Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Didn't warn because the user has a long block history and knows well about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Malke 2010#Talk page post User talk:Malke 2010#Bottom line [6]

Comments:
Malke 2010 accused another editor, Dylan Flaherty, of 3RR and started a talk thread titled that. The other editor only reverted once and so wanted the title changed to make that clear. Then an edit war ensued regarding the title of the talk page section. At some point Dylan added numbering to the diffs Malke listed and then it was reverted, hence the fourth diff above and the final nail in the 3RR violation. This type of nonsense is just plain disruptive and geared to intimidate. A recent ANI regarding tendentious editing by Malke was previously considering a long block, but resulted in being given the mentor Moonriddengirl. To me this recent silly scuffle reflects that the mentoring isn't working. I'm bringing this here since this disruptive behavior is identical to past problems. I wouldn't normally report a user for such a technical violation, but this disruption isn't stopping and its scaring away good editors who don't want the aggravation of dealing with this user.Chhe (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless reports I have seen for a very long time; the specific matter is being dealt with on User talk:Malke 2010, and appears to be about to be concluded, when the reporter dropped a template onto the talkpage. A review of Malke 2010's contributions will note that she had already resolved the issue with a post to the disputed page, indicating that there had been no intention of accusation (as I understand it, Malke 2010 only posted diffs to a debate about 3RR and did not make or intend to infer any accusation herself). If Chhe has any issues in respect of the mentoring, then perhaps he would be so kind as to raise it with me or Moonriddengirl. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not with the original 3RR violation accusation, which was simply a mistake. Rather, like Chhe, I am bothered by Malke's overreaction to my signing their unsigned post, changing the misleading/offensive subject or numbering their links so I could respond. Even though a few editors wanted to just remove the entire section from the talk page, as it was the wrong venue, Malke refused to do so and edit-warred over and over again to get their way. This sort of prickliness makes cooperative editing very difficult. I believe that Malke is very much in the wrong, but I am not convinced that a block is appropriate. Please consider giving no more than a token block, if any. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but never with you. To my knowledge you are a brand new mentor to Malke and in all do respect I don't see how you can succeed where Moonriddengirl has failed. Everybody wants to be a psychiatrist these days. One other point Moonriddengirl is Malke's third mentor. The user has had past mentors to no avail. You are now this users fourth. Its becoming tedious to everytime have talk with every new mentor that comes along who thinks they can cure this person.Chhe (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard has stated is entirely accurate. As the edits clearly show, I've not accused any editor of violating 3RR. The editor in question, Dylan Flaherty repeatedly refactored my posts to make them appear to be accusations. Chhe being here is curious to me since he's been following me since September 2009. Ever since then he appears at regular intervals whenever there's a content dispute or other issue and he reverts my edits, etc., drops warning templates onto my talk page, etc.

All of these actions are over edits on pages he never edits. Seems a bit of wikihounding going on here. Also, I'd like to add that this issue has largely been resolved on the article talk page and my talk page, as LessHeard has pointed out. Also, I've not had other mentors as Chhe claims. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, because this EW thread needs more. :) I am the first official mentor Malke has, and Malke has done very well. Anyone who has followed her behavior can see clear differences in the way she interacts with others. I asked LessHeard vanU in to assist me, and he kindly consented to do so. As he indicates above, the situation is already being resolved. I do not believe that a block here would serve any constructive purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So the other two mentors were unofficial then?Chhe (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Malke does not consider that she's ever had prior mentors. There's no indication that I know of that she's ever had an official one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems in agreement that there shouldn't be a block, tagging it as such. Secret ^account 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The backstory aside...so, person "A" might have mistakenly accused person "B" of 3RR. Then person "B" mistakenly thinks that Person "C" (Malke) was the one who made the mistaken accusation, and so mistakenly accuses Malke of mistakenly accusing him/her of 3RR. Then (in this notice) person "D" says, that, in the ensuing exchange on this, the person (Malke) mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing "B" went over 3RR ON THE TALK PAGE when they relabeled the misnamed section where they were mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing someone, but in the report discusses everything EXCEPT the "issue" that the complaint was about. Whew! North8000 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot more backstory here than appears---but, all's well that ends well.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: No single revision; see below.

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (doesn't really apply, it's an ANI discussion and has been repeatedly closed)

Comments:
User has been repeatedly reverting the closure of a thread by multiple admins, and simply reverted my warning. They have also been warned by another user. (edit conflict) Addendum: Note that while they don't appear to have reverted after my warning that they broke the 3RR, the discussion up until this point has made it clear that they're well aware of 3RR and intend to make their point "by any means necessary", even if it means edit warring to keep the thread open.GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets see if he reverts my revert, he was warned after he broke 3rr. If he decides to revert, a block is in order. Giano comment's about edit warring aren't helping the situation. Secret ^account 23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to block for 24h, but he's already blocked for 48h. The intention in the first revert listed above is plain for all to see. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) blocked for 48 hours. Anything more would be punitive not preventative. Agree with above that there was a clear intention to edit war and get blocked for it. So warnings are irrelevant. The community can consider whether further sanctions are warranted for disruptive conduct: this block is limited to preventing edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the thread is still open and editors are still discussing the issues two hours after Giano was blocked, the de facto consensus is that Giano was right when he judged the thread was not ready to be closed. Would you now be prepared to reconsider what the block is preventing? --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My take here is that 3RR is a brightline policy applicable across all namespaces in Wikipedia. Giano is no stranger to Wikipedia policies, however much he may disagree with them; but until he succeeds in achieving consensus for changing them, he should consider himself bound by them. The thread in question has been reopened without his input, although I would have been prepared to make the 3RR block the minimum of 24 hours. Further discussion after his block does not vindicate his unblocking, as far as I'm concerned, because the discussion has proceeded in arguably more constructive terms of reference. However, overall, I am not convinced that the discussion is going to be as constructive as it might; but I am convinced that Giano's block was appropriate. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia bullshit. Giano was foolish to keep reverting himself instead of letting others do it, but the admins here who were prematurely closing the discussion because they don't like what it says about someone are just as at fault. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Being right, or having consensus with you (neither of which I see evidence of), is no excuse for edit-warring. I'll only be convinced that the block no longer serves a preventative purpose if it is demonstrated by the user concerned. I am more than open to unblocking; I have my doubts that this block will last the full 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Giano's block; it's the fact that everyone else got off scot-free for being disruptive (I'll say it again: closing that discussion was disruptive) that irks me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase; "Typical Wikipedia bullshit". In the absence of collusion, when three or more different admins or even editors make the same value judgement that a discussion is fruitless, that amounts to a consensus and should not be overturned without discussion on the relevant Talk page. I see no such discussion. However, I see factionalism, divisions, and irrelevance, and these are things I do not expect to see in an encyclopedia. However, children, it's my bedtime, and I wish you sweet dreams of your perfect world; my experience is somewhat different. 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Tbilisi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: 11:41, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert (yet more) nonsense from this IP")
• 2nd revert: 15:23, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 119.155.37.2 (talk); NOT a destination for PrivatAir. (TW)")
• 3rd revert: 17:00, 3 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394391636 by 119.155.37.2 (talk)")
• 4th revert: 03:42, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394663960 by Inspector123 (talk) as before")
• 5th revert: 09:09, 4 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Inspector123 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Jasepl. (TW)")

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. This user keeps removing a Privatair flight with a tech stop in Tbilisi from the article. One might argue whether this is a sensible edit or not, but what is not acceptable is the slow edit-warring without any discussion on the article talk page or the involved editors talk pages. Problematic is also the labelling of edits as vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. Furthermore, [13] shows that User:Jasepl is familiar with the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
WarnedUser is warned and I will watch the page for further violations. Hopefully we can avoid a block. JodyB _talk 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This editor now canvasses other editors to do the reverts on his behalf, see [15]. Stepopen (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepopen, there is a discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Tech stops as destinations. I suggest that you not continue to add technical stops to airport articles until you have a consensus of other editors. Our article on Tbilisi International Airport is now locked due to this issue. It seems that your own preference is to put technical stops in the main destination list. I see nobody at WP:AIRPORT who supports this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: September 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Das Baz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

The above two fields are really irrelevant here; this editor has been warned in the past about edit warring and blocked for the same. Editors have tried to discuss it with them, but they have refused, they haven't even used any edit summaries. As they have seemingly learned nothing since last time they were blocked for edit warring, I would ask that this block be made longer, as they are doing exactly the same thing as the first time; slow edit-warring and refusing to talk about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Going back over the article history, I count about 19 attempts to add this in the last 14 months. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified Das Baz of the discussion here, and invited him to participate. In my opinion the best option is a long block, which might be lifted if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. He hardly ever edits his own talk page except to remove warnings and comments by others. The problem may be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that his cooperative response here will avert the need for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And what if they don't post here? What if they just decide to 'disappear' for awhile, then come back and resume edit warring after everything has 'calmed down'?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

His last WP edit was 6 November. If he resumes editing Wikipedia but does not respond here, he will most likely be blocked. If he makes no edits before this report is archived, then I suggest a one-month block to be sure the matter gets his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the "Edit summary" thing. I suggest that if such a problem rises, you just have an administrator send me a message like this: "The opposition to your position on this (e.g., the date of the Catalonian Bullfight ban) comes from a majority of editors, not just from a single editor." Or words to that effect. If so, I will cease to assert my position and will not insist on it on the face of a majority opposition. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. How about instead, when an editor reverts you, you don't edit war but take it to the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Das Baz is an experienced editor, with 6,696 edits since 19 December 2005. That he still doesn't use edit summaries, despite the fact that for 6,696 edits the line just below the field in which he is typing says 'Edit summary', and despite the fact that I asked him to use them on October 5th, is worrying. The fact that he was blocked for edit warring over a similar edit at 2012, that I mentioned this article in the ANI discussion that led to his block, and that he was reverted almost 20 times at this article and still didn't get it, is also worrying. And he hasn't agreed to stop making this entry at September 18. We need a commitment that he will not attempt the entry again and that he will use edit summaries. As blocks are meant to be preventive, if he makes these two commitments there is no need now for a block. But I think he has to make them both. And, I guess, he may need to learn to read other editor's edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked I'm closing this case as not blocked: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (sorry Das Baz, please don't take it personally, but the essay applies in this case). However, if the edit warring starts up again, by all means report the editor again, and we can commence with mercilessly pounding the banhammer, er, uh, temporarily blocking the user for disruption. ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: St. John's University (New York) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.204.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous block [22]
CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 66.108.204.65 has been on the st. john's university page making nasty comments to myself and other users. calling us sockpuppets and i believe the word is volitads. he then created a user name CAtruthwatcher. he continues to edit war and revert, finally is finally blocked 10:03, 6 November 2010 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked CAtruthwatcher (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violation of the three-revert rule: St. John's University (New York)) . Immediately he uses his IP address and continues to revert war. Please, what should I do about this blatent block evasion?

