Page: Pavao Skalić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.164.7.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version immediately before 89.164.7.154's first revert: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]

• Page protected Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: State recognized tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:45, 29 January 2011

• 1st revert: 21:06, 29 January 2011
• 2nd revert: 21:21, 29 January 2011
• Added content: 23:46, 29 January 2011
• 3rd revert: 04:51, 30 January 2011
• 4th revert: 18:49, 30 January 2011
• 5th revert: 21:21, 31 January 2011
• 6th revert: 11:00, 1 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:33, 31 January 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started after report filed

Comments:

Here's a link to the discussion on this matter: Talk:State_recognized_tribes#Southern_Cherokee_Nation_of_Kentucky At issue is whether alleged proclamations by two governors and a statement by a counselor from Kentucky's Family and Childrens Servies constitute state recognition. Given that state Rep. Reginald Meeks currently has a bill in the state house (in two previous attempts, the bill passed there but never made it out of committee in the senate) to establish a vehicle for official state recognition of Indian tribes.^[1][2] An article in the State-Journal of Frankfort, Kentucky states explicitly that Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes.^[3] In a previous discussion dealing with another such group, the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, the group in question had proclamations from three different governors but was never recognized by the state. The end was that the NCNOLT was removed from the State recognized tribes and placed in the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. I made changes in the article in question in accordance with that example for the sake of both accuracy and consistency. SarekOfVulcan reverted my edits without discussion. I reverted them back, and so on. If I am sanctioned, then so should he be. With regards to the latest reversion, a third party intervened without discussion on the articles Talk page. I have been around issues like this particular one for nearly twenty years, and a group is only considered state-recognized if it either passes a recognition process established by law or is voted recognition by a state's legislature. PR proclamations by a head of state do not count. To say they do is equivalent to saying the President of the United States can recognize Indian tribes, and that power the Constitution gives to Congress. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose a solution: merge the two articles State recognized tribes and List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Their legal status is the same, pretty much nonexistent. However, in the merged article what little difference there is could be dealt with in either of two ways: either have different sections in the article, such as one section for state-recognized groups, one section for groups unrecognized by anyone, and maybe another for groups receiving gubernatorial proclamations. Perhaps the umbrella article could be called Non-federally recognized tribes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Unimpressed, Chuck. Please stop reverting and start communicating on article talk pages. Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9], [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

This user has been blocked twice in the last month for edit warring, and three times total, all on Somalia related articles. Many of the reverts are hidden within larger edits. Search for "Its sailors and merchants" or "number of one-year-olds fully immunized" as an example. The use has implied that he he intends to continue edit warring over the issue: "I can see that discussion is getting nowhere, but that's okay because these things always work out in the long-run one way or another." [16]

• It should be noted that this is not a content dispute, and stems from an obvious conflict of interest or personal bias on Midday's part, rather than actual errors in the article. To briefly highlight the background: a strikingly clear consensus was generated on the talk page that the previous lead was clearly and blatantly biased, with only Middayexpress dissenting. It was rewritten, but Middayexpress has since resorted to accusing other editors of bias and edit warring over their preferred modifications of the lead. Swarm ^X 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Those posts above are very disingenuous. I did not pass three reverts as the account above claims. I only reverted twice: [17], [18]. This post was most certainly not a revert. It was me re-adding some material with new references since one of the users complained on the artcle's talk page that one particular reference was linked to a libertarian author, which he believed therefore automatically made it "POV". He then specifically asked for alternative references that only point to the UN, which is what I provided in that edit and explained in my edit summary: "restore health & media info w/o Leeson ref; fmtting, c/e". Likewise, my comment quoted out-of-context above to the effect that: "As for what's wrong with the intro, that's already clearly described (and visible) above. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. I can see that discussion is getting nowhere, but that's okay because these things always work out in the long-run one way or another", was an allusion to the fact that I was going to seek administrative advice on the matter since discussion was going nowhere. The account above -- who is involved in the present dispute and has himself reverted twice in an actual edit war with another editor over this same issue ([19], [20]) -- was clearly worried about this. Hence, this pre-emptive attempt at reporting me first and under some flimsy, opportunistic pretext rather than discussing the matter on the talk page (he showed up once to produce a link back to this case, and only moments ago finally began discussing the issue -- well after I had already posted the previous sentence [21]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The two reverts vs. three is duly noted. However, I wish to remind all parties that "the [3RR] rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Swarm is quite wrong to claim Midday is the only person to object to the current biased intro, I certainly am against the clear systematic bias that has been imposed on the Somalia article in recent weeks. The talk page highlights several times how Swarm and other editors found the previous intro to positive or to POV, instead of balancing this out, the editors went ahead and made the entire intro a chesspool of negativity that you won't find on any single country article on wikipedia. Middayexpress was sidelined through "strength in numbers" which erroneously is being called a "concensus". I oppose this current character assassination where the editors have continuesly attacked Middayexpress for his Somali background through the accusation that he has a conflict of interest, however a good look at the article's history will show you Midday has never shied away from adding the negative sides of Somalia to the article, as like the positives they are noteworthy; from the civil war, to the anarchy, to the weak state apparatus, to the piracy etc, it was suggested, it was discussed and in most cases it was him specifically who added it, this reality of his contribs should not be misrepresented.--Scoobycentric (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how your above comment has anything to do with the edit warring complaint whatsoever, and you're not exactly innocent of edit warring on the article in question either. Please reread my above comment; you will see that I am not wrong about anything. You did not even partake in the discussion I referred to, and didn't appear on the talk page until the lead was rewritten. To avoid dragging the ongoing "dispute" to AN3, I won't respond to further to your comments on Midday's character, though I will say that you're obviously not a neutral party coming into this discussion. I ask that you amend your above comment to rectify the mistake. Swarm ^X 12:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I fail to see how describing somone's sincere concerns about the article here as "ramblings" contribute to working to a resolution of this issue. Just because one group of people come into agreement about an article does not prevent someone else from coming to it later & challenging that agreement. She/he may even be able to successfully persuade everyone to reverse it. And if Middayexpress (as Scoobycentric opines) believes she/he is being "strongarmed", then it increases the possibility that an established contributor (in a topic which needs more of them, not less) will either respond in an increasingly disruptive way & get banned, or just leave. Either way, Wikipedia will lose unless we treat each other with respect. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using "ramblings." Swarm ^X 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. I only saw three reverts by Middayexpress, and the editors are discussing things on the talk page. Sanctions are possible if people continue to make large reverts before consensus is reached. Opening an WP:RFC could be a way to figure out who stands where, and to assess what is actually in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Damdami Taksal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 109.157.7.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. [22](edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
2. 20:57, 31 January 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
3. 21:08, 31 January 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
4. 22:28, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
5. 22:31, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
6. 09:53, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)

• Diff of warning: here

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for continuing to edit war after warning.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Scrubs (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.16.88.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]
• 5th revert: [28]
• 6th revert: [29]
• 7th revert: [30]
• 8th revert: [31]
• 9th revert: [32]
• 10th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Comments:

User has made same edit multiple times despite reverts from multiple editors. No edit summary, no discussion on Talk page. Doniago (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for continuing edit war after warning. I'm willing to reduce to 24 hours if the IP engages in discussion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Technically not a violation. Please check the discussion on my talkpage and the talkpage of the article provided here. I've warned him at the talkpage too and wanted him to open the dispute resolution process, but that didn't occur. Instead he reverted to his version again without showing any interest of the real matter. Alongside this he now aims to "beat" me with his own editwar warning. --Wangond (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to explain standard policy with regard to verification and reliable sources as can be seen on Wangond's talk page and the discussion thread on the Enthiran talk page. After Wangond's third deletion of an improvement notice at the top of the Enthiran article which pointed to the same ongoing discussion thread, I raised a standard user warning in accordance with the 3RR guidelines so that s/he would be aware of the standard policy (one might expect a user with two weeks editing experience to not be aware of the policy details). Wangond's response has been to raise this 3RR notice when there is no evidence of a fourth reversion and whilst dialogue was continuing on the article talk page before and after this 3RR (diff). I was not informed by Wangond of this 3RR notice being raised. Fæ (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

diff Fæ was informed by me. And I'm pretty sure, that he read it :D --Wangond (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not blocked Yes, Fæ is at three reverts, but he makes legitimate arguments for his position on the talk page and at the very least demonstrates that the revenue figures require further discussion on the talk page. Denying that there is a problem and labeling Fae's good-faith attempts "vandalism" escalates the situation, and will not resolve the dispute. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Crunkcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3family6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

