Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Sanam001 reported by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Malayala Sudra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sanam001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 16:02, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "←Created page with '{{Infobox Ethnic group |group = Malayāla Sũdra |popplace = Kerala |languages = Malayalam |religions = Hinduism |related = Nāyar, [[K...'")
2. 16:06, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "Correcting references")
3. 16:07, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Sat-sudra */ .correcting references")
4. 16:07, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Customs and practices */ .correcting references")
5. 16:15, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Sat-sudra */ reverting vandalism of article-discussion encouraged")
6. 16:26, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Classification */ -reverting vandalism by Anandks007")
7. 16:29, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347112864 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-Discussions encouraged")
8. 16:34, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring original article by primary creator")
9. 16:38, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347114140 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-discussion encouraged before reverting")
10. 16:57, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "restoring original article by primary creator - Users Suresh Varma 123 and Anandks007 are encouraged to participate in discussion")
11. 17:01, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347118562 by Suresh.Varma.123 (talk)-discussions encouraged before vandalising")
12. 20:13, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "This was the original article and this version has more research articles cited and lacks peacock terms")
13. 00:57, 2 March 2010 (edit summary: "This was the original article and this version has more research articles cited and lacks peacock terms-dispute resolution encouraged")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comments - Started the article and filled it with POV to further vandalize Nair related articles. This user has been indulging in propagating racial hatred for the past 3 months, by calling people from other castes as concubines and dogs. He was warned earlier to engage in talk rather than edit war, but ignored them all. A dispute ongoing in Nair talk page, but he is refraining from talking it out and is calling for arbitration, even as around 5-6 users have voiced against his POV pushing. —Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected - This is a duplicate of the report below on this page. -- Atama頭 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: Both warned)

Page: Ahmad Shah Durrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Inuit18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

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

Comments:

The following editor (Inuit18) reverts my edits every day and I wish it ends.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Both warned. These editors have shown their ability to discuss sources patiently on Talk, and I see no reason why they should continue to revert while consensus is not yet clear. Neither party went over 3RR. Blocks are possible if reverts continue in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have warned User:Ahmad Shahi many times to use the talkpage before making major changes to the article. he has ignored my request and I have warned him a few times. He is falsely putting sources which their existence has not been proven yet. User:Ahmah Shahi's edits are very similar to User:Abasin (especially the edits done in Ahmad Shah Durrani's article) who got banned recently from wikipedia and the interesting thing is that User:Ahmad Shahi appeared on wikipedia just after User:Abasin got banned. I will revert the article to an earlier state so Ahmad Shahi can discuss his sources and claims on the talkpage before adding it to the article. Thank you --Inuit18 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The user (Inuit18) is not telling the truth. Every reference I provided in the article can very easily be verified by anyone via google book search. See Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani#Birthplace
2. Inuit18 keeps removing everything I add into articles Durrani and Ahmad Shah Durrani.
3. Inuit18 keeps removing from the article of Ahmad Shah Durrani this very important information:

“ Other important Persian source Dr Ganda Singh had used include Mahmud-ul-Musanna's Tarikh-i-Ahmad Shahi 1753. It deals with the first three invasions of Ahmad Shah. Imam-uddin al-Hussaini's Tarikh-i-Hussain Shahi 1798, is a history of the Durranis from the time of Ahmad Shah to 1798. ”

1. Inuit18 keeps using Encyclopaedia Britannica for Multan when really Britannica itself is not sure of the birth city. Britannica states: born 1722?, Multān, Punjab [now in Pakistan], or Herāt [now in Afghanistan]. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/10162/Ahmad-Shah-Durrani

Ahmed shahi (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18 began calling me ignorant [8] Ahmed shahi (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: Topic ban)

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

• Edit warring warning (2010-02-25T16:28)
• Notification of this request

There has been no technical 3RR violation, but the following seems to fall under edit warring; I have not actually edited this particular article, but should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Between the 6th and the 20th of this month the article was quiet, though looking at the older history may be instructive. The following are reverts by User:Caleb Murdock over the last week:

• There was nothing about my revisions that were not neutral. Verbal, it has already been established that you know nothing of the subject matter. Back off. 2010-02-20T08:28 (revert; this is the first edit by anyone to that article in two weeks)
• Verbal has made no edits. He just doesn't like the edits that I made. Before you reverse all of my revisions, this needs to be discussed on the Discussion page. I can also call in MY friends! 2010-02-24T23:27
• Please see the Discussion page. The changes that I have been making are MORE NEUTRAL than the language that was there. 2010-02-25T19:59
• First, "claim" and "claimed" are on the list of words to avoid. Please see that page. Secondly, you have removed perfectly valid portions of the article for no good reason. 2010-02-25T21:16
• Verbal, for you to put a tag on this article after I spent hours making changes to satisfy you is simply provocative. Furthermore, you have made no new entry on the Discussion page to justify the tag. 2010-02-26T20:11
• I do not agree to the deletion of these portions. They are perfectly good portions of the article. 2010-02-26T23:05
• It takes a lot of research to come up with cites. In the mean time, the text can remain in situ. YOU need to explain why you want the information removed ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE. 2010-02-27T18:29
• It is only your opinion that the article needs to be trimmed. If you want certain sections to be removed, please state your case on the Discussion page. 2010-02-27T23:56
• If it makes you happy, you are welcome to add back your tags, but I will NOT allow you to remove all my edits. It takes time to come up with those references. 2010-02-28T09:28

