a featured picture from a featured article. Both the FA writer and the FP contributor have attempted to discuss (edit summaries and talk page).

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

    Comments:

    Editor has replied at article talk page. We are attempting to work things out through discussion. Durova412 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No reverts after being warned. Hopefully Cygnis will stick to discussing his ideas on the talk page from now on. Please notify me of any future edit-warring. yandman 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hell Hawk reported by User:Ktr101 (Result: 24h)

    Page: List of unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Hell Hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [128]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

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

    Comments:
    We've tried reaching out to him, but he keeps reverting our edits because of a strict interpretation of a word. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for edit-warring with such an absurd argument. yandman 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zencv reported by User:ari89 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [134]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ahmed_Deedat#Muslim_apologist_or_scholar.3F

    Comments: Obstructionist user refuses to provide reasons as opposed to POV for removing reliable content. Continual efforts have been made for reasons to no avail.

    User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:Sourside21 (Result: )

    Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version: 07:17 8 February 2010 World Wrestling Entertainment [139]

    Previous version reverted to: (....DUH see Professional wrestling) [140]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:59 17 March 2010

    Comments:
    Comment by user, saying that he will fight until I "lose": [142] Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments by the user: [143] Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments by the user, saying that he will fight until he "wins": [144] Sourside21 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added time stamps and page names, these are not 9 reverts on one page in 24 hours, rather they are simply a collection of edits from different days. This is not a 3RR report but a personal attack dressed up as a 3RR report. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't hide information, Sourside. Not only are the "versions reverted to" not within the last 24hrs, but they aren't even by 3bulletproof16. To revert back to a version it has to match the 3 reverts, the two versions you have given don't. A 3RR warning has to come after the fourth revert (start edit (1), 1RR, 2RR, 3RR), not the first revision back. There is no 'inaccuracy' to edit out, this is a mockery of a 3RR report, and you have exposed the IP24.16.74.84 as being you, and that IP did bump up against 3RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not accuse me of hiding information. For example, let me ask, why did you not help fix the incorrect links with correct links, instead of just adding weasel words to the end of the incorrect links? That's not helping clearing up misunderstanding, that's just campaigning for 3bullet. Thanks. To everyone else besides daren: I fixed the "previous version" links. If they are still incorrect, please tell me. To daren: Please look up edit warring, not 3RR. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I missed one revert. Adding that in. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added in some additional formatting, although the formatting may be a bit incorrect. If anyone knows how to format it better, that would be great. Thanks. Sourside21 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yonoson3 reported by User:Debresser (Result: )

    Page: Elazar Shach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Yonoson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Yonoson3 and User:Winchester2313 are edit warring on Elazar Shach about external links. I have warned both user to stop edit warring and make no further edits until they discuss the issue on the talk page. Winchester2313 has shown himself willing to participate in discussion at Talk:Elazar_Shach#.27Yonoson3.27_and_his_spam.3F, but Yonoson3 has disregarded the warning and consensus seeking process, and has continued with contested editing.

    Diffs of warning: Yonoson3, Winchester2313.

    This article was previously protected [152] because of an edit war between these same editors, but clearly if only two editors are making the trouble that was inappropriate, and sanctions should involve those editors only. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Yonoson3 of this post. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not disregarded anything. Since the warning, I have made a very minor edit which there should be no issue with at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=350513889&oldid=350415188 Yonoson3 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:124.168.179.209 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: )

    Tiger Airways Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 124.168.179.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 05:41, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "It is unreliable - see its "On-time Performance" on this page.")
    2. 06:27, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""Unreliable" is a statement of fact supported by evidence presented in this same article. It does not constitute "POV".")
    3. 08:10, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Tiger have "...consistently lower percentage on-time arrival and... a higher percentage of service cancellations...". In other words, UNRELIABLE!")
    4. 08:18, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "What are you on about? The source is right here, on this page - complete with a reference citation! And it's still not "POV" by any definition in this case.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Bidgee (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mkativerata reported by Godfrey76 (talk) (Result: )

    Perkasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    1. 20:25, 5 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Many political analysts? Source does not support this.")
    2. 08:25, 10 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Copyvio of [153]")
    3. 08:10, 18 March 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No explanation")