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

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

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

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.153.58 (talk • contribs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Somewhat convoluted... I can't really see edit-warring... besides, username is already blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected one week by User:Tcncv. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

username is blocked but he is also edit warring on education in new york. can anything be done about the ip address for 48 hours? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any current edit war at Education in New York City. And CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) is still blocked, as well as 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs). -- EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look here at st john's page you'll see that once catruthwatcher was blocked, 66 immediately came in and started reverting the article back to the version that Catruthwatcher wanted. [29] 24.239.153.58 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to the activity of IP socks, I think that semiprotection for St. John's University (New York) might be considered when full protection expires on Nov. 14. No need to decide that now. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

doesnt seem bad. just got to watch the above IP's. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluebadger1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]
• 5th revert: [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
User responded to 3RR warning, so they have seen it. Since then, they have opened up a discussion on BLP template and not responded to talkpage. responded with the same behaviors as mentioned below. User has been reverted by 4 seperate users and improperly marked edits contrary to what he/she wants as vandalism. User also insists that those who wish to keep contentious material out of BLP are the ones who need sourcing. Soxwon (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs as formatted by 3rr.php:

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

1. 02:41, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "WP:V Referenced water boarding/charity promises, offers, and lack of fulfilment by SH. Removed subjective comment " though there has been no public follow-up" and referenced reason/followup.")
2. 08:34, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Manual restore due to Vandalism for Section Blanking. User:Niteshift36 states "that it happened is not in dispute". Then there is no undue weight issue, as these are facts and notable events.")
3. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ removed "liberal" as CREW Wiki article states group is non partisan.")
4. 09:12, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Public Offer to Undergo Water-boarding for Charity */ corrections")
5. 10:05, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395514884 - No references: If you chose to redo the change, please reference according to WP:V why they are liberal organizations, not non partisan.")
6. 10:38, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ added "VoteVets.org, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans" according to the referenced article wp:v. Added rebuttal to Freedom Alliance President comments for equal weight.")
7. 18:47, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395553148 rv: due to wp:v and wp:wellknown. Just because one might it is negative, doesn't mean it is wp:coatrack. Referenced and relevant.")
8. 19:14, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")
9. 19:20, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Soxwon (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")

• Edits 2,3,4 were consecutive and so were 5,6. So I make this to be six reverts in 24 hours by the usual 3RR calculation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I gave a slightly more in depth explanation regarding BLP issues on the user's talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39] reverts [40]
• 2nd revert: [41] again
• 3rd revert: [42] reverts [43], which is, itself removing blatant plagurism.
• 4th revert: [44] repeats the first revert
• 5th revert: [45] repeats the first revert again.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47], and I am not the other party in this revert war.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Warnings aside, the block log shows that the user should be well aware of 3RR/edit-warring and his response to the warning suggests he is very unlikely to stop edit-warring. Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  I should add that User:Ma8thew has come very close here. I count four reverts but am inclined to discount this revert which was essentially trying to respond directly to a concern of the opponent in the edit war raised in a preceding edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Urmston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nordy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]

• 5th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (haven't warned the user about 3rr, but have warned him about using Wiki for advertising - [53]

Comments:

This user is almost certainly the site's owner, considering this post on a community forum. Its a dead site though, it has been for about 2 years. The only site for Urmston that is regularly used and read is www.urmston.net, and has been for the last ten years or so. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: M656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:08, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ deleting entire quotation due to its extreme libelous character")
2. 21:49, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ Re-deleted libelous (understatement) content")
3. 22:25, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ in accordance with wiki rules libelous material can deleted any number of times")
4. 09:36, 9 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ the deleted quotation is challenged as libelous and is now being considered on Noticeboard. Don't reinsert prematurely.")

• Earlier deletion, showing that the first is indeed a revert: here

• Diff of warning: here and here

• See also discussion at BLPN

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
This editor has made it clear on the article talk-page that he intends to carry on reverting. The BLP exemption here does not apply -- a couple of editors here have explained to him that the material is not libellous, instead the material is a quotation from a perfectly reliable source (an academic book published by SUNY Press). He has, at least, now stricken his legal threat (first introduced here). The belligerent attitude continues, though. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to point out the WP:BLP problem of the quotation in question. Debresser stated on Sept. 27, 2009 "Frankly, I also felt from the beginning there is some wp:blp problem here." So there are currently 2 editors who think there is a problem and 2 that disagree. I am following the instructions of Wikipedia saying that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." It is Nomoskedasticity who is doing belligerent edit warring by repeatedly reinserting the material. The rule further says "If such material is repeatedly inserted..." (which is what Nomoskedasticity did) "or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard." (which is exactly what I did). So the subject is now under consideration on the Noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Wikipedia restrictions. I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites. m656 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But the material is not "unsourced or poorly sourced" -- and so the BLP exemption does not apply. The idea that the problem here is anti-Semitism (defamation of the entire Jewish people) is risible. You don't like what Inbari has to say, but that doesn't make it libellous and indeed no-one else on BLPN appears to be taking that view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into the BLP matter, just far enough to see that the reverts don't meet the exception in the WP:3RR policy that keeps them from counting toward the three-revert limit. Text published by a university press qualifies for consideration as part of this article, and should not be considered defamatory. Ginsburgh holds unusual views and it should not be a violation to simply report what he believes. Further discussion on the Talk page is needed to decide what material deserves to remain in the article. Since User:M656 has broken 3RR, I've asked him to agree to stop reverting, to avoid a block. I suggest that admins wait for his response before closing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't happen in Wikipedia that a person is said to have religious views other than what he himself actually professes. For such an extraordinary claim having a quotation from an academic simply is not sufficient. There are more than 60 books referenced on Ginsburgh's site, and not in any of them will you find such a view.

I was only deleting this extreme quotation (which I still consider quite unacceptable) until a decision was made (either by editors or an administrator). Now that you have made this decision, I have no intention whatsoever to re-delete the quotation by myself. But rather intend to redirect this issue to the Wiki Media Foundation.m656 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - M656 warned. Any continued reverts before consensus is reached may lead to a block. Ginsburgh can't be defamed by a statement of his own views, if they are being correctly reported. If there is a more nuanced way of presenting Ginsburgh's views, you should consider proposing new sourced material for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also posted originally from IPs 67.143.34.62 and 96.19.185.78

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=prev&oldid=394440697

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&action=historysubmit&diff=394530399&oldid=394440697
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=394546335
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395412109
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395487161
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395536697
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395549699
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395665112
• 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395666111
• 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395723294
• 10th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395727238
• 11th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395728750
• 12th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395733396
• new addition, little better than rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395734922
• 13th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395735648

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.151.58.242&diff=prev&oldid=395724640

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

Comments:

The IP appears to have edited from multiple ips, but has settled on the current one. His edits are really not that horrible, but he makes no attempt to discuss and instead insults and mocks. (see some of the edit summaries in the diffs above and the talk page) I also think one of his edit summaries is rather edifying and seems to imply his ultimate goal here - "I can do this too, till with both get banned for violating the 3RR". In that vein, I feel as though it has been disruptive editing from the start because of IP's refusal to follow BRD, but if that is not the view of whoever reviews this, I will accept a block as well. I don't quite know how to handle disruptive editors well (obviously since he got to 12 reverts before anything was reported), so I might have been a little off in how I handled it, like being late in trying a talk page discussion. If anyone has suggestions for handling stuff like this better in the future, I would love it - probably on my talk page though. Don't want to clutter up this place. Cross my fingers and hope I didn't demolish the formatting of this report somehow.Farsight001 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And fyi, it appears that User:Minimac has reported both the IP and I above. (two listings up) Farsight001 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And that I've screwed up the coding a bit somehow. Never can get these quite right. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. See rationale above, in WP:AN3#User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected). EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: John Lennon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrapped in Grey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: 14:52
• 2nd revert: 15:04
• 3rd revert: 15:46
• 4th revert: 20:59

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:59 and 18:18

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:42

Comments:
The article is being considered for TFA on 8 December, the 30th anniversary of Lennon's death, and will need watching until then for 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I did check the history, but I can't see what the first diff was a revert of. That said, he has clearly been edit warring and editing in quite an aggressive manner all afternoon, which is unacceptable at the best of times, but more so on an FA, especially one being considered for TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It will need watching all month ... and it took Incompetent Me 13 minutes to file that report! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll add it to my watchlist. It took me a lot longer than that the first time I filed a report here, so don;t worry too much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of most populous cities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dangerpatel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: 1 (first to revert BostonPunekar (talk · contribs))
• 2nd revert: 2 (second revert to revert me)
• 3rd revert: 3 (third revert to revert SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs))
• 4th revert: 4 (Same as third)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]. Just look at their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]. See also their talk page.