There is plenty of discussion at Talk:Seth Material and Talk:Seth Material/GA1, but also a fairly serious case of edit warring in support of apparent article ownership. Several editors have expressed concerns with CM's edits, which is why I am here instead of RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am clearly involved in this matter, but would like to add a few things I think are helpful (any admin can remove this if they feel it is in some way unnecessary or unhelpful, inc. 2/0). If you review Caleb's recent contributions to user talk pages, there is clear evidence of canvassing, as threatened above (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Please also note the explicit threat of edit warring and disruptive behaviour posted to my talk page "If you want an all-out editing war, then that can be arranged" (I want no such thing). Other editors have commented on this and supported my position on the talk page. I have asked for review, in a hopefully neutrally worded statement at the appropriate noticeboard. Two valid tags have also been removed again by Caleb (last of 2/0s diffs), and I will not restore them for now as I do not wish to be involved in this edit warring, despite them being fully justified. Caleb may be a good editor, but he seems too attached to this subject and his own text to contribute usefully at present. Verbal chat 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to defend myself? I'm not familiar with this procedure, so I'll do it here.

The person who is engaging in edit warring is Verbal, and he is using the cloak of Wikipedia's rules to do it. For approximately three years (perhaps four, I'm not sure), Verbal has been attacking the article in various ways, and his attacks resulted in an enormous edit war about three years ago (perhaps two years, I'm not sure). Verbal is not a knowledgeable editor -- i.e., knowledgeable of the subject matter. When he first started editing the article several years ago, he made it clear that he was a skeptic, that he considered the article un-noteworthy, and that he wanted to cut it down or, preferably, eliminate it altogether. Thus his edits have always been in the direction of cutting out portions of the article. At that time, he used various Wiki rules to disparage the article -- un-noteworthy, in-universe, not neutral, unsourced, and others that I can't remember. He didn't prevail in any of those arguments except for the one about sources. He also put a slew of tags on the article which were eventually removed, the same tags that he has been putting on the article recently. Let me add that at that time, when the previous edit war occurred, Verbal did plenty of canvassing, and he called in a bunch of his skeptic friends. At that time, references were added at his insistence, and the article is now well sourced -- yet he continues to demand that more references be added. The result of that edit war was that someone nominated the article for deletion, and the ruling was Speedy Keep.

So the article languished for a couple years. Everyone was exhausted from the edit war, and people (including me) were afraid to touch the article for fear another edit war would erupt. Recently, however, I decided to start working on it again. With an eye toward the skeptics, I decided to change some terminology which I felt would make the article MORE neutral. Verbal noticed what I was doing, and he rolled back ALL my edits without discussion -- even though they were edits which should have suited him. That was what started the current round of warring. Finally, I inserted terminology, at the behest of another editor, which apparently satisfied Verbal, since he didn't roll those edits back. But then he slapped tags on the article, the same tags he had slapped on it years ago and which had been satisfied. Then Verbal started to cut out portions of the article, and that wasn't acceptable to me, so I reverted his cuts. In the process of reverting his cuts, his tags got reverted also. Again, in an effort to satisfy Verbal, I started to add more references to the article, but Verbal wasn't satisfied by them because they were primary as opposed to third-party references, and he rolled back my references and restored his cuts. Verbal's current position seems to be that (1) the article should be cut down, (2) no further additions can be made, and (3) changes must be approved by him. When does one editor dictate to other editors how they should edit?

Let me add that Verbal has never been willing to discuss issues on the Discussion page. I am far more willing to discuss matters than he is. He will make short, general comments about his wishes, but he won't discuss the specific language. For example, he wouldn't tell me what was wrong with my original edits, and now he won't explain why he wants certain passages cut out of the article, and he won't explain why he thinks no more primary references should be added.

In my opinion, Verbal is a disruptive editor who is using the rules for cover. It appears to me that he is trying to block all future development of the article. But don't articles on Wikipedia usually grow with new information over time? Isn't that the way that Wikipedia works?

My interest is in preventing Verbal from decimating the article. Having won a ruling of Speedy Keep, it isn't proper for Verbal to try to kill the article with a thousand cuts. The language that he is trying to cut out now is approximately the same language that was there when that ruling was made. Apparently, Verbal's excuse for making those cuts was because certain passages had sat with Citation Needed tags for a long time. But when I got to work dredging up those citations, Verbal rolled them back because he wasn't satisfied with them, and because I added a bit of new information to the article.