    - Godfrey76 (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

    Page: Eden Natan-Zada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [154]

    • Diff of warning: here

    RolandR (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was not notified of this report against me.
    • I have been editing here for over a year, this is my first time to be reported on this board. I have never been blocked.
    • I encourage any admin who decides to pursue this, to have a look at the last 10 edits or so to the article. You will see that I repeatedly asked both user:Tiamut and her tag-team buddy user:RolandR (who initiated this report) to go to the talk page and explain why Tiamut's bold edit should stand, citing BRD. They both ignored my repeated requests.
    I might have gotten a little carried away. I think anyone who has been in this situation knows it's easy to lose count when dealing with a tag-team. If I need to be blocked, then so be it. But as the cliche goes, it takes two to tango, and in this case I was tangoing with a team. I think it would be beneficial to the project if someone at least warned them to not do this sort of thing again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Insider201283 reported by User:Financeguy222 (Result: )

    Page: Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Insider201283 (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: [link]

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

    Comments:
    FinanceGuy222, currently a single issue editor, has been mass deleting sourced material on this article. I attempted to engage him on talk, he persisted in deleting the sourced material without discussion. My reverts have simply been of his mass deletions. Another user has warned him for edit warring on his talk page. FG222 has now engaged on Talk:Network_TwentyOne, 3rd party opinions there would be appreciated.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above statement was by User:Insider201283 (Unsigned) I believe. I warned FinanceGuy and contacted Insider201283 on his / her talk page when I noticed that editing appeared to be unconstructive. Insider had tried to take the issue to the talk page of the article, but it appeared FinanceGuy was refusing to give any ground and was continuing to revert to their version. In my opinion, Insider201283 appeared to be acting in good faith, and did attempt to resolve the impasse, FinanceGuy did not seem to operating in good faith. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    oops, forgot to sign, done now, thanks for the reminder--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I responded in the TALK page several times, my comments/recommendations were ignored. Of the several diputed statements and citations I edited for the "sourced material" I removed because either there were no sources at all(business system section), the source does not confirm the fact (the World Vision reference did not sufficiently confirm these charities are part of the business operations of N21), or poor souces (reference to a publication that cannot be confirmed, and a magazine scan of a publication on a POV blog). I attempted to find other sources, but could find nothing sufficient to back up Insider201283's statements.

    The main point of contention is that, according to the references provided, the philanthropic section relates to Jim Dornan's private philanthropic acts, not those of Network 21 corporation.

    A large majority of the article points to references of Jim Dornan's business interests/philanthropic interests, and Amway IBOs (Independent Business Owners), who by legal established definition are Independent of Amway and the Network 21 corporation, and as such these businesses/charities (neither Network of Caring or Fernando Foundation) are not part of the Network 21 corporation as a part of their business.

    Of the references supplied for these sections neither of their official pages, nor the Network 21 official page directly states they are directly part of the same business, only that Jim and Nancy Dornan are involved in the operation/publicity. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article as a whole would be much more credible and less like a PR/promotion for N21 if more facts were backed up by independent references. Instead, all but a minor few references are from the N21 official homepage, Network of Caring homepage, and official pages of charities cited as being part of the N21 business according to Insider201283 (who I understand has a business interest in these network marketing organisations)