Comments:
Dangerpatel has been unwilling discuss on several articles. This is not just the one. Though he hasn't broken 3RR, he's basically edit warring against 3 editors and not trying to gain any sort of consensus or discussion on the page reported. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry: Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
164.107.203.227: 164.107.203.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Original edit: [59]
• 1st revert back: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Also, pointed toward talkpage here: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Title_of_article_and_Info_Box

Comments:
Name order dispute. Consensus formed at the page says stay alphabetical, but anon will not have this. I would block for the 3rr vio myself, but as I am somewhat involved I thought to bring this here. Obviously only block the anon if there are further reverts from now (no point in a punitive block if they have stopped). Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RomanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66] Note:I've never really understood what this is asking.

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]
• 5th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Previous block for edit warring on Christian article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] He has barely discussed any of edits on the Talk page.

Comments:
Previous warning and discussion about edit warring on ANI: [72]

Those were only two reversions, and both were reverting the reversions of other editors (Noloop was one). The two reversions are here and here. The other edits he is listing were normal edits modifying the page, NOT reversions of recently added material.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have discussed these edits on the talk page at length. This page has been having a lot of edit warring over the last few weeks. Just look at how contentious the talk page is. Other editors need to get involved in this page, as it has gotten badly out of hand.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at how contentious the talk page has been over just the last week (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Apologetics.2C_primary_sources), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#POV_Pushing), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Christian_presses_are_not_reliable_sources), and Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). Look at all of the space in those threads devoted to claims of personal attacks and insults, counter claims, claims of bias, of POV pushing, ect. Look at how massively the article, especially the intro, has changed over the last few weeks. I have not seen many articles that are this contentious.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take an few moments to look at the talk page on that (Historicity of Jesus). Noloop has been a party of the pretty blatant fighting going on there, and has taken a pretty hostile position to me. Take a look at all of those edits he posted, and at the history in the page. You will see that only those two edits are reversions, the rest are just the additions of material. Is Wikipedia now going to have a policy against normal edits?RomanHistorian (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, take a look at all of the sources and prior edits Noloop has deleted off of this page recently.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whichever admin looks at this, take a look at the comment by Griswaldo (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). After all of the claims of ad hominim attacks and counter claims by a number of users, including my accuser here Noloop, Griswaldo notes that Noloop reverted what Noloop himself said was 8 hours of edits by different editors. Note these edits here, here and here which came after my edits although I didn't touch them because they were productive. They, and others, were included in Noloop's massive revert-sweep. If anything, reverting such a large amount of material so adjectively is edit warring itself.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And then go look at the page right now, where RomanHistorian is busy edit-warring. It would be nice if the accuser were somewhat less guilty than the accused. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, contrary to this accusation, Noloop has indeed discussed the article on its talk page. See for yourself. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Comment - Given what Tariq saw, without being a regular at the entry I can't blame him for protecting the page. This wasn't a 3RR violation but it did indicate the early stages of an edit war. What Tariq might not know, however, is that Noloop has a history of trying to get this particular entry protected, and it is starting to get disruptive. He uses protection as a way to win POV battles. RomanHistorian's edits should have been reverted, and were. If he continued and actually broke 3RR then he could have been blocked, but the page would not have needed protecting. When there is one editor against many page protection is not the solution. Letting that person breach 3RR and sending them to the chopping block is. Admins need to be weary of Noloops page protection scheme. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Four Asian Tigers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.45.181.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated insertion of uncited numbers changing statistics, apparently to older set.

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Declined I see no attempt at dispute resolution - no use of any talk page save a warning. Please attempt to engage in dispute resolution first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Photocredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• See article history for today 10 November 2010. I think both editors have made around 10 reverts of eachother's material today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On article talk page [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] and discussion on my talk page [75]

Comments:
I am uninvolved in the dispute. Both editors seem set on edit warring.

• To Photocredit's..er..credit, they did say here that they would try to resolve the dispute but reverted after that comment. They haven't reverted since. They may also have a legitimate point that some of the material should be reverted per WP:BLP.
• To 68.173.122.113's credit, as you can see from their contributions, they have tried to discuss the material and they tried pretty much every noticeboard in existence.

They are clearly edit warring and I'm not convinced that they will resolve it on the talk page. Eitjher way, it strikes me as 3RR report worthy. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved in a AFD/content dispute on another article with the IP user, so I've stayed away from this article, but please note that 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same person. Looking at the edits, there are issues with tone and how informations from sources are paraphrased into the text, so input from a knowledgeable (not me) but a neutral editor (probably not me) would probably be welcomed here. Mosmof (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected two weeks. Both the IP and Photocredit have broken 3RR, but Photocredit was drawing attention to BLP problems, and the IP seemed to be resisting the BLP cleanup that was being attempted by others. Since admins User:Diannaa and User:Orangemike are both working on this article, I think that editors can address them directly in case of any further BLP problems. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Storm King Art Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: N2smd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 05:36, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "Recent controversy regarding possible conspiracy theory")
2. 06:25, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "grammar correction")
3. 16:51, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:00, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act Revision")
5. 17:03, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act")
6. 17:05, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395963461 by Mike Rosoft (talk)")

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

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

Comments:
I am just an interested bystander, I reverted the first version of the changes and now he has put them back in again, and now gotten into an edit war with another editor. I am not too familiar with how to stop it, but I did put a warning on the culprit's talk page, but it does not seem to have made a difference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdukas (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronaldc0224 (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]
• 4th revert: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Comments:

I've tried multiple rewrites to attempt to accurately communicate the sources, but all have been reverted, including my changing of the word "conclude" which is not used in the sources, to "allege" which is closer to the "suggests" used in the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury has engaged in multiple reverts himself. He first tried to blank out the referenced material I added entirely. I had to revert these to get the material back. And he has since been trying to manipulate the wording away from what the source says to what he'd prefer it had said instead, replacing quoted material with stuff the source doesn't say. His change of "conclude" to "allege" is a POV-pushing edit. The quote in question is not an "allegation" (which implies an accusation lacking proof by a disputing party - Azure's POV preference, and a loaded wording), it is simply the stated conclusion of the paper being referenced. This is just one example of the POV edits and blanking i've had to revert, and which Azure keeps reverting himself. I've tried contacting Azure on his talk page to discuss this, but he's going for wiki-lawyering instead in hopes of getting me blocked for what he is doing worse.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note Ronaldc0224 seems to be the recently created account of IP 76.15.195.93 who was recently blocked for edit warring over a related topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War_documents_leak&action=history AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked AzureFury had at least 3 reverts, one was borderline but close enough for me, given his history, to merit a block (gaming the system doesn't work here, sorry). 48 hours for reportee and 72 hours for reporter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

For the IP

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]
• 5th revert: [87]

For Farsight001

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute, but these two editors are doing a pathetic job reverting with vague and sometimes personally abusive explanations in their edit summaries. I recommend a block without warning, as they've already past 3RR before I even had a chance to warn them. Minimac (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just reported the IP myself before I saw this. It's two reports below this one. There are many more diffs on the IP's and my parts (and one or two diffs from others) that are not listed here. And if this is a 3RR rule issue instead of a disruptive editor issue as I assumed it was, could someone please explain the difference, as I seem to be having some serious trouble figuring it out. I've been reported for violating 3rr a couple of times now(no block though) when I thought I was just reverting disruptive editing, to which the 3rr does not apply. Thanks. ^_^ Farsight001 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. I notice that the IP has already been blocked 24 hours, but am semiprotecting because the history suggests the same person may be reverting with more than one IP. I recommend that Farsight001 not be blocked, since it sounds like he is willing to follow the policy from now on. Farsight001 is urged to read WP:Edit warring carefully. All parties should cease the personal attacks, either on the talk page or in in edit summaries, or more blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The IP turns out to have been an editor who also had an account, User:Mark Osgatharp (which had been blocked for three days for this type of behavior earlier this year). That person used the account to circumvent the IP block and the article protection, and admitted to as much (along with making personal attacks) with this series of edits to Talk:Baptists. I have noted this on the talk page of the admin who blocked the IP. Perhaps the user should also be blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not intentionally circumvent a block. My anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours one morning and did not edit again till the next morning under my registered name (which, by the way, is my real name, not some phony handle designed to hide my real identity). I didn't check the time and it may not have been exactly 24 hours, but I didn't intend to circumvent the block.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

After checking the block history of Mark Osgatharp, I've blocked for one month, per this rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Hyundai Sonata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 00:11, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Safety */ NHTSA crash test rating; remove duplicate side barrier rating (front)")
2. 00:43, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert edits not supported by source material")
3. 16:41, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
4. 18:06, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv removal of sourced material")
5. 18:22, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "you need consensus of editors before you substantially removed materials that just don't fit your POV")
6. 19:01, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "I think you need consensus of editors")
7. 19:11, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "I suggest you raise the issue of significance in the discussion page and seek consensus")

• Diff of warning: here

—Go porch books (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[93]]

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]

Comments:

Very uncreative edit warring over at Israeli settlement, rejects sources linked in article, changes "Israeli-occupied" to "disputed". I'm sure I've screwed up format as I've never filed one of these things, but there ya go. Sol (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Warned Nobody warned Nicepepper. S/he has 39 edits to his/her name and apparently was never informed about the three-revert rule. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages:
Western Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vankli, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kars, Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Western Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]
• 5th revert: [103]
• 6th revert: [104], violation of 3RR (1)
• 7th revert: [105], violation of 3RR (2)
• 8th revert: [106], violation of 3RR (3)
• 9th revert: [107], violation of 3RR (4)

Note that Magoteers started edit-warring after MarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as per Wikipedia:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff [108])

Vankli, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]
• 5th revert: [113]
• 6th revert: [114]

Same story here: Magoteers started edit-warring after MarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as per Wikipedia:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff [115])

Kars, Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [116]
• 2nd revert: [117]
• 3rd revert: [118]

Same story in these articles [119], [120], [121], [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[123]; [124]

User notified: [125]

Comments:
This case is mostly about the edit-warring per se than about a specific case of 3RR although violation of 3RR is a part of it, as indicated above.