Let me address the ownership issue: Wikipedia depends on knowledgeable editors to write the articles. Thus, most good articles have been developed by one or two knowledgeable people. If we didn't have knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia, many of the articles would be a jumble of information without clear organization. If those editors who make the lion's share of contributions feel a sense of ownership, that's only natural. The question is whether they block other editors' input. In my case, it varies. Some edits that others have made have remained, but others haven't. There is text in the article now that was inserted by other editors that I kept though I would have preferred to eliminate it. On the other hand, some editors have inserted information that I researched and found was erroneous, so I removed it. My interest is in having the best article possible.

As the rules on Wikipedia have flourished, a bad situation has developed. The rules have given ammunition to some editors with controlling personalities whose interest is in restricting the encyclopedia instead of developing it. Armed with the rules, those editors go to various articles and attempt to dictate how the articles can be edited and developed. But a situation in which one editor can dictate how other editors edit is completely absurd. It is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and it is not good for the encyclopedia as a whole. In the case of Verbal, I believe he has a clear agenda: to truncate or delete the Seth Material article because it conflicts with his skeptical world view. As I stated above, my opinion is that he is a disruptive editor. He is not communicative on the specifics, and his actions -- rolling back edits, cutting portions of the article, inserting tags that were previously resolved -- are extremely inflammatory.

Let me add one thing that should be obvious: Verbal is free to educate himself on the subject matter and make additions to the article himself. For example, if he feels that the article needs more third-party cites, then let him do the research and add the cites himself. It is the cuts that I won't go along with. I'm happy to let his tags remain atop the article, but I object to his cuts. The article is not particularly long, and there is very little fat in it.

A side note: The Seth Material article was originally part of the Jane Roberts article, and some of the edit warring occurred before the article was spun off.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't been directly involved in this editing dispute, I have advised and warned Caleb for his combative attitudes. He has taken it to my talk page, where I have finally had to terminate the discussion with the following:

• "I doubt you are crazy. You have just misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, and after all this time, that's a serious matter and indicates you don't belong here. We're writing an encyclopedia. Truth is secondary to verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") You are using Wikipedia as a webhost to advocate for your understanding of "the truth". That's called "advocacy", and it's forbidden here. I think it's time for you to go elsewhere. Write whatever you want on your own website, just not here. End of discussion."

I hope that Caleb will follow that advice because nothing else has worked. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - I'm imposing a topic ban of User:Caleb Murdock from editing the Seth Material article. His recent offer to accept a 1RR falls short of the improvement in his compliance with policy that would be needed, since he says "If verbal will not collaborate, then I may indeed use that one revert a day to protect the article from his hatchet." This seems to be a declaration of intention to continue an edit war. I'm not optimistic that Murdock will eventually agree to collaborate in the normal way, but if he does so, a lifting of the topic ban could be considered. I'm offering this topic ban for review at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. Let's hope that he will gain some experience from editing other articles - ones to which he isn't so emotionally attached - and comes to understand our policies better. I am banning him from my talk page, something which I very rarely do. He just doesn't know when to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He needs to have a notice of this topic ban placed on his talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevezimmy reported by User:duffbeerforme (Result: stale)

Page: Phatchance
User being reported: Stevezimmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [13] reply acklowliging warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [15] [16]

Comments:

Stale - 2/0 (cont.) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nonahxxx reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:72 hour block for edit/warring and sockpuppetry, SOFTDREAMxxx blocked indefinitely as a sock of Nonahxxx )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Great Zimbabwe National Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nonahxxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:25, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
2. 17:36, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
3. 02:09, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
4. 20:20, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
5. 20:40, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
6. 21:47, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
7. 07:37, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
8. 16:09, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")
9. 16:15, 1 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* History of research */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, this board is really backlogged I guess. Identical edits are being made by SOFTDREAMxxx (talk · contribs) - 2 identical reversions, no other edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:EmilJ and User:Yopie reported by User:Nmate (Result: Stale )

Page: Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:
Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EmilJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of warnings:

[17] [18]

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

[19]

Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. So I would rather show 3 diffs when Yopie was close to it:

,17:03, 26 February 2010
,21:17, 26 February 2010
,9:31, 27 February 2010

Comments:

I have a disagreement with EmilJ and Yopie on the article Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk that started on 26 February, 2010. Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. However, the users has absolutely ignored the discussion on the talk page which is a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. Interesting also to note that EmilJ told me to "get a consensus on the talk page" [20] on which he shows no interest to participate in discussion. --Nmate (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stale What a silly thing to edit war over though. If any of the parties continue, they will be blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Drummer182 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: protected)

Page: Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]
• 5th revert: [26]
• 6th revert: [27]
• 7th revert: [28]
• 8th revert: [29]
• 9th revert: [30]
• 10th revert: [31]
• 11th revert: [32]
• 12th revert: [33]
• 13th revert: [34]
• 14th revert: [35]
• 15th revert: [36]
• 16th revert: [37]
• 17th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discusson conducted on talk page

Comments:
Although it seems to have gone undetected until last month, this editor has been edit warring on Drum and Drum kit since 2007. Although I left a plenty-friendly warning about our EL policy and edit warring, he is unapologetic.