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

147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected. It's quite inappropriate to remove cited text, and more inappropriate to edit war over it, and most inappropriate to report the other user for doing the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:
The editor involved is apparently a SPA pushing a POV. See AN/I report and SPI report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue is now moot. Jfaia has been sock-blocked by FisherQueen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked indef by FisherQueen, per the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]
• 6th revert: [56]
• 7th revert: [57]
• 8th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyusin (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

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

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

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

Page: List of serial killers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tcla75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]
• 6th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [75], then [76] (Sorry, I don't know how to do this with intermediate revisions)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] and [78]

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

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

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

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

Pages:

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

Users being reported:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

As another has said:

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

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

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

East-West Schism (history):

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

Hell in Christian beliefs (history):

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

Theoria (history):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

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

Comments:
IP with long history of edit warring over disputed, unsourced, ungrammatical material. Discussion has not proven remotely useful in the past. The same user appears under the IP 70.82.96.170, currently blocked. CapnPrep (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precisely - but I seem to recall [82] Here Jprw restores the comments of the banned editor, which is meatpuppetry. TFD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) which means TFD is far from averse to making the charge when he wishes to. Nor did I find TFD appropriately following up on such a charge. Sauce - goose. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#The_Four_Deuces may also be of interest to show TFD's use of "fascist" in referring to editors, and the warning issued to him. Lastly, TFD's calling absolutely edit a "revert" was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive117#User:SuaveArt_reported_by_User:The_Four_Deuces_.28Result:No_block_.29 Collect (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I note that admin SlimVirgin is currently conducting a RFC with regard to lede of that article and seems to have noticed the reverting as she has already warned the participants to stop[83] and the participants have since complied. Perhaps with that warning the matter here is moot? --Martin (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. If reverting on the issue of racism and fascism continues, editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and should consider asking for full protection at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I noticed that Hgilbert has abused the use of the rollback button, using it to revert several good faith edits as shown here. I think he has been notified about what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't, and I gave him a message here. I request at least the rollback flag from his account will be dropped. Minimac (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize; I didn't realize that rollback was reserved for vandalism. My error completely. (And it shall not happen again.)

Vis a vis the 3RR rule: it is clear from the diffs above that I did not go beyond the 3 revert limit. Incidentally, several editors, not just myself, have been trying to ensure that User:Masteryorlando's edits stay within the arbitration guidelines for this article that limit sources for potentially contentious material to third-party reviewed material. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't believe that Hgilbert violated 3RR here. I have tried to advise Masteryorlando here and here of some of the ways to work on WP that would make the process less contentious. Masteryorlando has a wealth of knowledge about the subject but not so much about how to work in WP, so perhaps a mentor could work with him/her. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (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. I also endorse the comments made by EPadmirateur and advise Masteryorlando to ask for mentorship and note Hgilbert's agreement not to use rollback except for vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but please consider that although Hgilbert "only" reverted 3 times in 24 hours, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period - 28 times in the previous ten days. Objections to the balance of this article which Hgilbert is th most active editor of have been raised on the article's Talk: page, as to "Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject", similarly on the Waldorf School page see "major balance issue" which Hgilbert is also the most active editor on. But Hgibert has likewise failed to meaningfully respond or has responded with consistently quite inaccurate statements. Although previously denying any financial connection, Hgilbert in fact was found to be an employee of the Anthroposophical Waldorf School movement and an author for its related Anthroposophical publishing company (see arbitration.) EPadmirateur who clearly likewise has Anthroposophical connections appears to be acting in cahoots with Hgilbert to block my edits (a further two edits blocked withou cause today by Epadmiratuer,) and is therefore equally not neutral in this matter. Also Epadmirateur has failed to respond meaningfully on discussion page and made spuruious arguments. EPadmirateur asserts these are "BOLD" edits but the truth is that they are not. The German language wikipedia entry for Rudolf Steiner contains all of this material. The wikipedia entry on Anthroposophy likewise contains this in its Section on the 'History of Anthroposophy'. In this regard I would request review of Hgilbert and EPadmirateur's edits over a longer period on the Rudolf Steiner Article for precisely the "inappropriate and disruptive edit" warring described as requiring review in the arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Editwarring_and_conflict

I do acknowledge my relative newness to editing Expedia but I find the behaviour I have encountered from Hgilbert to be extraordinarily lacking in respect for freedom of speech or unbiased scholarship. I would be happy for an entorely independent mediator to step in. Or perhaps the Arbitration review should be re-opened? ThanksMasteryorlando (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viticulturist99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84] (this is the version as edited by him, that he was attempting to revert "back to")

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sorry if this is excessive detail, I think it's worth mentioning:

previously cautioned about NPOV, on his talk page (there was already a level 1 general notice in place) [89]

he replies to that by accusing me of disruptive editing [90]

advised about the BLP/N discussion and advised to seek concensus, on his talk page (not by me) [91]

he replies to the BLP/N advice by indicating his ownership of the article and it "shall remain" at his version [92]

formal warning about 3RR, on his talk page [93]

provided with additional explanations of what constitutes a revert, on his talk page [94]

he responds to advice by giving me a final warning and accusing me of censorship [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] Also much more at Talk:Richard Boyd Barrett and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett where I've tried to reassure and assist a novice editor (who may well have a COI) who was concerned by the problematic BLP material that was being added and re-added. Comments:
At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett, User:Viticulturist99 makes accusations of lying, bias, etc.

Note: I myself am at, but not beyond, 3RR on the article; this is specifically because I felt it necessary to remove (1) a misleading quote that attributed to the BLP subject controversial words that he did not say, and (2) controversial and contested material that was not supported by a reliable independent secondary source (the source in question was a simple text webpage of one of the political parties involved, http://irishantiwar.org/archives/news/101307.html ). Reverting such serious BLP violations does not fall under 3RR, and I discussed the related issues in detail on the talk page, as well as asking for help at the BLP noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Protected three days. I did not see four reverts by Viticulturist, but some of his changes raise eyebrows regarding WP:BLP. I encourage editors to carefully work out the sourcing issues for any controversial things that may have been said by Mr. Boyd Barrett. Viticulturist should be careful to avoid personal attacks, since this is getting close to the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Warned several times on his talk page (including twice by me that he had already broken the three revert rule). -

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page section Talk:Red Bull#Country of Origin. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
User was blocked for a period of twenty-four hours by Elen of the Roads. Marking as resolved. m.o.p 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: reverts my edit
• 2nd revert: reverts an edit from User:Dark Charles
• 3rd revert: reverts Dark Charles again
• 4th revert: reverts my edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned by 3 editors [98] [99] [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

It seems that in his two previous periods of editing activity, this editor ends up with blocks (and warnings) for these same problems. Presently, the editor has been inserting blatant WP:OR (along with POV and WP:STRUCTURE issues) against the advisement of multiple editors. After I stepped away from the article for a couple of days, I see today that User:Misessus is still very unconstructive in his approach. BigK HeX (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for three days (note: the block log states vandalism as the block reason, but my script malfunctioned).