Magotteers appeared on Wikipedia pages out of the blue, directly engaging in the concurrent heated discussion here claiming he was "searching on google and was directed there". Sure... Same thing happened when another user Ionidasz magically appeared in a heated discussion most likely claiming later that he was there searching for something and ooops, found a heated discussion and decided to contribute. (see link of his first contribution here And, it's interesting how well informed about Wikipedia rules and editing these "two" new editors are.

Please also note that once Magoteers appears on pages and starts edit-warring, Marshall Bagramyan is virtually out of sight, making only a few edits on talk pages of these articles here and there, most likely to avoid being sanctioned again. All the actual reverting work is done by Magotteers.

These two users (Ionidasz and Magotteers) used the same pattern of editing:

• appearance in Wikipedia and going straight to the heated discussions;
• heavy multiple reverting and edit-warring in "battleground" articles;
• using obscene and sarcastic language against other editors (eg. [126], [127], [128], [129]);
• finally, used his favorite word upteenth time used by Magotteers account in summary comment and Ionidasz account in summary comment.

If you look through their contributions, you will understand that these accounts are used to supplement edit-warring by established users. Both users have been asked to discuss their reverts on talk pages of the articles which they did, but while commenting on the articles, they also did revert to either their version or that of the established users (their puppetiers), while the established users mostly limited themselves with contributions on the talk pages. It is also interesting that Magotteers account appeared after unsuccessful attempts of blocked user Andranikpasha to re-establish himself as a sock like Alaguerre and some other IPs (see the archive here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andranikpasha/Archive.

Here [130] Magotteers claims he doesn't know who Andranikpasha is. Yeah, right. Really? As Ionidacz he does know who Andranikpasha is [131].

To sum up, these are either sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts which were opened to do nothing but help established users avoid sanctions, edit war on frequently edited pages and do multiple reverts (no new articles were created by these users) while abusing multiple accounts and quack like a WP:DUCK. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are insinuating something, please have the courtesy to say it plainly and outright or even inform me. I have been heavily involved in these articles, yes, but the level of stonewalling that I have encountered by numerous editors has, to say the least, discouraged me from making too main-space edits for fear of being drawn into an edit war. All one has to do is read my comments on the talk page and see my exasperation as I am given odd demands to prove things which no amount of sources will suffice. User:Anastasia.Bukh continued to revert my edits even after I provided bountiful sources and he even removed (and so have you now) such uncontentious information as census data. I do not want to be sanction so that is why I have done little editing and have contributed mainly to the talk page, trying to find a common tongue.

Marshall, you were not the user who was being reported on. You're just mentioned in this report, so don't be telling me about courtesy. We both do know you're in constant communication with this sock account who already admitted using multiple sock accounts after being disposed by me and confirmed by administrators. These accounts are like tails to your edits. Wherever you go, they go. It's too obvious whichever you spin it. Include whoever you like in your reports. It's your right as an editor but it's not your right to involve socks to avoid sanctions. I'm not accusing you but that's the impression this whole show gives. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As for Magoteers, I have absolutely no knowledge of who he is and we should assume good faith rather than simply report him immediately for sockpuppet violations, as you have done, and inform him of the rules. I never told nor encouraged him to make reverts on my behalf and I find the insinuation and my connection to my quite superficial. If we are reporting edit warriors, however, we should also include Anastasia.Bukh as well, since he has made absolutely no attempt to restrain himself in his reverts either, displaying a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and incivility on the Vank (Vankli) article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, spend your time learning who Anastasia is instead of making up your fantasies that it's "Himself" or "He". Secondly, I provided with information about the article. The article is about the village of Vankli in Azerbaijan, and the third party sources say what the real name is. What the currently administrative governors call it after occupation is not to be applied. Wikipedia is about relying on third party sources in time of conflicting sources.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Explaination: Four different users have been revert warring by removing my changes, which they have not dealt with in the talkpage. See this revert of mine like several others in the same article, which is included in this report, includes the clarification of this map, the uploader removed the legend of the article, which will bring any person to believe that in blue, that represents the borders of Armenia according to Sevres. Only when I have been reported, one of them has finally removed the map. So basically the removal assume that they did not even read my comments when they were blindly reverting my clarifications on what really represent the map.

Note also, that Western Azerbaijan article is a duplicate of another article, Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia, compare both versions, besides its intro.

Regarding Vank article, note its history, I believe Parishan is an Azeri user, who made a compromise. From its history, we see Anastasia.Bukh has renamed the article without discussion. This is unacceptable, as he should have requested concensus.

Regarding my revert on Kars article, read my explainations please.

Summary : It's true I have been revert warring, but check the history of the articles, I was not the only one. Note that Anastasia has made an unilateral move of an article and revert warred, failing to reach concensus, she has also been very uncivil with me.

Regarding this users insulation regarding me, that's what I have typed and it is true that I have found the article from that, as I mentioned, at which point I was pushed in this edit war. Also, was it forbidden to check other users contributions? Obviously I have checked the contributions of the users with whom I was in conflict with, and have seen from there... I am also active on Russian and Turkish wikipedia.

Also note that I was already checked here. Magotteers (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Where was I "uncivil" with you? Bunch of lies again trying to get out the situation. It is clear to everyone that you are a user opening new accounts to mess the pages up, then having a bad reputation contribution history, you start another new account and the history repeats itself.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I took a look at this, and while Magotteers seems to have stopped edit warring since the warning, I do have concerns about the likelihood of Magotteers (talk · contribs) being a possible sock of Ionidasz (talk · contribs). That said, the two aren't editing at the same time, since the latter is marked as "retired," but I'm not sure what sanctions or whatever might have been in place, or whether Ionidasz was sufficiently warned. If another admin could take a peek at this case, it'd prolly be better, since I'm tired at the moment and prone to error. :P Plus, I'm not sure to what extent the arbcom stuff applies anyway. Anyway, feel free to make whatever decision, and I'll take a fresh look tomorrow if nobody else grabs it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is himself an alternate account who was warned about illegitimate uses of "legitimate" socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thank you for looking into the reports. What I don't understand is why this and other accounts of this user are not being blocked if his sole purpose is to edit war on certain articles. I mean all his contributions under sock accounts are used for the purpose of reverts en masse and deleting sourced information. In my understanding, contributing to Wikipedia is defined not as just writing in Wikipedia, but as contributing per se. This individual does not contribute. He has not created any articles whatsoever, he has not contributed significant amounts of encyclopedic data to any article, especially any other Azerbaijan-Armenia unrelated articles. So, why is he here? To create battlegrounds? After all, he admitted using sock accounts for long because he was sure he wouldn't be able to conceal that information from administrators. If he's unblocked in 72 hours, he will continue his agenda. Just look at his talk page. The user is being irritated and is itching to edit war while he's still blocked. Just look at his talk page User talk:Magotteers#November 2010. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What differences any of those makes? The person who reported me has four reverts in the same article, upon checking he was also topic banned for 3 months prior. It's true I am Ionidasz but I was not in any restrictions and was not edit warring under my Ionidasz account. I did try contributing with the same account, but since more than 30 days passed I was not automatically connected anymore, and too bad I could not remember my password. When the users you are in conclict with request three checks against you, you think twice before comming back with another account because even after an admission I will be claimed to be a sockpuppet. That's that.

It's also not like I was not discussing my reverts, but it is logical that almost anyone engaged with me should have any restrictions placed against me too. Particularly Anastasia who unilaterally moved an article without reaching concensus. Regarding the warning..., I did use socks in the past to comment as it was brought in the link which you provide, but not to edit war. This has stopped since that warning. Magotteers (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 72 hours. Clearly four reverts in 24 hours at Western Azerbaijan (ideological concept). Extra-long block because these articles are prone to national disputes, and because his attitude suggests he is treating Wikipedia like a battleground. I have notified Magotteers under AA2, but he is not yet subject to any discretionary sanctions. He previously edited as Ionidasz but that account was never notified of AA by an admin. Unless his attitude changes, I think that action under AA2 may be needed soon. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: AGM-114 Hellfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.89.14.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]
• 3rd revert: [134]
• 4th revert: [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137][138]

Comments:

• Another editor also sought to revert the IP, was was reverted himself w/an edit summary accusing him of vandalism.
• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: United States Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.178.181.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

• 1st revert: 12:44 11/12
• 2nd revert: 13:31 11/12
• 3rd revert: 14:08 11/12
• 4th revert: 14:17 11/12

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

• There was a previous discussion with consensus to keep the text he's removing here as well as a thread on my talk. DC T•C 14:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 18 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Brett Walton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: JadamHosey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 14:14, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Notability has already been discussed in Afd and no consensus was reached")
2. 15:27, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396329116 - the discussion was about whether the subject is notable or not and no consensus was reached.")
3. 15:36, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396331690 - again, notability is discussed on the talk page for the deletion and no consensus was reached. This is closed.")
4. 16:06, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396335891 by Falcon9x5 (talk) so you want to go through the entire process again?")

• Diff of warning: here — Pathetic warring over a notability tag, but warring all the same. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Can't argue with anything you said. WP:LAME candidate. Courcelles 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Get Sleazy Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Itsbydesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Alright lets walk who ever reads this through this;

• (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396300831&oldid=396214405) First addition by the user is here, i reverted claiming "unreliable references and false information".
• He then reverted my revert(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396379246&oldid=396357058)(his first revert) claiming "unjustifiable removal of content".
• I then partially reverted his revert keeping some of the information, removing youtube references and similar things here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396381132&oldid=396380079 .
• He responded by reverting again (2nd revert) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396381477&oldid=396381132 so then i warned him and he basically called me an idiot, what ever.
• So i was kind of like what ever, i didnt revert it, i kept 99% of the info i just cleanded it up as in my edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396387545&oldid=396381477 "beginning massive article clean up. Removed Cancellations and rescheduled per WP:CHRYSTAL and assume. Removed all $ per Wikipedia:MOSTM and Youtube per WP:TWITTER, its the same thing". I tired explain this to him again on his talk page, he responded and was more or less like no these are the rules im adding it back.
• Then he reverted my clean up destroying the references and clean up in the process, all he did was restore his version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396397690&oldid=396393849 . This was his 3rd revert.
• I pressed a wrong button http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396398039&oldid=396397762 <---- so i reverted my own revert, also trying not to edit war (tho i did :S)
• The last edit on the page his mine undoing his revert of an old version of the page (his version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Get_Sleazy_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=396400625&oldid=396398196 with the edit summary "dont revert this edit, doing so complete screws up the references which are written per WP:FA standards. The note isnt needed, wait until its confirmed per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENTISM."