As you'll see at his talk page, he acknowledges that the links he's adding are to his own advertising-driven websites, and he says he won't stop "until fairness and common sense enter this picture."

These IPs could be socks or meatpuppets, as their only edits are to restore Drummer182's links:

• User:141.152.45.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:96.248.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

— Bdb484 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected / Flyguy649 --slakr^\ talk / 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:PiCO reported by User:Deadtotruth (Result: Declined)

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

The editor PiCo has engaged in an edit war to support a single POV for the Genesis creation myth article. He has consistently deleted properly referenced information in the Lead, Prologue, Philo, and Creationism sections that provide information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research that is pertinent to this article. He has often replaced the information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research with information of a Pro-babylonian creation myth point of view. Furthermore various editors on the talk page and in the edit comments have requested that he cease wholesale deletion of properly referenced information. PiCo’s edit war is a daily event wherein he routinely deletes whole sections often leaving the article in a state of disrepair.

• [40]

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [41]

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [42]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [43]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [44]

Deleted information and refs that were contrary to the Babylonian origin hypothesis (POV)

• [45]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [46]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [47]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [48]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [49]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [50]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [51]

Deleted all information and refs concerning Jewish and Christian interpretations in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [52]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [53]

Noleander requests Pico revert his deletion of the prologue section

• [54]

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [55]

Nefariousski requests that pico stop making wholesale edits and deltions of sourced material. Deleted information concerning philo (POV)

• [56]

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

• [57]

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

• [58]

Deleted information concerning anti-babylonian motif in lead (POV)

• [59]

Deleted information and refs concerning creationism in lead and inserted Pro-Babylonian information (POV)

• [60]

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs and inserted anti-creationism info and refs (POV)

• [61]

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs in lead (POV see Pico’s editing comments at top of page of evidence of POV)

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

• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]

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

• [66]
• [67]

Deadtotruth (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined - You have failed to provide evidence that WP:3RR was broken, your evidence for that was a series of messages left for the editor being accused. You haven't shown even a single true revert, but rather a series of content removals you object to. I suggest pursuing dispute resolution if you can't resolve this through regular discussion with the editor. -- Atama頭 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chapecoense reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: No violation)

Page: FC Barcelona
User being reported: Chapecoense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347389493
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347382512
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona&oldid=347221736
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chapecoense&oldid=347390648

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

Comments: This user is previously banned for edit warring on FC Barcelona season 2009-10, and has used suckpuppets (plain IP) to circumvent the ban. ALSO the user is now having an edit war [[68]]

Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment added, Sandman888 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation - I don't see more than 3 reverts in more than 24 hours. But be aware of WP:OUCH, as you have reverted just as many times as the person you are reporting. If I blocked, I would have to block both of you. I see that there is now a discussion on the talk page of the article, deal with this there (and I'll also note that Chapecoense participated in the discussion before you did). -- Atama頭 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke_2010 reported by User:izauze (Result: No violation)

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

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

• 1st revert: [69]

of my 03:45 edit, found here: [70]

The edit referred to in this diff [[71] makes a false claim about the subject of the edit and is unsupported by the citation. I removed it within the guidelines of WP:BLP WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.Malke2010 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit by I

• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74] this might require some context. This is a revert of my revert. I utilized the revert option because this specific issue was under discussion on the talk page between user:Malke 2010 and user:happysomeone. Before I saw a consensus reached, Malke re-inserted the questionable material AND deleted material I had added, both in the same edit. Even though we had both tried to direct Malke to engage us on the talk board.

This is not an accurate description of the editing or the discussions at that time. There was also no 'consensus' reached. I consistently used the talk page and at one point stated my objection to the continuous reverts of my edits without discussion. Please allow me time to collect diffs of the discussion. Thanks.Malke2010 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of an edit war with Happysomeone that Happysomeone tried to mediate here:

20:08, 2 March 2010 Happysomeone (talk | contribs) (70,368 bytes) (Undid revision 347356626 by Malke 2010 (talk)OK, lets discuss at the TALK page first, please, before more editing. Please follow WP:BRD)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:09 on discussion board: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:19 by [user:happysomeone] [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] [user:happysomeone] agreed with these concerns at 02:46

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: final notice [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion was a long messy process, proably not well suited to a Diff. Most of the discussion can be seen here: [79] with some additional material also found here: [80]

Comments:
First of all, I'm fairly new here, so excuse me if any of this form is not filled out correctly.