As the editor has been warned before, I've decided not to mediate and instead issue a block. Full reasoning is here. I'm now marking this case as Resolved. m.o.p 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

• 1st revert: reverts my edit
• 2nd revert: reverts my restore
• 3rd revert: reverts my restore
• 4th revert: reverts my restore
• 5th revert: reverts restore by User:Sailsbystars
• 6th revert: reverts restore by User:Discospinster

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• warnings from me and User:Sailsbystars
• deletes warnings
• User:Sailsbystars warns again
• deletes warning
• warning from User:Tide rolls
• deletes warning
• notices of messages on User:Discospinster's Talk page
• warnings on User:Discospinster's Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:
General edit-warring and gaming 3RR. (Of the last 4 reverts Mindbunny kept the 4th one 4 hours after the 24 hr period expired.) Mindbunny's been warned by myself and other editors on his/her talk page but he/she basically deletes the warnings and ignores - diffs from his/her talk page included above.. No reason has been given why he/she won't discuss properly. In January Mindbunny received a third/final warning from another editor for disruptive editing (POV-pushing) and deleted them from her talk page - see here. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to process this issue (recusing myself because of my involvement in the pro-life dispute and leaving it open for another admin), but as a point of information, the relevant warning is {{Uw-3rr}}. I don't see anywhere in the diffs that the user was given this warning or otherwise at some point in their career made aware of the three-revert rule. --B (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• The guideline says "A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}}". {{uw-3rr}} isn't mandatory. In my first message on his/her talkpage I made it clear that he/she was edit-warring and that action could be taken against her/him. Although {{uw-3rr}} hasn't been used, it's clear that Mindbunny understood that it's prohibited: he/she warned Discospinster that she was exacerbating the "edit-war" and demanded she not restore her revert. I don't think it matters that the exact words of {{uw-3rr}} weren't used. But I'll put one on the Talk page now and see if it has any effect. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Though obviously you are correct that the template is not necessary, it is still necessary that the user understand that there is a policy, and preferably be given a link to it. I believe you are referring to this message. I don't know that a new user is going to infer from that message that there is a policy issue. Do you have a diff of the warning to Discospinster where this user demonstrated knowledge of the policy? --B (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am surprised at your continued intervention on this since we were very recently in conflict in the current pro-life discussion, and you quite rightly recused yourself. Please let another admin deal with this. Thank you. (Btw, I've already given the diff you ask for.) DeCausa (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked This was a tough call, this edit was hotly unimpressive. At first, I misread the history, so I blocked the user; apologies to all for that. However, the user was not properly warned, B is right. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: Feb. 6 7:49 pm
• 2nd revert: Feb. 6 7:58 pm
• 3rd revert: Feb. 6 8:08 pm
• 4th revert: Feb 7, 3:03 pm
• 5th revert: Feb. 8 3:08 pm
• 6th revert: Feb. 8 6:19 pm (note: he claims in edit summary he is just resourcing assertions originally ref'd to PR Newswire, but also adds back para sourced to Isrus.il, despite ongoing discussion at WP:RSN)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments: User moscowrussia keeps re-inserting tendentious material about living people sourced to PRNewswire and Isrus.il despite being warned and discussion opened on article talk page, his user discussion page, the Reliable Source and Editor Assistance Request noticeboards.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 146.232.75.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 11:16, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not extreme, nor is it fringe, if there are compliable sources and DNA evidence to back up. I made it NPOV, you made it POV, read wiki rules, then come back..")
2. 11:33, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "How is it neutralization if all the significant viewpoints are not included? And how many times must I say that my source is compliant with wiki rules. I am not looking for arguments or anything...")
3. 05:45, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not fringe theory if there is DNA evidence,all significant views must be there for NPOV")
4. 11:00, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "what sock puppet, Im just at different places at different times - you people are continuing to ignore wiki rules in terms of including all signiicant views, so that it is NPOV?What is your problem?")
5. 14:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "How can it be fringe if alot of Bulgarians see themselves as non slavic and there is new genetic research? According to wiki rules, for it to be NPOV all significant views must be added")
6. 09:33, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "what are you serious - ofcourse there are two theories if one is backed up by many Bulgarians (who I met and chatted to and dont consider themselves slavic) and by genetic evidencem it is NPOV now")
7. 10:59, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "Wiki rules says all significant views must be mentioned for NPOV, if anyone is vandalising it is you - you made it POV. Not fringe if DNA backs up theory and if many Bulg. dont see themselves as slav")
8. 11:17, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "You people are ganging up on me 0 if you continue I will take this matter to an admin and explain how you are ignoring wiki:neutrality rules and how you are removing sourced info - why do you do it?")

• Diff of warning: here

First four edits listed constitute 3RR, the remaining are evidence of continued edit warring.

— — Toдor Boжinov — 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Note Looking into this. m.o.p 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note 1: let it be known that Jingiby, Laveol and TodorBozhinov are all Bulgarian - I'd recommend that you guys try not to edit-war on topics which you are likely biased in, purely because doing so muddies the waters. I'm still looking into this, though. m.o.p 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, m.o.p 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for looking into this issue. The IP's edits introduce contradictions into the article. The intro says Bulgarians are South Slavic, Ethnogenesis now claims there are "two main viewpoint[s]" (Slavic+Bulgar and Bulgar+Thracian origin), and Genetic origin now says that some genetic study found out Bulgarians are not Slavs but relatives of Iranic/Pamirian peoples.

Now, the predominant view, as has been shown in the article using quality sources, is that Bulgarians belong to the South Slavic group, even though their historical and genetic origin is not purely South Slavic. However, any theories that minimize the South Slavic contribution are alternative and should be either omitted as undue weight or clearly labeled as alternative. I believe it's the IP's responsibility to explain their edits: they never used the article talk page, but rather posted walls of text on my talk which mostly accused me of doing this and that and claiming that I am not Slavic because I, supposedly, don't look Slavic.

As for the source (http://www.novinite.com/): I would not normally consider the source to be unreliable for news and general events. In this case, though, it is not good enough. Ideally, the statement would have to be backed using scholarly research, not a news article.

The IP's posts to my talk have been sort of annoying and harrassing, so I don't really want to be involved in the dispute with them anymore: it has so far detracted me from more productive and more pleasant work on Wikipedia. No matter if the IP gets blocked and no matter if the dispute gets resolved, I'd just like to stay away from it. That does not mean I will not take responsibility for my actions, of course. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this issue, and I am not Bulgarian. I do believe that the IP's edits constitute vandalism, and clearly he violated 3RR (no matter what his reasoning was). The user was warned to discuss the source, and his "theory.", but he/she instead resorted to edit warring and baseless accusations.

In regards to the actual theory, it is clearly fringe as there are few, if any legitimate academic sources that state it is correct. The IP user is attempting to insert "research" done by obscure newspapers as RS-based facts.

The problem with the information is that it completely contradicts the current, academically sourced content of the article, and goes against potentially thousands of research and university sources.

At best, the IP info. could go into an "alternative origin theories" or "Bulgarian origin conspiracy theories" section. Just my 2 cents.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note - Top of the page under "Listing instructions": "Do not continue a dispute on this page." Was there a clear violation of 3RR or not, do you believe? Any block would be to prevent disruption only, so if that is occurring it should be noted. Doc talk 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any risk of further disruption, and I don't issue punitive blocks. m.o.p 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The IP editor inserted a reply, but it isn't well-formatted; moving here. m.o.p 19:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the intro I made said that they are either slavic ethnically or by culture and language - so as to present both views in an equal manner. yes ethnogenesis does claim there are 2 viewpoints, and the genetic section - I made it say that according to the team there conclusion was etc etc, so as not to state it as a fact and to make it neutral - so what is the problem here then?

It is not certain at all if that is the predominant view anymore, since others have been found, backed up by a compliant source and by genetic research, plus I am ware of that many Bulgarians themselves do not consider themselves slavic. Also, in the article it says that: "the DNA of Bulgarians is clearly seperated from the tight cluster of other slavic nations (or something like that) - further adds substance to my argument

Why would a major newspaper company not check its valadidity before posting something that could otherwise be totally bogus, mad eup and typed in someone's room - otherwise they could risk their whole reputation as a quality newspaper and thus loose lots of readers and thus millions of euros.

Never once have I harrased you, but i am just posting replies to your argument and defending myself against your unjust and rude accusations that I am a vandal (very disrespectful, if you dont even properly explain yourself, when I explained myself many, many times) - so what is wrong with that. i am sure that if anyone saw what I wrote and how I wrote it, would agree that i didnt harass. So you are complaining that you find my posts annoying - that is just your opinion - why do you complain about something small and insignificant like that here.