Now with all of this said, i admit and apologize as i did edit war, i tried multiple times to explain to the editor in edit summaries rules and regulations, i tried multiple times to explain on his talk page as well User_talk:Itsbydesign#November_2010 but he just kept restoring his version, i admit i lost my cool and will relax in the future, sorry and hopefully someone can help :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring equal on all sides. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User Rodrickjae has not commented at all on any of the edits he has made.

Comments: The user in question continues to add the same information over and over again, despite attempts to ask him to cite his sources.

-Jhortman (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week for BLP violations rather than edit warring. The material is quite clearly a BLP vio. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Kyle Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peace is contagious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147] (Revision as of 12:32, 10 November 2010)

• 1st revert: [148] 09:03, 13 November 2010
• 2nd revert: [149] 17:24, 13 November 2010
• 3rd revert: [150] 20:39, 13 November 2010
• 4th revert: [151] 03:36, 14 November 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Peace is contagious#Kyle Baker, beginning 7 November 2010

Comments: Peace is contagious continues to add uncited claims, apparently original research, that violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TONE, and, in his verbally abuse and name-calling, which has attracted other editors' attention, WP:CIVIL

At least three other editors have been on his talk page over the last day or two pointing out his violations. He has engaged in personal attacks, he's intimated to another editor that he's playing cat-and-mouse with me like the prankster group the Jerky Boys, and he refuses to accept standard, core policies & guidelines. He is unconstructive, abusive, and I believe should be banned. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that. here's one pretty good example of a personal attack he made. Minimac (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, NPA, BLP, and other disruptive editing. Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: William Shockley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.245.209.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 05:51, 14 November 2010 (edit summary: "Correct previous edit which left a portion of the article logically incoherent.")
2. 05:53, 14 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396653240 by Will Beback (talk)")
3. 06:27, 14 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396655688 by Will Beback (talk) Beback, aren't you banned from these topics? Please stop the reverts & discuss on talk pg")
4. 06:45, 14 November 2010 (edit summary: "Wrong! I explained and discuss on the talk page (unlike anyone else). Help me maintain stability of this section. W's changes should be discussed before applied+W removed many citations w/1st edit")

• Diff of warning: Previously blocked for 3RR

—  Will Beback  talk  06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked IP appears stable, escalated previous block for edit warring on same page. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Like a G6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aaronchall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.108.146.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

• 1st edit today: [154]
• 1st revert: [155] (as IP address)
• 2nd revert: [156] (as IP address)
• 3rd revert: [157] (as IP address)
• 4th revert: [158] (as IP address)
• 5th revert: [159]
• 6th revert: [160]
• 7th revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] (previous warning from 6 days ago by another user about the same article)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Like a G6#Song meaning and Talk:Like a G6#Criticism

Comments:
IP user appears to be the same user, most likely accidentally logged out and did not realize it. Editing behaviour is clearly the same. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the user under question. I have been repeatedly baited by my accuser when I first began working on this article who cursed at me and told me to go away on IRC six days ago. The reverts were made under the auspices of the 3RR exclusion of undoing vandalism, as the section I have been working on has been consistently deleted in its entirety (an act akin to page blanking) with no discussion on the talk page, and no legitimate reasons (or no reason at all) given in the summary. Only one (and another one left only a single line) has just now begun to communicate on the talk page specifically addressing concerns, and until that point, I had made the last commentary on the talk page, directly refuting the central point of each issue. Deletion of entire sections even citing good reason is considered poor behavior under WP:ZEAL, and since page blanking is obvious vandalism, section blanking of a fully sourced section called "Criticisms" is obviously vandalism to me, and I believe I am covered under the policy. Aaronchall (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

From the disruptive editing page (which also describes the section deleting behavior) "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Aaronchall (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of the talk page revisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALike_a_G6&action=historysubmit&diff=396668706&oldid=396570550) and the editing history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Like_a_G6&action=history) provides evidence of lack of communication on the section deleters' part and full communication and engagement on my part. Given the circumstances (deletion of a criticism section in a popular music page, and roughshod section blanking) these edits are easily described as vandalism, and fall under the obvious vandalism exclusion from the WP:3RR policy. We must not allow this type of gotcha negotiation technique to settle discussions of page editing. Aaronchall (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Go away" and "Move on" mean entirely different things. FYI. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aaronchall, this is an ordinary content dispute; please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism, and reach consensus at Talk:Like a G6 before making that edit again. The IP certainly looks like the user, but the autoblock will take care of it if it is. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Repo Man (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.118.48.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]
• 3rd revert: [166]
• 4th revert: [167]

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

This warning was given at 03:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC), but as you can see, they decided to continue to edit war as shown in the 4th revert. They even went so far as to call my reversion(my second/last) 'vandalism', which violates WP:NPA and WP:VAND.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Uthman ibn Affan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: علی ویکی (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [169]
• 2nd revert: [170]
• 3rd revert: [171]
• 4th revert: [172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:علی ویکی

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Definitely unjustified edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Id, ego, and super-ego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pfistermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]

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

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

Comments:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.175.89 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours For edit warring and personal attacks such as this in the edit summary; Page protected for a period of 1 week. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]

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

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

Comments:

The user has been warned about edit warring and the three revert rule:

• [182]

I have an old dispute with him. He didn't want neither to discuss nor to even write an edit summary. I asked him first in my edit summaries to explain his edits. He didn't respond so I wrote on his talk (a little bit aggressive):

• [183]

This is also another user who has the same complaint:

• [184]

I tried to talk with him many times, but he refuses and responds with swearwords and personal attacks. He now writes edit summaries, but still refuses to discuss in talk pages and reach consensus. I tried having the third opinion to solve the dispute [185], but they told me to go to the Wikiquette alerts. I used that, but the guy there told me it was my fault. So basically I had no option but to edit war with him since he refuses to talk even though I tried many times talking with him. I don't mind being blocked if you're going to block me. At least I always use the talk pages to resolve disputes. I never force my edits on anybody.HD86 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours to both for edit warring. This is not the first block for either editor, and neither one behaves well in this dispute. I'm warning both parties against further personal attacks. (See the article talk page). The report above may serve as an unwitting source of humor for this noticeboard: "basically I had no option but to edit war with him.." I suggest that both parties read some policy before editing this article again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Royal Commonwealth Pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]
• 5th revert: [190]
• 6th revert: [191]
• 7th revert: [192]
• 8th revert: [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:89.211.65.21

Comments:
Please note that the 7th and 8th reverts were made after I had added a citation from a reliable source (The Guardian) to support the disputed information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BMK. I am not disputing the Guardian as an RS. I am disputing that the author is using 'RC Pool' as a nickname. Very much so. The cited text does not support the disputed information. As has been pointed out, if it were a nickname like, for example, 'Commie' then you'd find planty mention of it. Just find RS cited text that supports your position. Source is fine, you know I am not disputing that! --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The anon isn't the only editor reverting on that article, and if you see the talk page he is trying to enforce verifiability on a particular point. I can't defend his methods, but I hope he isn't the only editor who ends up being sanctioned. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Betty - long time no see. Still carrying a grudge? Look, I foolishly let this IP get under my skin and got carried away for a bit, but I stopped myself in time. The IP has reverted two other editors, and carried on reverting even after I provided a reference -- and their talk page argument is patently ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

'Patently ridiculous' to you. The other editors don't really bolster your case given that one revert suggested I not be allowed to 'get away with it'. Whatever. The facts - and the consensus - do not support 'RC Pool' as a nickname. That may change, but thus it remains for now. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not out to get you banned, but I think it would be rough if the IP got punished in the circumstance. The IP is at least trying to discuss it on the talk page, and there might be a potential solution if you head over there yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't do much good, the IP just knows it's wrong. I guess he personally asked all 450,000 people in Edinburgh, and none of them ever uses that nickname. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I looked for this, and I found lots of mentions of "Commie Pool" and its acronym "RCP" in lots of local media but nothing for "RC Pool" apart from that Guardian article. I don't know if you're confusing "RCP" (which is often referred to on local government websites) and "RC Pool", but it is an important distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Now who's being 'spolit'?! It is wrong. That's why there's no source suggesting this as a nickname. Or... stop whining and find one. So much for 'I stopped in time'... Holy crap.. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Betty Logan seems to have a fair opinion here, I stand by BMK though the IP was being disruptive to start with, and had things turned out differently, should be punished for edit warring and igniting another edit war shortly after the ANI thread, of course if we were to be fair and punish both parties that would probably involve me getting blocked as well since i was heavily involved in the earlier war but I,ve stayed out of this one so please don't block me and BMK--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously dispute that I was being disruptive. BMK was, for seemingly personal reasons, trying to re-insert inaccurate information into a wiki. He has variously resorted to lies, smears, name-calling and sarcasm as he could find neither consensus nor a reliable citation. Worryingly, in his mind, his citation from the Guardian was unimpeachable despite the fact that it didn't actually support his position. Its rejection by me and others meant, in the world of BMK, that I was rejecting the Guardian as an RS. Playing the man, not the ball, yet again. Overall, I wanted the wiki to be accurate, and it is - for now. BMK wanted to revert the wiki to an inaccurate standpoint, seemingly because I had 'upset' him (poor lamb), not for objective reasons. When he didn't get his own way, the toys came flying out of the pram at an alarming velocity with puerile asides. A number of his comments reflect this. If I am to be punished then I should not be alone. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Template:Airlines of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunterda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

• 1st revert: [196]
• 2nd revert: [197]
• 3rd revert: [198]
• 4th revert: [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Single purpose account is also edit warring on Manx2 to push his bizarre opinion that Manx2 is not an airline, despite it being one according to the BBC and other sources. O Fenian (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on several pages. Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of outlaw motorcycle clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IPhilCI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

• 1st revert: [202]
• 2nd revert: [203]
• 3rd revert: [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

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

Comments:
Editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorcycling have established consensus that only notable clubs should be added to this list. This can be seen in the comments added at the start of the article stating "Additions without verifiable, reliable sources will be deleted. Additions must have some notability beyond just having their own web site. This should be an independent, reliable source.". This user persists in adding the same club. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I see three reverts here, but four are required to break 3RR. Is there a particular reason for a block for only three in this case? (I'm also concerned that there's been no attempt to engage on the talk page.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Sunset (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Good Doctor Fry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

• 1st revert: [207]
• 2nd revert: [208]
• 3rd revert: [209]
• 4th revert: [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments:
Aforementioned user refuses to continue engaging in discussion and continually reverts to his version of the article, despite being contentious. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rangeview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

This article falls under the 1RR following this discussion.