    The majority of the article does not appear to be independently verifiable by any other sources except the PR pages of these companies. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FG222, you did not participate in talk until you had mass deleted numerous time. You are now, which is good. Your comments there have not been ignored at all, they've been replied to several times. The sources re philanthropy clearly support the article as written. These are a variety of different sources - some directly attributed to the topic of the article (which is fine) and others independent, such as World Vision and The Christian Businessman, neither of which are "part of the N21 business". So frankly I don't know what you're talking about. However, I agree that the article could perhaps be clearer in differentiating between Network 21 Inc (or whatever it's business form is) and the organisation of affiliated business people. Looking at other similar types of organisations, such as Lions Clubs International or Rotary International or Scouts, where a similar mixing of terminology exists there seems to be no such controversy. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes you replied, but failed to address the issues sufficiently. Ok, Take the Microsoft wiki article for example, there is no mention of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as it is independent of microsoft, the same as these philanthropic Dornan business interests, The reference you gave for FF http://www.fernandofoundation.org/history.asp mentions nothing of N21, only the Dornans. Another of your refs for Network of Caring http://www.n21corp.com/PressRel.asp?PRName=PR_2006_09_05 states Jim Dornan accepted an award on "behalf of the Network of Caring", not "Network 21". Another of your references http://www.networkofcaring.org/aboutus.php states NOC is "the Dornan's creation", and only briefly mentions on that homepage that the Dornans are also founders of Network Twentyone. The World Vision citation does not clearly support the material as presented in the article. Surely if these were part of N21 they would be mentioned explicitly in several verifiable sources. The Christian Businessman reference cannot be verified. The "Network 21 System for Success" reference cannot be verified.

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

    Also, the majority of references on the N21 article page are official PR pages for these business interests, promotional in nature, which are defined as questionable sources, which does not necessarily make any of the statements/facts untrue, but this article appears to be heavily biased by your editing, and read like a promotional article, and the references lead to a large proportion of PR/promotional material.

    Where are all the independently verifiable facts, newspaper article etc? Independent sources that do not have a business interest? The independent references on the article page point to critical aspects of the business, such as the Australian parliament.

    Even though the references are dubious and promotional, they still do not explicitly state NOC and FF are officially part of N21, of all the sources the majority state that the Dornans have a vested interest. Financeguy222 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miss-simworld reported by User:Qvxz9173 (Result: )

    Page: Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Miss-simworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [163]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169], more specifically here: 0006 which refers to the edit where the same content mentioned below is removed.

    Comments:

    In the above reverts, this user is constantly reverting the restoration of the sourced paragraph "At the March 1936 Congress of the Coast and Four Districts..." (and other sourced content in these and other edits) --Qvxz9173 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL nice try but I didnt use the undo/revert button even once.It's you who keeps turning that page into an edit war due to your own bitterness, which is very sad. first of all this user continues to vandalise section i wrote in the article due their own bias I can post the links where they violated wiki rules by writing inflamotory comments towards a large section people IN AN ARTICLE and then had a nerve to warrant me on civility. This user continues to wikihound, stalk and agressively vandalise a page. He has a long history in trying to do whatever he can to get me block. I am the one who should be filing a complaint against harrasment from this person. Merely because he cannot accept the idea although their are Christians who use the Arab label there are many who dont. I said this before this person clearly holds a deep racist grudge against those who dont serve his agenda of forcing ARabisms on to everyone and before anyone dares excuse me of Soapboxing I will post the edits (HE WROTE IN AN ARTICLE) not on a talk page. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything this user says above is baseless and false. What this user does is writes a paragraph of unsourced content, then finds random sources which do not back up their controversial claims. When the random source is checked and it is paraphrased correctly, this user deletes the correctly paraphrased paragraph and the source. I was told to avoid calling this user dishonest, but this is the honest truth. This user is extremely dishonest. It's definately not me, because many other editors have issues with this specific user. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You tried to get me block on numerous occasions on false claims and continue to harras me. You tried to prove I was sock but Failed, You tried to complain about civilty when you were the one to use inflamatory in the article, you tried to get me blocked on numerous for baseless reasons but failed. all beacause you are bitter the article got added the arabic speaking christians for those who dont accept the label Arab. a fair concession which refuse to accept. You keep wanting to drag a needless edit war because your own self-denial about a people you know nothing about and block out information.Unsourced? what a liar you are, the section I wrote is perhaps the only part that has sources you didnt parapharase nothing only attempted to undermine, mis-use and block out valued information from the section. Why does the truth scare you so much? Why do you cringe at the Phoenician heritage of Lebanon? or deny that there are many Chrisians who reject the Arab label for vlid reasons? Yes controversial claims? do these edits of vandalism and name calling meet wiki rules [170] [171] [172] [173]--♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Barneystimpleton - 1991 and Matt Bennett

    User talk:Barneystimpleton reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: )

    Page: 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: User talk:Barneystimpleton (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: [178]

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

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=350726094"