If there is any vandalsim that I did it was only the 3 revert rule thing - that was unintentional, and was not aware when I did it - for that i am sorry and would certainly be much more careful in the future. Otherwise there has not been any other vandalism from me - just trying to make page better and more neutral by following wikipedia's rules of neutrality -what is wrong with that? i did discuss it on other peoples's talk pages, and if you were really interested in the argument you would have clicked on my ip and see where I posted on whose talk page and go follow there - if you had just put in some effort on your part.

My accusations are not baseless - I accused you all of disrespect by calling me a vandal and not properly explaining yourselves and I accused you of not following wiki's neutrality rules - there is "base" in all of that - you have been guilty in all of that - I am sure anyone would agree— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 February 2011

Compromise: As the problem information is currently dependent on one source group, would both parties be OK with moving the information to the bottom of 'Genetic Origin', trimming it down, and only saying that the study suggested it? The exact wording is up to you guys. This way, there isn't any undue weight, but the theory is still recognized. m.o.p 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. My main issue was with the IP editor trying to change the article header/body, and inserting that theory as a leading one. Also, I felt quite uncomfortable when the editor asserted that all Bulgarians he/she knows do not consider themselves Slavic (especially when he was confronted by several real Bulgarian editors). He also made similar edits at the South Slavs article. It is important that the theory is in the appropriate section, and that it is clearly explained where it comes from, and that it is not commonly accepted.

However, it also important to make sure that the IP editor understands that saying things like "all Bulgarians I know don't consider themselves Slavic" is not appropriate, and that only reputable sources can be used to insert information. Also, please discuss before reverting.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll make sure the editor understands proper etiquette and editing procedure. IP editor, is this compromise reasonable? m.o.p 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not be fully content with this theory remaining in the article. If all other involved sides support this, of course, I'll respect that decision. Thanks for your patience and involvement, m.o.p! — Toдor Boжinov — 07:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page: Cnut the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: DinDraithou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warning: [107]

• 1st revert: 23:37, February 7, 2011
• 2nd revert: 00:36, February 8, 2011
• 3rd revert: 00:40, February 8, 2011
• 4th revert: 00:52, February 8, 2011

Ideological edit-warring beyond 3rr and incivility on talk page; TharkunColl entered the fray edit-warring, though not violating 3rr. Would've blocked myself, but 'involved'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly ideological. I am making constructive edits and TharkunColl obviously has no business there. On the talk page it has already been agreed that the map is OR. And Echmarcach mac Ragnaill was not king of Man until 1052. Deacon is reporting me for telling him to not act like he always knows better on the talk page, which another editor has already done in the same section. "Would have blocked"? I'm not known for "edit-warring" (if that's what this really is) much, and Deacon has repeatedly reported me here for this and that in the past, each ending not in the result (a block) he wanted. The only time I have ever been blocked was by him. DinDraithou (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What's also ridiculous is that if you check, only one or two of those "reverts" listed really qualifies as one. I had to go and check on the earliest Echmarcach is found in Man and so my edits changed. The first (second) listed above was really about making sure that secondary source didn't get the credit for discovering he became king of Dublin in 1036, as if it was the product of research and some reader of Wikipedia should buy the book to learn about it when the Irish annals, our primary sources, can be read for free. So there's not even a 3RR violation here. DinDraithou (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For more background, here is the complete list of reverts by DinDraithou generated by 3rr.php. This dispute wins by a mile as the most esoteric one currently on the board. See also Talk:Cnut the Great#Old/Middle Irish:

1. 23:27, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Not the best secondary source, which reports uncritically the account in the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib and its tradition.")
2. 06:03, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "a solution")
3. 23:37, 7 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ so what")
4. 00:36, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Unreliable secondary sources, and we don't need Lawson to tell us Echmarcach was king of Dublin. Also, image violates WP:OR, for which see talk page.")
5. 00:40, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412635334 by TharkunColl (talk) not king of Man until 1052")
6. 00:52, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Again, the map is OR and Echmarcach was not king of Man until 1052. See Kings of Mann and the Isles.")

—EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Only one or two of those are proper reverts, Ed, and I mean according to the broader definition. I direct you to Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Overlordship_outside_his_kingdoms and Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Old/Middle_Irish. TharkunColl doesn't know what he's doing and Deacon has taken advantage of that to try to get me blocked. DinDraithou (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours. I explained to DinDraithou (on his talk page, now removed) that he was at 4RR and gave him the chance to make his excuses here. He did not accept the offer. The definition of a revert is given in WP:EW: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor". In deciding on a block, I was influenced by some previous threads: here at AN3, on 25 October, where he was warned for edit warring, and three ANI threads since September showing other disputes, in one of which he was warned for personal attacks by FisherQueen: [108], [109] and [110]. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Mark Bingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: STL1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:

The edit war started on Ex-gay. When I realized I was involved in an edit war, I backed off and warned the editor. The editor then followed me to the article in question, Mark Bingham, where they proceeded to revert my edits, violating 3RR. I realize this is a new user, and it's really annoying that they followed me to another article, however if sanctions are in order I am not opposed to leniency. Lionel (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I first added a article link to Mark Bingham so it was Lionelt who followed my to that article and then started removing easily source-able information, each one took me less than a minute or two to find and then type in. On Ex-gay he threatened to block me for re-adding the youtube homepage of one of the people listed, The section list is of those who got "repairing therapy" to cure of gayness but no longer ascribe to those ideas and are now openly gay. The subject's website lists numerous media appearances and I wrote "Readded per WP:ELNO - "Except for a link to an official page of the subject"". As for Mark Bingham I added sources. Is this just a way to intimidate or what? STL1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Nobody has reverted more than three times. The claim of a BLP violation doesn't hold water. A Youtube clip showing an interview of the article subject, that appears to be presented on his official channel, is OK so long as it is not used as a source for anything but his own views. The question of linking is discussed in the WP:YOUTUBE essay. Inclusion of the link would be up to the consensus of editors to determine its value to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hold On Maybe I'm misinterpreting the rule, but his 4 edits are direct reversions of my 4 edits listed here: [118], [119], [120], [121]. He didn't click "undo", he restored text that I had removed, as shown by the diffs. Is it still a revert if they cut&paste instead of pressing "undo"? Lionel (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The four edits that STL1989 made to this article are consecutive, so they count as at most one revert. Neither of you has posted anything on the talk page. If you feel this is an important issue, I recommend you try to discuss it on Talk. Bingham's relationship with Paul Holm is documented by reliable sources. See this Google Books search for evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:22, 8 February 2011

• 1st revert: 10:24, 7 February 2011
• 2nd revert: 02:57, 8 February 2011
• 3rd revert: 03:28, 8 February 2011
• 4th revert: 04:22, 8 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:04, 8 February 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 05:53, 8 February 2011

Comments:

• A discussion about the problem is started on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Writing the school which football players studied in infobox? before the 2nd revert by User:Hoising. However, I haven't write it on the talk page. So I know I may be blocked for participating in the edit warring. --FootballHK (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Red River Rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jexes23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

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

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

Comments:

SteamIron 06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Post here. I'm not blocking anyone yet, but no more edit warring. m.o.p 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Haole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:66.91.217.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 1st revert: [129]
• 2nd revert: [130]
• 3rd revert: [131]
• 4th revert: [132]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:

Already an extensive discussion on the talk page, due to dealing with the same issue from other people. User has not responded to requests to engage there and keeps making the same revert to the page. KarlM (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (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. File another request if the issue exacerbates. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since he wants to play the "gotcha game:"

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• 5th revert: [139] - admittedly, five minutes more than 24 hours after first revert.

Perhaps user should continue own behavior rather than trying to bait others.