• Initial removal: 08:16, November 5, 2010 by Rangeview
• 1st revert: 01:14, November 8, 2010 by Oneworld777
• 2nd revert: 12:05, November 10, 2010 by Oneworld777
• 3rd revert: 02:50, November 11, 2010 by Oneworld777
• 4th revert: 09:36, November 13, 2010 by Rangeview
• 5th revert: 00:39, November 15, 2010 by Rangeview
• 6th revert: 04:26, November 16, 2010 by Rangeview

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:03, November 15, 2010 by Jiujitsuguy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Jiujitsuguy and myself have been discussing the issue here; the editor in question, Rangeview, has continued to revert without joining that discussion.

Comments:

Simply put, Rangeview and Oneworld777 have been edit warring this line out of the article for the last week or so. I think it's blatantly obvious that Oneworld777 is Rangeview's sock or meat puppet (Oneworld777 only has one edit to any other article, ever). This article is under 1RR following this discussion, of which they were warned yesterday by Jiujitsuguy; their first edit following that warning was to revert again, a little under 28 hours after their previous revert. ← George ^talk 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for Rangeview; waiting results for CU on Oneworld777. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Haole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.8.177.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th revert: [219]
• 6th revert: [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of self-promotion warning by another user: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]

Comments:

User is repeatedly spamming the article with a link to his/her video, which is irrelevant to the content. Refuses to engage in discussion on either the article talk page or their own page. Only checks in every few days, so technically not in violation of 3RR, but has now done this six times over two weeks and is becoming very tiresome. KarlM (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

These reverts show repeated deletion of sourced reference to Greek author Xenophon which the editor admits is relevant material in the edit summaries, but claims is "POV" and began to delete only after his reference to fringe theories of a 2,300BC date were challenged and removed when no support could be found:

• 1st revert: [224]
• 2nd revert: [225]
• 3rd revert: [226]
• 4th revert: [227]
• 5th revert: [228]

The article was blocked at this point and the editor formally warned by an admin.

These reversions are subsequent to the block being removed:

• 6th revert: [229]
• 7th revert: [230]
• 8th revert: [231] (back to adding unsourced competing claims)

User has been warned several times Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [232] (my first warning)
• [233] (my second warning)
• [234] (my third warning)
• [235]Warning of General Sanction by Admin Courcelles

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [236] this section is about the user's addition of and multiple restorals of references to the Victory Stele of Naram-Sin. (According to fringe sources (e.g., http://www.armenianaryans.com/AC/showthread.php5?t=236) this monument attests to the existence of the Armenians over 1,900 years before Xenophon) He provided no sources, and the only sources I could find after tagging the claim and searching to support it for a day were Armenian nationalist ones. (The only scholarly reference I can find speaks of a city named anything from halman to armani and makes no mention of armenians) This talk section [237] is on Xenophon.

Note that the editor has not once commented on the discussion page. His edit summaries are also interesting in their invalid and contradictory arguments. He was invited to discuss his ideas on the talk page [238] before he was ever formally warned of his actions. He has never done so.

Comments:

The author was formally notified of this complaint here

The editor, apparently an Armenian nationalist, is engaging in a long-term sometimes slow-motion edit war. (User was warned at time of article freeze and general sanction warning that edit warring does not require a strict violation of 3RR [239]. The editors habits exhibit a tit-for tat: "you tag and remove my unsourced edit, I'll revert your sourced and uncontorversial edit" behaviour. While deleting references to Xenophon, who is the author of the oldest surviving texts mentioning the Armenians - as POV (!), he has repeatedly added unsourced references to much older supposed attestations, including the fringe nationalist Naram Sin theory mentioned above, and now an unsupported reference [240] to the Hittites. He has been warned several times. The article has been frozen to no effect. His edits are reverted by editors besides myself for going against consensus.

μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Aryamahasattva is placed under a one revert per day restriction (WP:1RR) on articles in the area of Armenia and Azerbaijan, per the discretionary sanctions provided in the WP:ARBAA2 decision, for a period of one year. This restriction can be appealed at WP:AE, or by applying to Arbcom. This editor is continuing to engage in warlike behavior on an article that was previously placed under full protection (12 November) due to his activities. His repeated removal of the Xenophon reference from the article (here and here) is especially baffling, and his edit summary suggests he is warring for a nationalist cause. "I know its relevant, but it does not belong here in the "Origins", its POV is what it is, and you are edit warring as much as I am in this issue, I have a right to state my case on this". Wikipedia does not provide equal time for all nationalist viewpoints, we defer to reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [241] 08:03, 16 November 2010

Then I cleaned the page citing WP:INTDABLINK, WP:PIPING, fragments, early links, etc. in my edit summary.

• 1st revert: [242] 15:47, 16 November 2010

I entered a series of edits with explicit edit summaries for each change. Next edit was a partial revert, so not numbered:

Previous version reverted to: [243] 22:50, 16 November 2010

I tagged the page for cleanup so that other members of the disambiguation project could take a look. [244] 23:00, 16 November 2010

• 2nd revert: [245] 23:44, 16 November 2010
• 3rd revert: [246] 23:49, 16 November 2010

User:Jwy and User:86.180.255.89 provided some clean up edits.

• 4th revert: [247] 08:56, 17 November 2010

User:86.180.255.89 tried a minor change.

Previous version reverted to: [248] 09:49, 17 November 2010

• 5th revert: [249] 10:01, 17 November 2010

Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of previous 3RR block: [251]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [252]

and: [253]

but rather than discuss on the article talk page: [254]

which is a pattern too: [255]

Comments:

JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

JHunterJ has a visible lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. I know I'm no shining member of the community, but my edits conform to the style guidelines of Wikipedia and the Disambiguation Project. There may be need to further review by someone familiar with the MOS:DAB, however my attempts to get JHunter to criticise my work after I painstakingly explained which of his edits did not conform to policy have fallen on deaf ears, page reverts, and disingenuous comments to allude that the page should go against the Manual of Style. Review of his edit history will find him no less guilty of the "charges" he brings against me for improving the pages in question.  æronphonehome  13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There was further review by someone familiar with MOS:DAB, but you reverted Jwy's edits too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He did a revert, not a review. Citing that your edits were more accurate because they were done one at a time (?). I've contacted him requesting clarification and am awaiting a response.  æronphonehome  13:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he reviewed the edits and re-implemented the correct ones. You are acting as if you WP:OWN the article, reverting multiple other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of the style guidelines disagrees with almost all of the changes you made. I do not own the article, more to the point, neither do you. If you feel my edits are in error, show me why just as I showed you. That was what I said to you before you ceased speaking to me. But at this point, an impartial Admin needs to step in regardless.  æronphonehome  14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Do not continue a dispute on this page." -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But you're actually talking to me now. I'm hoping it leads somewhere.  æronphonehome  15:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This conflict has provoked AeronPeryton to record an impression of JHunterJ as "an abused pre-teen with a massive ego" at User talk:AeronPeryton (not to mention the rude and inappropriate assertions of others' inexcusable ignorance: a real surprise for me to see this applied to a Project Disambiguation MOSDAB-maintainer like JHunterJ). The way AeronPeryton handled me at User_talk:Wareh#Na also seems to have heaped a good bit of unnecessary scorn. As far as I can tell, this user routinely deals with disagreement with WP:UNCIVIL words, usually with a rude edit summary to boot. Wareh (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the behavior of AeronPeyton. Currently trying to close this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24h to AeronPeryton for disruptive editing, per this revert, which restores his personal attack on JHunterJ. It seems fair to observe that JHunterJ does have some previous background on disambiguation pages, so for AeronPeryton to get into such a painful fight with an contributor (who is thought, at least by some, to know that area well) suggests a lack of judgment. AeronPeryton seems to have been involved in a long-term edit war at Na since 5 November with a variety of editors, each time asserting that his knowledge of the disambiguation policy is superior. I think that JHunterJ has also been pushing the limits of the 3RR rule and I leave it to some other admin to decide if further sanctions are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Canadian Federation of Students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 96.49.153.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:10, 15 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:36, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "Sentence was nonsensical, possibly vandalism.")
3. 17:39, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */")
4. 17:43, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Edits not covered in the cited source. Please don't invent facts.")
5. 18:12, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */ NPOV of source in doubt, as is an author who has ties to political parties of whom the CFS is critical.")
6. 18:14, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */ Accidentally deleted source in previous edit.")
7. 18:35, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "New text is both more accurate, and more NPOV")
8. 18:43, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */ Voting irregularities broadly cover what is in article.")
9. 18:44, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */")
10. 18:55, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */ Please use talk pages to reach consensus.")
11. 19:53, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Please stop the edit war and discuss this on the talk pages.")
12. 20:42, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Please stop reverting edits and discuss on talk pages.")
13. 20:48, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */")
14. 21:04, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2010 */")
15. 21:13, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397376106 by Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk)")

• Diff of warning: User talk:96.49.153.29 here

Comments:
Have attempted several times to use talk page to reach consensus while listing my sources. Reached consensus with one other editor, however, the user of this ip address seems content to reverting all my edits on the pretext that I am biased because he believes me to be a member of a group that the subject of the article is critical of, ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Furthermore, looking at the users contributions users contributions, it seems that most, if not all contributions have been to the page Canadian Federation of Students. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Consider yourself lucky, as this was definitely a WP:POT report that could have gotten you both blocked. Please hash this out on the talk page, any 3RR reversions by either side will result in blocks in the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Society of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported: Jesslynhg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)198.98.45.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)198.98.45.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)198.98.36.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)198.98.42.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Multiple 198.89 IP addresses and Jessylynhg are apparently the same editor.