There are a good deal more reverts done within the last 24 hours (and a few more just beyond), but with the overwhelming number of his edits and how complicated and tangled things had become over the course of the last 24 hours, it has become difficult to dig them all out. If he had simply REVERTED the edits it would be easier to document, but he almost never did that, opting instead to edit the article to copy-paste the material back to the way he wanted it - erasing the contributions of other editors. Throughout the day (and to some degree beforehand as well) he showed no regard for the BRD model, or for WP:AGF in regard to our well-sourced contributions, nor did he WP:FOC, he ignored WP:EW and WP:3rr warnings regarding his boundary crossing, and engaged in seemingly evasive tactics when these issues are addressed by myself and other editors. He reverts changes made by other editors without even some kind of compromise edit that adresses some of the concerns the edit tried to address. In my own personal opinion, his presence has consistently had a negative influence on the progress of the article and the quality of the dialogue on the talk page, and I find him to be a constant NPOV concern. A review of the talk page shows that if you search for "WP:" citations, almost every single time it is either Malke himself or someone pointing out an issue to Malke. I would ask why that is. He had to be repeatedly asked to stop removing material and reverting edits and to engage in straightforward discussion by multiple editors. When I thought it was all over and that he had finally realized he needed to discuss, I see it was done again. I finally resorted to this report as essentially a last resort with the hopes that if nothing else, this process might force a realization of his behavior so that things might improve in the future, if he is allowed to continue utilizing his editing priveledges here. I truly only want what is best for the article. --Izauze (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this as Izauze has failed to notify me on my talk page. There is currently a dispute by Happysomeone and Izauze about the content of a paragraph I wrote that they keep deleting. I will collect diffs and you will see that both Happysomeone and Izauze are well beyond 3RR as they did continous outright reverts of my edits. My last edit was the removal of a completely false claim by Izauze that was not at all supported by the article he was citing. Please give me the time to collect diffs. Thanks.Malke2010 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts by Happysomeone

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

Reverts by Izauze

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

Please give me time to collect diffs of the talk page discussion. Thanks.Malke2010 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page diffs. I made 19 entries all tolled on the talk page.

[92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

[97]

Please don’t revert: They were both reverting me without discussing first.

[98]

[99]

cooperating with Happysomeone’s wishes

[100]

put the Carender paragraph where Happysomeone asked for it to be

[101]

Claim by Izauze that I’m not discussing on talk page (he seems not be paying attention)

[102]

again, another claim this time by Happysomeone

[103]

answered question by Happysomeone about sources

[104]

Left message on Happysomeone’s talk page

[105]

There is one more diff I'd like to add. I'll be back with it in a bit. I apologize for the number of diffs but I was using the talk page.

In general, the editors on the Tea Party Movement talk page have been working well together for a long while now including myself and Happysomeone. In fact, we'd just recently amicably worked out a compromise on an edit without any problems.[106] Izauze is new there. This section that is being edited in all these diffs was also what he called his first big contribution to Wikipedia.Malke2010 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not see where I was required to post the notification on his talk page. (Again, apologize for the naivite of a newcomer.) I thought the three or four warnings and the seperate notification on the talk page would be sufficient.

And since it appears as if Malke 2010 is trying to shift responsibility here to the people who were trying to make him engage us on the talk page before continuing to delete material and such, I will try to narrativize the situation for clarity.

A number of editors were having difficulties building a sensible history section for The Tea Party Movement, as seen in the discussion here: [107] How to make the origins more complete had been batted around, and they asked for someone to take a stab at it. I let them know I did some digging, found some sources, and was building something I would add shortly.

I spent a lot of time creating the most complete, well-researched, well-sourced origins section (with 3 subsections) I could and posted the whole thing as one edit early yesterday. Recognizing the size of the contribution, I immediately started a discussion. In this discussion Malke_2010 graciously praised my contribution. I knew the entry was just a starting point and that many edits would occur to it, but what I did not expect that valid, sourced, significant material would be deleted repeatedly from it whole cloth in a flurry of edits from one individual. But that's what happened. (If you look at about 17:00 on march 2nd you'll see almost 20 Malke edits in a row [108]) I added this material and Malke reverted it. Usually without discussion (until someone brought it up to HIM) flagrantly ignoring the WP:BRD model. Occasionally, I would examine what he had deleted and try to ascertain what his objections might have been, and make changes to it in order to not lose it entirely. (THIS is what he is referencing in some of the above DIFFs - my attempt to preserve my good faith additions through compromise edits instead of whole-cloth deletions.) In my edit descriptions (and in happysomeones) we consistently tried to refer him to the talk page. You can see people trying to engage his edits on the talk page here: [109] here: [110] here: [111] here: [112] here: [113] another editor expresses frustration here: [114] another Malke revert was questioned here: [115] (after this particular inquiry, he agreed that I could restore the information in question, and then deleted chunks of it again after I did, and reported it as one of MY supposed "reverts" above) (he is also asked to refrain from any future deletions or large changes w/o discussion (which he apparently ignores)), another editor repeats a request for a response re: his cites (which Malke again does not respond to) here: [116], he is warned about WP:EW edit warring and his covert revert is again questioned here:[117], he is again reminded not to WP:EW edit war and told that his edit was reverted (which is one of the ones he reported me for above) because it had not yet reached consensus here: [118], I expressed frustration about ANOTHER reverted edit here: [119], the other editor AGAIN asks for a response to his cites here: [120], he is again politely asked by another editor to use the talk page here (which i expressed agreement with): [121], he is again asked not to delete valid sourced information here: [122], another editor again asks him to respond to his points, and also reminds him of possible disregard of WP:BRD, WP:EW, and WP:3RR and reminds him to not continue skipping the consensus process, and not to ignore or evade attempts to address the issue here: [123], another editor reminds him to stick to the matter at hand and not attempt to divert here: [124],

and that's just part of it in regards to this ONE section (he made additional reverts re: the Fox News section). As you can see, while things stayed generally civil in tone, it got pretty messy. It was a real flurry of activity for a while and became hard to follow everything that was going on.