_WM^O 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Stale SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ishmael Khaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. [140]
2. 21:11, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")
3. 21:32, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")
4. 21:37, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours--B (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ishmael Khaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 20:42, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Removing vandalism")
2. 21:24, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412786230 by Zkharya (talk) VANDALISM!")
3. 21:33, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412790127 by Zkharya (talk)")
4. 21:39, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "NPOV, etc. See talk. WIkipedia is not for defaming living persons.")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• This user is claiming that his reversions were for BLP reasons. I'm inclined to agree. The section in dispute is almost completely unsourced. Of the citations that are there, only two would be considered "reliable". It contains a long polemic at the end. Removal of that section seems pretty unquestionably to fall within the BLP exception. --B (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2ko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142] February 2
• 2nd revert: [143] February 4
• 3rd revert: [144] February 6
• 4th revert: [145] February 6
• 5th revert: [146] February 8

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

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

Comments:

Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction. 2ko has appeared every 2 days to make the same revert (with 2 reverts on February 6). I believe this is edit-warring, even if it is slow-paced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration case requires formal warning by an uninvolved admin prior to sanctions, so I've given that warning. Future edit warring in the same manner will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: GeForce 400 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 124.13.114.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 17:38, 7 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412459074 by Unflavoured (talk)")
2. 12:07, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412660204 by Unflavoured (talk)")
3. 22:01, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412746642 by Schapel (talk)")
4. 01:53, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412831778 by Schapel (talk)")

This anonymous user is not only unwilling to discuss the issue; the user is even reverting the discussion of the issue on the article's talk page. I asked the user to stop blanking sections.

—Schapel (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Additional relevant link:Nvidia PureVideo. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Reporting on general edit-warring here. Although Mamalujo has "only" reverted 3 times in 31 minutes today, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period (e.g. [148][149][150][151]). Objections to it have been raised on the article's Talk: page, but he has responded with quite inaccurate statements. He's been warned about edit-warring/3RR many times (e.g. [152][153][154][155][156]). Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[157] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Mamalujo, does this sound reasonable? m.o.p 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly agreeable with moving the section. But what do we mean by using only truly reliable sources? What would be deleted? With regard to Rychlak, the material sourced here may be in his 2010 book, which is not self-published. And as far as undue weight, I think this material deserves substantial weight. It is a credible assertion of great import to the subject. I think editing for neutrality is fine. I think that would best be done by published criticism of Pacepa's revelation. I know Peter Gumpel. S.J., the relator for Pius XII cause expressed some doubt about Pacepa's motivation and credibility (Of course the criticism I saw was in 2007 - since then more has surfaced about the communist connections of others involved in the play). I think we should keep in perspective though that Hochhuth has lost a defamation case, when he libeled a living person in another "historical" play, that he defended his friend and collaborator, Holocaust denier, David Irving's assertion that more people died at Chapaquidick than in the Holocaust, and that his friend Irving, in defending him, admitted that Hochhuth was naive and may have been fed information. In light of Hochhuth's lack of credibility, this info has more weight. The circumstantial evidence, communist affiliation of so many involved in the play as well as the fact of the anti-Vatican disinformation campaign, are what give Pacepa's claims greater weight. As do historians, Feldkamp and Burleigh. I think it could be trimmed some. But I think it should be accorded substantial weight. I'd definitely object to it being bowdlerized. Mamalujo (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't use Rychlak as a primary source if we don't even know where he's being quoted from - I don't think that would fly with other editors. How about this; Jayjg, do you mind writing out a version you'd be OK with here? Use whatever sources you feel are appropriate. Then we'll see what Mamalujo thinks. m.o.p 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll create a new version of the material. I'm also going to copy this to the article talk page, this discussion doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164], [165]

Comments: I have been trying to add sourced content to this article, WM1 reverted me 5 times inside a 14-hour window. Admittedly, 2 of the edits I made in this time period could be considered partial reverts.

This is a textbook definition of 3rr baiting. Please note that one of the reverts I self reverted. [166] Also, I have asked User:Haymaker to discuss changes to this page before making them which he has refused to do. I did inadvertently violate 3rr, I had previously misunderstood the rule to mean three reversions of the same content within a 24 hour period, after neutralhomer posted the warning, and reading again I realized that my memory had failed me and that it was actually three reversions combined. That was a mistake on my part which will not be repeated. Also, please note that I have never been blocked previously while the user asking for this block has previously been blocked three times, and has disrupted wikipedia for WP:POINT before at Christianity and abortion. I have repeatedly asked Haymaker to discuss changes before adding controversial and non-reliably sourced material to the article which he has failed to do. He is disrupting wikipedia with his ideological/activist editing. _WM^O 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you forgot what 3rr was you should have read the warning template I was courteous enough to leave on your talk page rather than just deleting it and continuing to make reversions. In 1 of your reversions you made some offhand comment about discussing things, this does not translate to "have repeatedly asked Haymaker to discuss changes before adding controversial and non-reliably sourced material to the article which he has failed to do." You reverted sourced content without any discussion 5 times in half a day. - Haymaker (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps I didn't explicitly ask you to discuss repeatedly on this one but I did ask, but you know how I work. We've had incidents like this before and you should know that I am willing to discuss. You continued to add non-reliably sourced, pov content to the article and yes I did revert it, one time more than is technically allowed. You've made the same mistake before and others have been kind enough not to report it... no reason why you shouldn't extend same courtesy. _WM^O 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You made 5 reverts in half a day. CBS, ABC and the NYT are decidedly reliable sources. - Haymaker (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And self reverted one of them before you filed this report. LiveAction.com [167] is not a reliable source. _WM^O 21:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would rather see these two talk it out on the talkpage than someone be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that but after the 5th in half a day I felt it shouldn't go unreported. If administrative action is taken I will act the gentleman and not edit the article for the duration. - Haymaker (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(several ec's) Just to clarify, WikiManOne, it's not "three reversions combined", whatever that means. There must be more than three reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR, so four reverts is the minimum in cases where it's not "gaming the system" or a "slow edit war". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, I have never really used this rule much except in obvious cases of edit wars with the same user adding the same material over and over again while multiple editors remove it. I admit I wasn't as familiar with this rule as I should have been, I was under the impression that established editors generally assumed good faith and would discuss it out, but that appears to not be the case. Like I said, I have now read the policy and I did violate it by one edit by removing non-reliably sourced pov edits that were apparently 3rr baiting from an article. My bad. Either way, its ridiculous for this particular editor to report me for this as if you look at his edit history, there are multiple violations of such a strict interpretation of 3rr in their recent edit history. _WM^O 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would understand that using POV terminology is bound to get some of the other POV a tad upset - I think the "baiting" was, alas, on your part here. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• - note - user wikiManOne appears to have returned to reverting on this article, I have left him a note about this recent revert... now two new reverts - one , two - in what looks to me like a continuation of the same edit war.Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that this report also applies to IPs 187.15.30.150, 187.15.25.9, 187.14.248.31, and 187.15.106.114

This IP editor has been repeatedly adding content to articles without reliable sources. The articles in question are Taylor Rotunda, Barri Griffiths, and Lucky Cannon. I am not sure if any 3RR violations have taken place, but his edit warring is certainly disruptive and excessive. He insists on using sources that definitely do not meet WP:RS requirements, claiming that it's okay because no major writers cover the topic, so it's okay just to use any sources available (see [168]). He has also stated that the websites he wants to use are just fine because WP:RS isn't always important (see [169]). When an administrator contacted him about his edit warring ([170]), he responded by apologizing and saying that he will try to stop with the edit warring ([171]). However, after this message (which I would consider a final warning, especially after he has many warnings within the last few weeks for this very thing), he almost immediately went back to adding the unreliable sources ([172]). He has been unwilling to listen to reason and has resorted to personal attacks in his comments and edit summaries, and a block seems like it would be the only way to slow down his disruptive behavior. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Ceann Comhairle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 10:36, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 406540620 by Snappy; correct. (TW)")
2. 08:11, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412320842 by Snappy; rv - its correct - Louth will return 5 TDs but 4 in the general election - and don't give ultimatums. (TW)")
3. 17:57, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412878763 by Snappy; rv vandal. (TW)")
4. 18:00, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412946635 by Snappy; rv anon vandal. (TW)")
5. 18:03, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overview */ clarify - read the Electoral Acts")