Nov 15:

• 1st revert: [256]
• 2nd revert: [257]
• 3rd revert: [258]
• 4th revert: [259]

Nov 17:

• 5st revert: [260]
• 6nd revert: [261]
• 7rd revert: [262]
• 8th revert: [263]
• 9nd revert: [264]

A further revert using IP address after this complaint filed:

• 10rd revert: [265]

Note the editor made a small addition [266] to mask the prior edit, a large deletion. The editor makes same comments: early works section is untrue, not relevant, not helpful, not needed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (editor was advised on logged in account talk page to take dispute there and explain self. [268]

Comments:

Request that the article be partial restricted registered editors and small sanction to jesslynhg to get attention of single-purpose account.μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi until Nov 25th) by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RomanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [269]

• 1st revert: [270]
• 2nd revert: [271]
• 3rd revert: [272]
• 4th revert: [273]
• 5th revert: [274]
• 6th revert: [275]
• 7th revert: [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Comments:

Page protected Protected by Nev1. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [286]
• 2nd revert: [287]
• 3rd revert: [288]
• 4th revert: [289]

Comments: Namiba is out of control. I tried to warn him on his talk page, but he reverted twice. He has been in constant edit wars over the past months. If he is not blocked, than he will continue this behavior.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I was not notified of this message by the user. As to the issue at hand, User:Jerzeykydd has a long history of edit-warring and issuing personal attacks against me, for which he was blocked from editing for a month. Moreover, he reverted my own actions on my talk page, a highly improper practice. To the point of the Maine gubernatorial election, what he does not point out is similar regular reversions of another editor and a refusal by he and the other editor to continue in discussion. As as can be seen here, I have repeatedly called for outside help with the article and urged the disruptive editors to engage in discussion. This situation is getting impossible and I have tried to solicit outside help on multiple occassions in multiple forums, yet admins have not stepped up to help end it. I would really appreciate outside, uninvoled help with ending this.--TM 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, Nambia is trying to make me the problem here. Yes, I have been blocked, and I have apologized. That, however, does not excuse Namiba for edit-warring, battling, or disruptive editing. Again, Namiba believes he has done nothing wrong, and if he is not blocked these edit wars will continue until eternity.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Now he doesn't allow me to post anything on his talk page: #1, #2, and #3.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerzeykydd, it is perfectly within their remit for Namiba to remove messages from his/her talk page once they have been read (see WP:BLANKING). Reverting the removal and calling it vandalism is certainly not going to help diffuse the situation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind then.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

With all of this being said, I am fine with a mutual (Jerzeykydd, Toa Nidhiki1 and myself) cool down period from this article of 3-5 days with an outside arbitrator stepping in and ending this petty disagreement for good.--TM 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected It is unlikely that any admin will want to step into the middle of this, but I have protected the page for 3 days to give the dispute a chance to cool down. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is unacceptable. Namiba clearly should be blocked.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I want this case re-opened.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I found this after posting this Admin request today (about a different election article) which was declined. Every state has its own set of election articles as well as the various candidate articles. As Namiba said, the Admins clearly aren't interested in this ongoing issue, and so I too have lost interest. Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I now see he took it upon himself to remove Christine O'Donnell. According to his edit note, "...and for the record she was not a major candidate." You may have heard of her. Or not. I expect Jerzeykydd will have trashed the rest of the election articles in less than a week. I have no idea why the Admins think this is just too, too hilarious for words, but I expect you have your reasons. All I have is a whole lot of now wasted time I'll never get back. Congratulations. Flatterworld (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Blink-182 (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: Wooblz! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Wooblz!:

1. 06:37, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 20:04, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:58, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397176381 by IllaZilla (talk)")
4. 08:37, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397263533 by IllaZilla (talk) yes it is, they also have 3 demos us DUH!")
5. 18:39, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397270220 by IllaZilla (talk) yes it is, and also it looks more organised and better")
6. 06:16, 18 November 2010 (edit summary: "it is relavant because they have 5 studios and 7 other")

• Diff of warning: here

IllaZilla

1. 15:37, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv unnecessary, album does not credit "main vocalist"s")
2. 06:47, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397057916 by Wooblz! (talk)")
3. 21:19, 16 November 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Wooblz! (talk) to last version by IllaZilla")
4. 07:22, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397261084 by Wooblz! (talk) having multiple chronologies is completely unnecessary; the band has only 1 live album & 1 comp album. the integrity of the chain should be maintained")
5. 08:40, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397270007 by Wooblz! (talk) it makes no difference. their discography is not complex enough to require multiple chronology chains.")
6. 20:04, 17 November 2010 (edit summary: "that's an entirely subjective assessment. to me it looks disorganized and dumb. you are well into 3RR territory, so please take it to the talk page or discuss it at Template talk:Infobox album#Chronology")
7. 06:53, 18 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397452875 by Wooblz! (talk) stop edit-warring and take it to the talk page.")

These two are warring across a whole bunch of articles, this is just one. An admin needs to step in before this gets any worse. This gem doesn't bode well for a reasonable conclusion to this either.--Terrillja _talk 07:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm seeing some dodgy use of the rollback button, especially by IllaZilla. [290], [291], [292], [293], [294]. With this abuse of rollback, I hope the privilege given to her/him will be revoked soon. Minimac (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion regarding the underlying issue, at Template talk:Infobox album‎#Chronology. I am happy to completely refrain from editing any of these related articles until that issue is settled. I admit that I did get a bit trigger-happy with the rollback button, but only after I had left multiple requests for Wooblz to take the issue to either the article talk page or the infobox discussion and was met instead with continued edit-warring. At that point I felt it was just being disruptive. Both Wooblz and I have breached 3RR here, I'm pretty certain, so as I said I'm willing to completely step away from editing any Blink-182-related articles (which is the topic area in which we've been having the dispute) for at least several days and concentrate on the discussion at the infobox talk page to resolve the underlying issue. I realize that I have allowed myself to be drawn into an edit-war, which is just irresponsible & not worth it. In retrospect I should've brought the issue here myself after Wooblz's 3rd revert, but I hoped that starting a dialog on the infobox talk page would resolve the issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Stale IllaZilla has admitted and repented; other user hasn't been active for a few days. IllaZilla is heavily admonished and warned of future action for improper use of rollback if it happens again (WP:TROUT). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: VG Chartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.28.197.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [295]

• 1st revert: [296]
• 2nd revert: [297]
• 3rd revert: [298]
• 4th revert: [299]
• 5th revert: [300]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [301]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [302]

Comments:

Page protected Done by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Follow up is at User talk:Ged UK#Re: Your protection tag on VG Chartz. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Facial (sex act) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:24.208.202.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• [303]
• [304]
• [305]

Both IPs are to Indiana with and bot are similar enough to call WP:DUCK. Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive 3#No need for two illustrations did not come to a consensus to remove. I am OK with more talk but not an IP disregarding the talk page process. Obvious sockpuppetry/edit warring. Zero attempt at discussing any aspects of the topic on the talk page. I told the editor that I would seek a block and he made a revert. No excuse for the recent revert without seeing the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request on the article talk page[306] (although this was already gone over) and the users[307]. So if an admin is not going to do anything I am going to revert again.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Declined If edit warring resumes, let us know and we can consider protection. You're right though, the IP is not engaging in process; suggest leaving a message on the user talk if you catch him/her active. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: White Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChineseNygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page History: History

User is edit warring against multiple users, having no consensus and re-introducing original research, as demonstrated in the discussions at the article's talk page, as well as in the talk pages of many users involved. He's been warned, but seems to don't understand or recognize that he/she is incurring into original research, neither the WP:3RR rule nor the idea of WP:Consensus. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I placed a 3RR warning on the users talk page and moments later the editor did a 4th revert within 24 hours. In addition, this editor has also violated 3RR on White Americans. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked her for 24 hours. I've also blocked IANVS for one week as this is his second 3RR in the last few days and his fourth edit warring block. Kuru (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Erikeltic ^(Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2010 Australian football code crowds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koorja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [308]

• 1st revert: [309]
• 2nd revert: [310]
• 3rd revert: [311]
• 4th revert: with sock/meat puppet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See users talk page - [313]

Comments:

User has continued previous edit warring behavior that they were warned over earlier this month. User is pushing an agenda against a "rival" sporting code from one that he favors across multiple pages. Current wording has been reached over years of discussion and is a compromise by both "sides". Editor has made very few constructive edits and their history consists almost entirely of trying to push their point of view of this and a nationality issue. Attempts to discuss issue with user on their talk page have only received brief comments via edit summaries and no discussion on any talk page. When warned of the 3R rule, user created a sock or meat puppet to continue edit warring. Camw (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

* 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please examine it as an edit warrior request rather than 3RR. Users history shows little indication they are prepared to work collaboratively rather than enter edit wars if someone disagrees. Camw (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week for socking to avoid 3RR and sock blocked indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for not being clear enough initially. Camw (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:39, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 03:02, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:45, 20 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397923426 by Bovineboy2008 (talk) i know what i'm talking about.")
4. 14:19, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397941514 by Bill (talk) I KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT. I KNOW SPONGEBOB BETTER THAN YOU.")
5. 14:27, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398057549 by Bovineboy2008 (talk) QUIT IT")

• Diff of warning: here

—BOVINEBOY2008 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: ReputationDefender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.154.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [314]

See page history

• 1st revert: [315]
• 2nd revert: [316] edit summary: Vandalism deletation
• 3rd revert: [317] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism
• 4th revert: [318] edit summary: reverting vandalism
• 5th revert: [319] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism
• 6th revert: [320] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism someone is doing for no reason
• 7th revert after warning: [321] edit summary: Reverting Vandalism someone is doing for no reason

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:80.42.154.103 and the editor's not very helpful response.