Yes, he was using the talk page, but he was continuing to edit and revert people's contributions (and adding material that was still in the process of consensus-building) WHILE he was partipating on the talk page. And much of that participation was diversionary.

He says all the editors have been working well there together. I will agree that all the editors have done a very good job of remaining civil in their dealings with Malke 2010 and everyone has maintained a generally positive tone, but his lack of adherence to guidlines and procedures is a constant issue for them as well. As I said, almost every WP:XX site on the talk page is either directed at him or is coming from him. He never seems to think to ask himself why that is. That the others have tried to tolerate this and work through it is admirable, but I believe someone from the administration needs to make things more clear for him.

and I don't understand how he can claim that this report is part of a plot to control one paragraph of quotations he added, when ample proof of our generous and good faith attempts to find a compromise and a workable consensus that respected and addressed his concerns (despite his WP:EW)are clearly evidenced here: [125] (as well as in the surrounding posts).

I think the matter will be quite clear to anyone who reviews the details of what went on yesterday in both the edits and the talk page (unfortunately it seems like a LOT to review). Hopefully it can be used to find a useful solution and both Malke 2010 and the article will benefit from it. I definitely harbor no ill will, I just don't want him to be a disruptive force any longer. Anything that helps achieve that is well appreciated. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did answer Happysomeone's request for a source for the Carender edit. [126]. Happysomeone apparently had this quote confused with something else and believed it was multiple quotes run together. I came back and provided the quote and the source on the talk page so he could see it. Also, I note the other editors aren't here supporting claims that I don't get on well over on TPM, nor do I see diffs to support said claims.Malke2010 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not to drag other editors into this if it's not necessary, though I'm sure if you interviewed them where they could speak freely, they would be able to provide a more long-term picture of Malke 2010's presence that would expand and illuminate my case. My own citation of this was just to notate how often people cite WP:XX to him, but if a few diffs of people's dealings with him are beneficial, I can try to provide that as well, though obviously I can't be too comprehensive in regard to everything contained in the archives and such.

[127] here is editor Roygoldsmith informing him that it is not appropriate to delete peoples well-sourced contributions citing NPOV.

[128] here is the same editor struggling to explain to him that contributions must be made on the basis of verifiability, not his/her opinion.

([129] here is Malke 2010 calling the article racist)

[130] another editor bemoans deleted material, calling it a sad disruption.

[131] in response, malke again calls the article racist "might want to rethink this article; it's shameful, gross, dumb, and racist", does not assume good faith, and engages in a possible personal attack.

[132] the editor responds, reprimands him/her for his lack of good faith and personal attack

[133] malke again calls the article racist and makes another deletion as a first resort.

[134] An editor reponds to a malke post to remind everyone that "This entire article is obviously undergoing a complete rewrite that has completely gone off the rails re: WP:NPOV."

[135] Editor scribner asks: No offense but it seems pretty clear that Malke2010 is an advocate of the movement and thus not in a position make impartial judgments or edits. Do we have some good impartial editors that could clean up this article and look over Malke2010's edits?

My response follows: I agree. I don't necessarily think that Malke2010 can't make valuable contributions (or that s/he hasn't already), but the repeated advocacy seems to call for some additional scrutiny.

[136] an editor again asks Malke to focus on sources instead of his/her opinion.

The above represents only about the top 1/8th of the current talk page (not including the many archives). Malke has made no secret about his personal POV regarding how he think the movement and the reaction to it should be protrayed. Occasionally he makes additions, but all too often he simply deletes or scrubs things he doesn't like and which don't agree with his POV of events... and he does so citing WP:NPOV. As a result, the article seems to slowly become a patchwork of leftover disconnected decontextualized material he didn't feel the need to delete, and the article as a whole has suffered as a result. When discussing these disruptions he rails about his point of view of the movement, asserting it as the right view, without regard for the concept of verifiability. He doesn't seem to understand what being an impartial editor compiling information from other sources is all about. And his responses thus far have only further demonstrated to me that he is not willing to examine his own behavior, which reinforces my belief that external forces need to be applied in order to achieve a lasting result. --Izauze (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sysops: I believe that we can resolve this issue ourselves, given enough time. There is no need to block anyone as yet.