—79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This IP was removing factually accurate and cited material from the article. I was reverting this. Why do I get reported? Can vandals report long standing contributors now? How interesting! Snappy (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was removing factually inaccurate and uncited material. You get reported because you were edit warring. I am not a vandal. Anyone can report anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And don't use "IP" as if it were somehow a slur. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's it guys. This noticeboard is not for arguing further with each other. Firstly, curb the urge to use tendentious words - Snappy, you included. If you wish to allude to IPs or editors as vandals, report them to the relevant noticeboard like AIV rather than making accusatory remarks. It doesn't take anybody anywhere. Start discussing issues with each other civilly starting from this moment on. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page: Ehud Barak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Page: 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• User being reported: NPz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NPz1 was recently blocked for a week after edit warring. Shortly after the editor came back and picked up the edit warring where it left off. Editors in the topic area are restricted to 1/rr per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

Article 1

• [173]
• [174]

Article 2

• [175]
• [176]

Clear cut and no excuses. The editor refuses to use the talk page and blanks his talk page whenever someone expresses concern on their talk page.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up 5hrs later:

• [177] Yet another revert at Ehud Barak (note that he also called another editor an "apartheidlover")

1/rr breach at Israeli Apartheid Week

• [178]
• [179]

Along with edit warring of unsourced content on a BLP even though discussion was initiated on the talk page (which has been ignored) over a week ago:

• [180]
• [181]

So although I appreciate an admin reformatting this report,[182] it would have been more helpful if you would have blocked the editor who is apparently here only to start trouble. I suppose I could have been less lazy myself and formatted it correctly the first time, of course.

• The editor also does not appear to care about using the talk page even though he has been asked to multiple times. The most recent time was ignored (acknowledged by his blanking).[183]

Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks --B (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: 2011 Egyptian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ocaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ocassi continues to add a link in the external links section to Al Jazeera's YouTube channel instead of a specific video. The point of this is due to the live coverage of the breaking news. Wikipedia is not here to disseminate breaking news and the link will not be useful to the reader as soon as Al Jazeera uploads another video to their main channel.

Ocassi has made it clear that he plans on edit warring over this and "willing to make an exception [to 3/rr] for an event as momentous as this."[184] He has not broken 3/rr but it does not need to be a violation of 3/rr to be edit warring. He has clearly signaled intent to edit war and kept it going this far.

Reverts:

1. 20:42, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Putting back EL, (3rd time). It's not indiscriminate; it is unique; it's extremely relevant now and can be removed afterwards; if that's not good enough, IAR on this one")

1. 20:30, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undoing removal of EL. Apologize for breaking BRD, but I left notes at user talk page and article talk page. This is a very useful live link, so I think it's a fitting EL at the least as an exception.")

Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I will happily remove the link to the channel when the live reporting from Tahrir square ends. Until then, the link is useful, unique, relevant, and no more newsy than the rest of the article. Happy to discuss this further, but this seems like a waste of time right now. Ocaasi (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"I will happily remove the link to the channel when the live reporting from Tahrir square ends." shows the intent of the editor. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Anyways, that has nothing to do with starting an edit war. Should I revert because I strongly feel that our standards need to be followed? His reverting is based on his personal inclinations so if he can do it then I should too.Cptnono (talk)

I intend to improve the article while I can and while the link is relevant. I have not reverted more than 3 times. I have engaged in continual attempts at discussion. I think you're picking a situation to maintain general Wikipedia standards in which it would be better to treat the article as a unique resource covering the event. You can call this IAR if you want, but the link is not a far cry from the other recent coverage and links to live blogs. Many people have been working round the clock to keep that article up to date, and there's little need to remind us that the article will need maintenance in the near future--we've been doing it constantly! Anyway, if this is about 3RR explicitly, then there hasn't been a violation yet, and the 3 reverts have taken place while the link was more important to have up than down, since it wasn't harming anyone as long as the channel was (and still is) broadcasting live from Tahrir square. Note, Wikipedia is not broadcasting live; but we can still link to someone that is. Let this one go. It's not even an exception; it's just an improvement to the article (at least for now). Ocaasi (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Ocassi could use a block to foster a quicker understanding of what he did wrong but then again, blocks are meant to be preventative. So since the speech ended 25 min ago and it turned out to be all for nothing (the president did not step down) then it no longer serves any purpose (even though the purpose was against our standards) at all. So time to remove it and an admin can close this unless Ocassi continues to revert.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the EL text to better reflect that it goes to the YouTube channel. This phenomenally important event is still being reported on live from Tahrir square (e.g. Vice-President Suleiman is speaking). The entire article has been constantly updated and will be continued to be updated. I suggest Cptnono choose a different article to deliver a 3RR instruction and instead see this link and this event in its historical context, as well as the editing context at the article. I think that's all I'll say on this for now. There's kind of important stuff happening. Ocaasi (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your previous comment did not address my accusation of edit warring so I will respond the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The link is still in. Furthermore, the editor has crossed 3/rr when counting al reverts on the page. I personally do not think a couple of the reverts were problematic, though.Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1. 20:30, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undoing removal of EL. Apologize for breaking BRD, but I left notes at user talk page and article talk page. This is a very useful live link, so I think it's a fitting EL at the least as an exception.")
2. 20:35, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 413169020 by 128.40.161.234 (talk) 3RR on 'revolutions'") (not obvious vandalism. Even Al Jazeera calls it a "revolution" now)
3. 20:42, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Putting back EL, (3rd time). It's not indiscriminate; it is unique; it's extremely relevant now and can be removed afterwards; if that's not good enough, IAR on this one")
4. 21:14, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by 24.83.216.89 (talk); Just British English spellings, not typos. (TW)") (engvar can be very contentious)
5. 22:12, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "Prior edit removed the wrong link (It's an interview with Wael Ghonim). This undoes that revert. If there's continued consensus to remove the intended link, I won't put it back again.") (not a bad revert since I did remove the wrong link)
6. 23:22, 10 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ replaced section tag with in-line tag on specific disputed EL") (modified my edit. May not be considered a revert but replacement of my intended clean up template ith an unrelated one is not good.)

Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Edit summary pretty much covers it.
2. See talk page, talk page edit notice, talk page archives. "Revolution" needed consensus and didn't have it. Additions were a constant stream of borderline-vandalism from i.p.s without participation in the discussion.
3. Edit summary covers it.
4. EngVar is a red-herring here. It was a mistake by an i.p. who hadn't seen 'organization' and 'labour' before. Please don't insinuate general problems where they weren't.
5. Put back accidentally removed information, as described. Did not alter disputed link.
6. Cptnono put a general {external links cleanup tag} on the section, which resulted in the entire 'Live coverage' section being removed. That misunderstanding led me to replace the general tag with the specific tag, which is tagging policy unless broader issues with the section had been raised (up to that point they I think they had not been).

This is still a waste of time, but I don't think proposing more violations than are even tangentially relevant should go without a response. Cptnono, though I in now way own that article, consider that after working on it intensely with 4 or 5 other editors for the last 2 weeks that I had a good feel for what was and was not a problem. Also, consider that policy is a guide but in particular situations may not produce optimal results. I don't consider any improvements to that section to be problematic, not while the feed was live, and not while we were discussing it (still are). Ocaasi (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• strong oppose' any 3rr violations. its an ongong article at the debate has been takn t o numerous talk pages to come to dispute resolutions. theis complaining to admins is reall y not necessary at all. despite the 2 editors, others are giving their view and we are resolving this already,(Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).

• I really don't think this is something that needs reporting. Discussion is ongoing and, as we have done for the past two weeks, we are working things out. Neither user has acted in a vindictive manner, but in a way that they believe will improve Wikipedia. In light of that, I think this report should be closed. Whether or not that is done, I ask that the two of you stop arguing above. Just let it wait until an admin comes and looks at this. Silverseren^C 04:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Ocaasi warned. If he restores the link one more time he may be blocked. At present I don't see four substantive reverts, so I don't think a block is warranted yet. If consensus favors keeping the link, another editor is sure to restore it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Tanglewood National Golf Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jflaiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:
Jflaiz also removed the discussion from the talk page here. Also completely ignores my repeating attempts to communicate on his [User talk:Jflaiz|talk page]. --Muhandes (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

General discussion (not specific, as here) about user's conduct moved to ANI.