Comments:
The account looks like a vandalism/disruption only account.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Would have been better placed at AIV, but a block is a block, whichever noticeboard it's requested at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and
Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [322]

15th November

• 1st revert: [323]

16th November

• 2nd revert: [324]
• 3rd revert: [325]

17th November

• 4th revert: [326]

18th November

• 5th revert: [327]
• 6th revert: [328]
• 7th revert: [329]

Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [330]

11th November

• 1st revert: [331]

12th November

• 2nd revert: [332]

15th November

• 3rd revert: [333]

16th November

• 4th revert: [334]
• 5th revert: [335]

Constant edit-warring behavior
The user reported earlier for edit-warring. The user was lucky not to get blocked that time, as the page was already protected: [336]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are many warnings in the user's talk page : User_talk:Bijuts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [337]

Comments:

The user is displaying a constant edit warring behavior. He never used talk pages for discussions, and even denied the request to use talk page: See the edit summary provided by the user -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 03:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Declined User has not edit warred since proper warning. Please report again if edit warring resumes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The warning was issued on 15:47, 17 November 2010 by User:Chektomate: Warning issued on 17thNov

The 5th[338], 6th [339], and 7th [340] reverts on Main Central Road (please see the details provided earlier) were made on 18th November, after the warning.

Moreover, The user has again reverted the articles now (19th November):

• Page: Economy of South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• 6th revert: [341]
• 7th revert: [342]

• Page: Main Central Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Central_Road&action=historysubmit&diff=397662703&oldid=397503087

Also, If you study the contributions of the user and his talk page, User:Bijuts has a tendency to edit-war. -- Aarem ^(Talk) 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Main Central Road. Bijuts added the same change regarding Kochi nine times in four days. He is also edit-warring regarding Kochi at Economy of South India, most recently on 22 November. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 06:22, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398008035 by The Four Deuces (talk) - rv - BIAS tags removals may not be done until consensus is achieved.")
2. 06:51, 21 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398009454 by The Four Deuces (talk) - rv improper removal of BIAS tag as consensus not yet reached")
3. 03:20, 22 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398173170 by K (talk) - rv - the Talk page is having polite conversation, no bludgeons. Tag stays on until resolved.")
4. 04:50, 22 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398182033 by K (talk) - rv - the BIAS tag stays till Talk discussion has ended, per the tags own language. 3RR is not violated in such a case")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [343]

Comments:

• The user has said that he does not believe that 3RR applies to this situation (which I beleive is incorrect) and that he will continue to revert anyone who removes the tag.[344] He has been blocked for 3RR three times before, the last time in June about this same article.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Page protected The user is incorrect- 3RR does apply to tags such as this, however, a block would be unproductive, and only prolong the issue. Courcelles 05:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I blocked simultaneous to Courcelles' action above, after considerable thought, because I think you are all guilty of obnoxious edit warring. However, the user has edit warred a lot before. It now looks like you can talk about it on his talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I must say I don't think this is a particularly useful block. Valid, yes, but not really helpful to the project, as the dispute will just have to be decided in three days time. Courcelles 06:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This strikes me as a questionable application of 3RR (can anyone cite WP where 3RR is applicable to dispute tags?). If the purpose of a tag is to register a dispute in order to facilitate resolution in talk and mitigate article edit-warring, how can another editor arbitrarily remove a dispute tag placed by someone else without a clear resolution of the dispute via consensus in talk? Surely 3RR can't apply here without some definitive indication of consensus resolution? As I understand the placement, it's only 2 days old. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • 3RR applies to all reverts except those specifically exempted from it. If your revert is not of vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations and other exemptions I may have forgotten (but dispute tags are not one), it is not exempt. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Revert wars over tags are perhaps the most sterile and useless of them all.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • 3RR applies to all reverts except those specifically exempted from it.
          • Boldened statements of purported WP policy without citation from WP policy and guidelines look very much to me like unsourced OPINION dressed up for a dance. It may be highly unlikely that the evolution of that guideline ever equated "Tags" with "Content". The notion that an editor, after only 2 days, must now attain consensus that HE/SHE is still expressing and actively discussing a WP:AGF DISPUTE is a new (at least to me) and jaundiced perspective on content tagging. Something's very wrong here. The block (if justified) was applied to the victim and not the perpetrator. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Unsourced opinion dressed up for a dance? Wouldn't have been that hard to find the relevant policy yourself, you know. It's not like the specific list of exemptions is hard to find. But if you really needed it, Dougweller's provided it with no problem. You might want to consider being a little less accusatory in your comments, though, especially when you make them apparently without even reading the policies you want quoted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a few exemptions, but this is not one of them. Otherwise it would be easy to tag an article tendentiously and keep it tagged by continuing to revert. I don't know why you haven't read the policy yourself (I presume you haven't because of your comments above), but here's the relevant bit from our 3RR policy: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule:

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
• Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are located, such as child pornography and pirated software.
• Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
• Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.

That's our policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked LAEC, with a warning. I think he understands where he erred, and at this point I don't think a further block will be helpful, especially with page protection. I've had a word with all parties involved. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, LAEC has said that he intends to continue reverting up to twice a day,[345] and the protection was removed since it was not necessary due to the block.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Off2riorob/Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [346]

• 1st revert: [347]
• 2nd revert: [348]
• 3rd revert: [349]
• 4th revert: [350]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Experienced editor who knows all about the 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [351]

Comments: This should clarify the situation. This should explain why I have not notified the subject of this thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BOOMERANG. A brief look at the history of the page indicates that you are just as guilty of edit-warring as o2rr is. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I believe that's quite common in an edit war, hence the name. However, I don't believe I violated the three-revert rule, and furthermore, I was not attempting to evade scrutiny during an ArbCom election. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  You have violated 3RR by reverting four times, and regardless of 3RR itself, you were clearly edit-warring. Which begs the question, why have you kamikazed o2rr by bringing this report here where you are likely going to get yourself blocked, rather than followed reasonable steps such as discussed it with the user, sought advice from others, etc.? This looks like an entry for WP:LAMEST if ever I saw one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Regarding the above accusation, I would like this diff to be entered into the record. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Thanks for the helpful comments, Giftiger. Though I don't think I did revert four times. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, I've checked, and I definitely did not revert four times. I made five edits to the page, two of which weren't reverts. Not entirely sure why Giftiger claimed otherwise, but I'm sure they had a good reason to. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  As you're no doubt aware by now, given the number of times you've been blocked for editwarring, four reverts in 24 hours isn't necessary to be blocked for it. Stopping just before 4 reverts and then reporting o2rr to AN3 without warning? That's not only edit-warring, it's also WP:POINTY. Do you honestly expect that an admin is going to decide to block o2rr and not yourself? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Gift -- we've seen this before I believe. Why when Off2 is reported for disruptive editing, do you ignore his behavior and focus only on the behavior of the person saying they were victimized by his behavior?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Usually I'd suggest following wikipedia policy and assuming good faith here, but in this case I'd suggest instead you learn to read rather than misrepresenting my comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• (after multiple ECs) I've blocked TT for provoking O2rr. I will leave this report to another admin, because the reportee is technically my rival. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  HJ you should have stayed away from this completely as a fellow candidate. Among other things, your block of TT has made a block of O more likely for "fairness" reasons.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's blockable obviously but what's the point? Off2riorob's candicacy isn't going to pass (my objective opinion) and if he wants to edit-war on his own candicacy page, that's his call, it'll only hurt his candicacy. If he's blocked, he can't respond to questions, defeating the entire purpose of trying to get Off2riorob to answer the questions in the first place. However I want to make clear that I am not "deciding" this case: I consider myself involved in respect of Off2riorob so I don't want any other admin to feel in any way encumbered by my opinion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is treasurytag permitted to ask two questions? I haven't looked at the diffs properly, but it's my understanding that you're allowed one question per candidate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right he was trying to ask a second question, which would make any action here all the more futile. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Both parties requested my input as a volunteer election coordinator here. If they respect my reading of the situation, neither should have cause to continue this edit war, so I would urge the deciding administrator against any blocks or protections at this point. If either party continues this antagonistic behaviour on the page in question or elsewhere, that's another story. Skomorokh 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Too late.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Skomorokh 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours AS I said on his talk page, as if- and as soon as- he agrees to not do this any longer, the block will be removed. (Sorry, I was doing paperwork for the block while half this commentary came in) Courcelles 20:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Poor block, the ArbCom coordinator even agreed a block doesn't work in this case. Secret ^account 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to go to work. When this inevitably goes to ANI, could someone please copy over the following: I think both users should be unblocked immediately. HJ's block was inappropriate as a candidate in the election. The block of Off2riorob was futile: the question concerned was illegitimate and blocking a candidate when they need to be answering questions is counterproductive. The blocks didn't serve the project's interest despite the blocks being technically justified. Skomorokh's apparently successful intervention made the blocks all the more pointless. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also question the propriety of Courcelles declining the unblock request of TreasuryTag after applying the block to Off2riorob. The blocks were too related for it to be an independant review.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Let's save some time and drama at ANI. I've unblocked Off2rio. Courcelles 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)*

  WP:LAME Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)