Editors of Tea Party movement: Please gather at the Tea Party movement talk page and read the lower part of the section on Fox>Problem Sentence. We have time to resolve this. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the characterizations of me by Izauze has gone beyond the pale here. I am being attacked here. I'm asking an admin to please rule here. This editor is out of control and I don't appreciate the characterization of my good faith edits. When I first arrived on the TPM page there wasn't much activity and believe me that page was in terrible shape. The edits on the cartoons alone were fairly shocking. My edit summaries and comments on the talk page are entirely appropriate.

I look at these diffs and I don't see me going on rants calling edits racist, etc. and I'm sure the admins don't either. But the statements by Izauze are too much here and I'd like something done to stop this. And as you can see, the characterization of me is again not backed up by diffs. In fact, there's been every little editing on the article by me for a long time. We've been taking this long to discuss edits.Malke2010 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my understanding of the listing guidelines, I don't intend to dispute Malke2010 here. The information provided above is only to present as complete a picture I could in a straightforward manner. I do not intend to attack him or insult him as a person. --Izauze (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation - I don't see 4 or more reverts by Malke in a 24 hour period. I don't see any user talk warnings given to Malke despite what Izauze claims, or even a notice that this report was created (and yes, I checked the talk page history). The only thing I see is a big dispute on the talk page of the article, which is nothing unusual. Even in the report above, Izauze admitted that there weren't actual reverts occurring. I see nothing actionable. -- Atama頭 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SamHumphrey1985 reported by Old Moonraker (talk) (Result: warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Richard Mabey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamHumphrey1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 10:54, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 10:56, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 11:11, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 14:43, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 14:50, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
6. 17:02, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Please can we keep it like this. This is accurate and precice. I have, again, made changes at the behest of the author. Please don't change.")

• Diff of warning: here

--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just 3RR warned the user before I saw this. D'oh. SGGH ^ping! 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Warned — looks like he's stopped for now. Feel free to re-open if he resumes. --slakr^\ talk / 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NickCT reported by Mbz1 (talk) (Result: declined)

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]
4. [140]

Not excactly in 24 hours, but User:NickCT was notified about the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions] in the Arbitration/Enforcement case against him. In spite of that the user goes on with edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion. Mbz - This posting is counterproductive. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw Hopefully Nick got the message :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not fooling anyone Mbz. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined Also, keep in mind, that banned editors evading a ban are not permitted to edit articles / random talk pages, and the edits they make can be reverted with the same exception to the 3RR as vandalism. --slakr^\ talk / 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hooliganb reported by User:Bold Clone (result: page protected)

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]

--Bold Clone (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected / SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) --slakr^\ talk / 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: Stale )

Page: Countdown with Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:00 EST

• 1st revert: 10:16 EST
• 2nd revert: 16:48 EST
• 3rd revert: 17:25 EST
• 4th revert: 18:08 EST

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning was issued, though he got the 4th revert in before I could issue it.

Comments: Badmintonhist is a longtime, established editor who is well familiar with this most fundamental of rules.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stale It appears that since this report was filed, discussion has started taking place on the articles talk page and the instigator has logged off. I will add the article to my watchlist, if they start up again a block will be in order. Tiptoety ^talk 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by MaverickandGoose (Result: no vio)

Page: Homosexual agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: [[User:<Ctjf83|<Ctjf83]] ([[User talk:<Ctjf83|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Ctjf83|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Ctjf83|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Ctjf83|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Ctjf83|block user]] · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Ctjf83 violated 3RR by continuously reverting edits of two different editors, and then mislabeled them vandalism

Are you referring to this unexplained removal of content from you? CTJF83 chat 05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: MaverickandGoose seems to be making the same edits as IP editor 99.237.122.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which puts this into an edit war on his side while Ctjf83 has only three edits. At least two editors have reverted the changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporter is a probable sock of User:Brucejenner CTJF83 chat 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk / 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:Hooliganb (Result: page protected)

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153] in comment on 21:39, 3 March 2010 Hooliganb (talk | contribs) (44,841 bytes) (please, this is not your article where you make executive decisions. let's find a concensus before changing this again. another reversion will be 4 reverts; see WP:3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:
After trying to open up discussion to finding some kind of resolution and thoroughly explaining my point of view, I was met with a complete disinterest in trying to find some kind of compromise and unwillingness to listen to any other opinion on the content of the article. Where as my edits attempted to incorporate the changes this editor made, he preferred to completely undo everything that I had changed even though it didn't all fall under the explanation he provided for his reverts. I'll admit to regularly editing the article in question and cleaning up other people's changes, but not blindly blank things they've done without reason.

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should probably block both of you, but instead, I'll let you work it out on Talk. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suresh.Varma.123 reported by UserSanam001 (Result: Protected )

Page: Malayala Sudra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Anandks007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [155]
• 2nd revert: [156]
• 3rd revert: [157]
• 4th revert: [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Comments:
This edit war in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed in the nayar page as user suresh.varma.123 declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution . [161] The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007 is the following link [162]. User User:Anandks007 has publically called for supporting edit wars in nayar and allied pages against me in bad faith.