Page: She (Green Day song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: PM800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [192] She (Green Day song) 1st revert: [193] 2nd revert: [194] 3rd revert: [195] 4th revert: [196] 5th revert: [197] 6th revert: [198] 7th revert: [199] 8th revert: [200] 9th revert: [201] 10th revert: [202] 11th revert: [203] 12th revert: [204] 13th revert: [205] 14th revert: [206] 15th revert: [207] Shenanigans (album) 1st revert: [208] 2nd revert: [209] I'm only including these because they are of a similar nature to what happened at 'She' - genre change with absolutely no discussion. User does not respond to comments left on talk page. Flat out ignores them. One of several attempts to instigate discussion - the users editing the article have also requested by using those arrow tag things to start a discussion - even using capital letters to attract PM800's attention - but this user flat out ignores them. I can't believe it. Comments: I'm astounded at how long this has been allowed to go on for. PM800 has continually reverted a number of good faith edits to She (Green Day song) (with edit summaries ranging from the incorrect - "rvv" - to just plain insulting - "Nice try, asshole"). This user has been requested approximately ten times to discuss this on the article's talk page. The user flat out refuses and ignores any attempts to start a discussion. This user is notorious for just ignoring requests to start a discussion on issues like this one, and apart from being just plain rude, is incredibly insulting. Note to assessing administrator: This user is on his 'last warning' for slow-burning vandalism here, and has been continually edit warring here and here, again refusing to participate in ANY discussion whatsoever, despite repeated requests. I wasn't involved in this edit war - I just noticed it and have reported it here. I also think this user's incivility (edit summaries like "Wrong." and "Nice try, asshole" are offensive to the very fabric of this encyclopedia) needs to be investigated in addition to this. Don't bother contacting this user on his talk page - he'll just ignore you, as he has several times in the past when I've pulled him up. Arctic Night 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC) This was blockable... eight months ago. The article hasn't even been edited in five days; not to endorse PM800's conduct here, but five days later would be a punitive block, not a preventative one. Courcelles 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC) The user just won't stop doing it though. He won't engage in discussion - ever - and I can't see how this behaviour is going to change unless something is done. Arctic Night 01:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Inserted a factual inaccuracy into an article here, personally attacks another user (who was acting in more than just good faith!) here, reverted a perfectly valid edit here, the whole Tyler Clementi thing here (STILL no discussion, despite the user being taken to ANI...), reverted a perfectly valid edit here, reverted yet another perfectly valid edit here, personally attacks another user by calling him a moron here, blatantly vandalised an IP user's talk page here with a highly inappropriate comment - I've got more... it has to stop, but until the user actually responds to a message, I don't think it will. I feel incredibly helpless here - while normally such issues could be solved with discussion, this user ignores requests to start a discussion. When I get to ANI or AN3, no action is taken... Arctic Night 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Good Lord ... this is a bit much for AN3. There are already two admins on ANI who say that if he doesn't respond there they will block him. I don't know that it's necessary to raise the issue here too. --B (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I agree, this feels a bit like forum shopping. Thanks to the ANI thread, we're all aware now of the problems, and the user in question hasn't reverted again since his final warning. I think the ball is in his court, and we need to see how he responds. A block will be swift and serious should this start up again. --Jayron32 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC) This is a different article - the ANI thread was on Template:Bullying, and this was about She (Green Day song). However, I've consolidated it all into one ANI thread now. Arctic Night 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

• 1st revert: [211] edit summary "Undid revision 412825875"
• 2nd revert: [212] edit summary "Undid revision 413056923"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Comments:
Like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Gilad Atzmon is subject to a 1RR restriction. This is indicated by a banner on the top of the article's Talk page and by the edit notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Courcelles 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: African diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]

• 1st revert: [216] 17:00 February 9
• 2nd revert: [217] 22:17 February 9
• 3rd revert: [218] 6:45 February 10
• 4th revert: [219] 21:13 February 10
• 5th revert: [220] 21:52 February 10

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222]

Comments:
None. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Third time we've been at this rodeo, second this year. Courcelles 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [223]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228],[229],[230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Comments:

Editor started edit warring as soon as he was unblocked; he was blocked for edit warring on this very same article. Lionel (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An admin commented on the warning here [232], as he said: " That being said, I looked through your newer contributions to the article and I didn't see any clear evidence of edit warring. It also looked like an article that's no fun to edit."

Look carefully at those differences, nothing is being reverted to the previous version, all of those are editing based on the new edits. Absolutely no reversions with the exception of the last one (which is only one revert and the user was adding information there seemed to be consensus to delete, I note Lionelt was complaining about this user's edits and asking for a rollback so her reporting me for reverting one of this user's edits is very disingenuous.) _WM^O 08:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not straight up reverts. I would, though, recommend WikiManOne take a break from that page so he doesn't get into any trouble in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's been doing this all day: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time." Should I add more diffs? I concede WMOs point about Sizzletimethree, but I don't think that's a defense. Lionel (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

These aren't clear reverts and the editor did not war when any of his changes were undone. I also note that the editor has also decided to stop editing the page and take it off his watch list.[233] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubigula (talk • contribs)

The decision to disengage was short-lived and the user has subsequently edited both the article and talk page. I do, however, agree that there was no intention to edit war here - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish for breaking an arbitrary rule, even if this is a technical violation. --B (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (Struck part of my comments - Haymaker's diffs show that I was incorrect --B (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

The user is trying to game the system, and not being particularly subtle about it.

• this at 17:03 was a reversion of this edit by NYyankees51 an hour before
• this at 17:12 was a reversion of this edit by NYY51 3 minutes before
• this at 18:13 was a partial reversion of this edit by 96.227.230.57 the day before
• this at 18:24 was a reversion of this edit by NYY51 10 minutes before
• this at 18:25 was a reversion of this edit by NYY51 7 minutes before
• this at 19:08 was just punching the undue button
• this edit at 20:11 was a reversion of this edit by NYY51 half and hour before
• this edit at 20:32 is the reversion of several contributes back to the text that existed before this initial edit by NYY51 2 hours before
• this at 20:50 is the reversion of this edit by Lionelt 10 minutes before

WM1 let some time go by in between but these are 9 reverts inside 4 hours, which started 3 hours after having a block lifted for edit warring on the same page. - Haymaker (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Upon review of these diffs, I stand corrected. My reading of the situation was incorrect. --B (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but at 16:35 Off2riorob brought this behavior to WMOs attention. At 19:23 I brought this to his attention without making it an official warning, but at 19:36 I felt it necessary to place an official warning on his talk page. (Diffs listed in report above.) Lionel (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The above diffs show a technical violation of WP:3RR, but no activity at Lila Rose by this editor in the last 18 hours. If he resumes with the extensive reverting he may be sanctioned. His declared retirement from the article is hard to be sure of, since he has already made one post-retirement edit. This statement on his talk page is incorrect per our WP:Edit warring policy: "removal of undue information is not a revert unless I am removing it following someone adding it." EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These two editors are repeatedly reverting each other on the Red State (2011 film) page, which is supposedly protected. Following the creation of this report, I will notify each of them. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What we've got here is failure to communicate. I have added things that are sourced that are quickly removed (studio & distributor). The opening text says "Red State is a 2011 horror movie on digital video", now this is just plain silly, its not like movie articles start with saying how they where shot (The Dark Knight is a 2008 superhero film shot on digtal video and IMAX). I changed it to "Red State is a 2011 American independent horror film written and directed by Kevin Smith with characters inspired by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church and their Pastor Fred Phelps". The biggest conflict is whether Kevin Smith's decision to self distribute the movie in question was a pre-convinced notion or not. Others believe that the screening at Sundance did not go well and he all of a sudden decided to do a 15 date tour. A number of sources including the director state that the decision to self distribute was decided 4 days into filming.

• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/kevin_smiths_red_state_auction_is_a_hoax_filmmaker_will_self-distribute_hor/
• http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/620772/kevin-smith-addresses-bloggers-reaction-to-sundance.jhtml#id=1657474
• http://www.fastcompany.com/1720275/kevin-smith-red-state-auction

I'd also ask you look at these versions of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_State_(2011_film)&oldid=413217251 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_State_(2011_film)&oldid=413228889 Bencey (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never a good thing when you include a quote from the fascist antagonist from "Cool Hands Luke" as 'part' of WHY you are 'right' in your argument.lol But, seriously tho, the user has a past of being disruptive and likes to revert the contributions of others...ALOT. Rather than work out differences with others on the talk page he'll revert FIRST and then sometimes explains his behavior later. I'm all for a compromise but it would be nice if he'd 'ask' before simply deleting contributions from others. All these other concerns (i.e. the hoax, etc) belong on the talk page, not here as far as I'm concerned. We are actually waiting to work things out with him there if he'd like.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm all for a good article, so if this is decided against me in some form or another then it's all good. I know it's nothing personal. Thx for your time. Peace out.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected three days. If you are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iqinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [234]
• 2nd revert: [235]
• 3rd revert: [236]
• 4th revert: [237]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238] [239] [240] [241]

Comments: The statement, "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons." is not backed by the source this editor keeps restoring, that was an allegation by wikileaks. It does however back the statement that "At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle." which is almost a direct quote from the source. The other revision is POV from a German editorial. Regardless, Any attempt to communicate this with the editor has been dismissed out of hand. V7-sport (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The first and the second revert concerns different issues that have been reverted 2 times afterwards to that there are not more that 3 reverts concerning the same issues what does not break the rule. User V7-sport who claims the violation has equal or more reverts than i do.

I suggested him to discuss the deletion of well sourced information - a gross violation of WP:NPOV on the articles talk page. User:V7-sport continues his edit war instead

It was than me who started discussion on the articles talk page about the content issue while he kept making POV edits by deleting valid information. IQinn (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Source still does not say what you claim it says, the information I have posted is almost verbatim from the source. V7-sport (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I started a post on the articles talk page for that. There are multiple content issues here including one where you remove "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents" a view that is clearly valid and clearly needs to be included. But this is not the place here to discuss content issues. I have started an post on the articles talk page for that. IQinn (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Note User:V7-sport has just removed from his talk page informations and links to edit warring and 3RR issues. They can be now found here and here. IQinn (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything, I keep an archive, even though it doesn't have anything to do with this nothing was removed. V7-sport (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You just remove posts including one that concerns 3RR from your talk page. Sure call it archived but let me point out that you also removed the links to the archives from your talk page. No big deal anyway i have now linked to them as they might be from interest for the closing admin. IQinn (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not of interest, users can remove material from their talk pages anytime they like. Dayewalker (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Past instances of 3RR issues of this user are not from interest? IQinn (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport does not appear to have ever been blocked before, much less for 3RR issues. As per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to handle their talk pages however they'd like. Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing, User IQinn Is deleting my rebuttals on this forum now. [242]V7-sport (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking that you place your reply after the other user's message and not break it up seems like a reasonable request. Am I missing something? --B (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of wiki etiquette is that it's acceptable to occasionally interject, I did so because I wanted to show that I answered what he wrote in a respectful fashion. What isn't reasonable is just deleting someones reply. V7-sport (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there, but it is bad form to interject your comments in the middle of someone else's. It makes it extremely difficult for other editors and admins to follow what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Not a 3RR violation - two of the diffs are back to back, so there are exactly three reverts. Talk it out on the talk page. --B (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE User talk:V7-sport just reverted these changes again. Could an administrator please tell him that this is exactly the wrong thing to do in this situation here. IQinn (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That will be my last 24 hours. There's a message in the articles talk. V7-sport (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"That will be my last 24 hours." What do you mean by that we are speaking about your reverts in the last couple of hour? You just reverted again after this discussion was closed. IQinn (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Theosophical Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.198.135.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [243]

• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]
• 4th revert: [247]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]

Comments:

This has been brought up on WP:RSN and consensus seems to be that the source is not reliable for these particular claims. User refuses to discuss or negotiate, and instead refers to the rest of us as vandals. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to raise this myself, but Jpgordon has got here first. It should be noted that the IP appears to be a single-purpose account, only editing on Theosophy-related articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation, and I don't see that a 24-hour block for edit warring would do anything since it's 24 hours between the user's edits anyway. I would suggest as an intermediate step leaving a personal (not templated) message on the user's talk page asking him to join the discussion on the talk page. In fact, I'll do that myself. If the reverting resumes, please make another request here. --B (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And, that failed royally. Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And upon expiration of the block, he has continued the same behavior, inserting the same inappropriate material. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Planned Parenthood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banaticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Sizzletimethree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]
• 5th revert: [253]
• 6th revert: [254]
• 7th revert: [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: both editors were warned, twice.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Sizzletimethree only reverted three times, Benaticus four times, both were warring however. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• On his talk page, Benaticus mentioned that he has been reverting vandalism, and I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt that two of his edits were clear vandalism reverts. The biggest pair is where he removed text like "misleadingly" and "unfounded accusations" from the article.[256] [257]. The other pair of his reverts is the removal of a See also link. IMHO, no violation by Benaticus. —C.Fred (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Might be right there... I didn't take a look at each edit, just the summaries, which "Sizzletimethree" looked like she was being reasonable but violating WP:CIVIL... She does appear to have been templated out. I don't know, I don't like handling these things, she only had three reverts so looks like she's okay on this, her edits don't look like blatant vandalism either... Let an admin look at it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw some edits that Sizzletimethree made earlier when I first started vandal patrolling, which edits were reverted by someone else before I could revert them. After seeing an example of Sizzletimethree's edits, I was presuming bad faith, POV, OR, etc. When Sizzletimethree added unsourced Weasel words to the article which changed the POV of how some recordings were presented and which directly contradicted the cited sources (neither one of which claimed that the Planned Parenthood's employee's statements had been taken out of context, but instead took the recorder to task for going undercover and pretending to be a minor when she was actually an adult), I reverted the vandalism. The first time, believing that it was entirely possible that I had missed something, I reverted the edits as "failing to cite a verifiable reliable source". When Sizzletimethree continued to make the same unsourced edits which contradicted the good sources already in the article without providing any additional sources which could verify the new stance that the article was being given, I continued to revert the obvious vandalism.

User:WikiManOne stated that we were both warned twice. I don't know about User:Sizzletimethree, but in my case these were the warnings that I received:

Section Header: PP -- Post: Do you and your opposer mind taking the debate to the talk page for a bit please. All these reverts are going to land you both in trouble before long. There is plenty of discussion on the TP and you are, of course, welcome to have your say. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My reply: Thank you, but I'm really not sure which article you're referencing. Banaticus (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Header: 3rr -- Post: This is a warning that you are violating 3rr. (signed by WikiManOne -- signature removed as it was causing the quotation template to fail)

There was a post here by [User:Tcncv]] which stated which article PP referred to, which I missed, because Sitush and WikiManOne both started their own section headers and I only grabbed the lowest section (which I presumed was the latest) to respond to.

My reply: Thank you, but it would really help if you referenced which article you're talking about. I've recently reverted quite literally dozens of articles -- all of which generally appeared to have been vandalised. 3R doesn't apply in clear cases of vandalism. Banaticus (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really call either of those a warning. I'd been vandal patrolling -- literally reverting dozens of cases of vandalism. Sitush presumed that I'd somehow know what "PP" was and WikiManOne didn't even bother listing which article was being referenced, even though each time I stopped patrolling to ask them what in the world they were talking about. Someone did respond to tell me that Sitush and WikiManOne were talking about the Planned Parenthood article, so that I could go see what the fuss was about, but not until after WikiManOne had already started this mistaken (in my opinion) review. Banaticus (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No violation I'm closing this report with no action. I think everybody acted within the bounds of good faith here: Sizzletimethree did stop at three reverts, Banaticus did remove some language so slanted that could be perceived as disruptive, and WikiManOne filed a report when he saw an ongoing edit war. Besides, blocks/protection are preventative acts, and nothing I see right now suggests intent to continue the edit war—so no preventative action is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)