I am still continuing to try to focus on the content dispute [163]

--Sanam001 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety ^talk 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

• Edit warring, Disruptive editing and personal attacks on

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY  !!!")
8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")

Undefeatedcooler, who is a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), has been stubbornly reverting the article for the past two week showing a pseudo-willingness for talk in his edit summaries. However, once there (see the discussion) he limited himself to asserting the same views over and over again but consistently failed to provide the repeatedly requested evidence according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. He has already been warned of edit warring. I tried to bring in fresh views at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese", but there he simply continued his racist tirade from the talk page:

Village pump (miscellaneous):

• "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee:

• "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - I see 2 reverts in a 24 hour period. The editor may be tendentious, but they've never even reached 3RR, and recently they left the page for almost 4 days before reverting again. I think there is a problem, but this noticeboard isn't for incivility reports. You might want to try WP:WQA instead. -- Atama頭 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You see only two reverts only because I refrained from reverting which I feel now less inclined, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did leave the editor a warning about not making personal attacks against other editors. If he continues, try WQA as suggested or perhaps even WP:ANI may be better venues. This noticeboard is for violations of WP:3RR. -- Atama頭 01:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY  !!!")
8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")
9. 12:59, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347893541 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop reverting. Talk Page !!!")
10. 13:18, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347898427 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Talk Page. Remember, you are the one who made changes from a "long-term version"")

See declined notice above for the development so far. I then reported Undefeatedcooler allegations of racism to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and he received a warning by SGGH who explicitly pointed him to the need for providing evidence to his carved-in-stone views. Still, he continues to revert. I regard my reverts justified on the basis of WP:Verify what I also communicated to him.

—Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ChristiaandeWet reported by User:Magicpiano (Result: 24h)

Page: French and Indian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ChristiaandeWet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been previously warned about edit warring and is aware of 3RR: [169]

User has never responded on talk pages, see his history: [170]

Comments:

User has a history of contentious editing on a wide variety of articles; many of his contributions have been reverted. I have attempted to engage him in the past (e.g. here), and on his talk page. Magic♪piano 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked for 24 hours. This is a pretty straight-forward 4RR situation. -- Atama頭 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:65.1.3.105 reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.1.3.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 01:10, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:45, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347429863 by Alansohn (talk)")
3. 18:08, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:14, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Check the facts before reverting my edit, DICK. I am correct. You can find postaqe stamps online with Friedrich Ebert on them that say "Deutsches Reich."")
5. 18:30, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "The translation of Reich as "empire" is patently wrong since the "deutsches Reich" continued to appear on German postage stamps in the Weimar period, as a quick search will show.")
6. 18:40, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Dick have you heard of Google? Plug in "Deutsches Reich" and "Friedrich Ebert" on an image search and you will see the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Reich does not mean "empire."")
7. 10:51, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Antiuser I suggest you read the discussion page where I have explained why the translation of Reich as Empire cannot be accurate, plus the fact that "Deutsches Reich" continued to be used in the 1920s")
8. 11:05, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "You guys are all action and no thought. Read how I justified my edit, and look at the discussion page again.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rschuehle reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result:Stale; Article at AFD)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Chimestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rschuehle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:50, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:22, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Chagnes")
3. 21:24, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")
4. 21:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale The article is presently at AFD and the reverts have stopped. Both the listed editor and the submitter seem to have edit warred. I will watch the page. JodyB _talk 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:213.240.232.170 reported by User:94.110.95.62 (Result: No vio)

Page: Gümüş tv series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

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

Comments:

No violation No 3RR breach, and both editors responsible for slow-moving edit-warring. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: )

Page: Rothschild family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855028
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855230
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855338
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855432
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855679
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rothschild_family&oldid=347855778

I came across a bunch of POV edits by this user in this article which had no rationale for the edits. I restored them. Almost immediately this user made quick reverts without any discussion. I asked the editor to stop edit warring but he/she was not responsie to that and came straight back and reverted my corrections and made some erronreoud refence to wp:blp

I have started a discussion/complaint abotu this editor on the talk page, but I fear it's pointless as this user is editing under a political bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rothschild_family#Complaint_about_User:Mbz1_and_his_POV_edits

Vexorg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved here--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

nothing has moved. Your vendetta against me is seperate from this report. Vexorg (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

just to add: I gave the user Mbz1 notice I had reported him for edit warring and he didn't take it seriously and deleted it by writing it off as a rant http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347858549 Vexorg (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried restoring the notification of this report of edit warring to the editor Mbz1 but he has simply deleted it again and is claiming it as vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347859797 - It's clear this editor is not taking the due processes seriously. Vexorg (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by NickCT

I've had issues with ths editor edit warring before. I consulted an uninvolved admin over an edit war on some talk page recently. The admin offered his advice, which I followed, then, low and behold, Mbz continues to edit war!!

Mbz, I've enjoyed some of our conversations, and you're admitidly a darn fine photographer, but you must cease acting so unilaterally when editting. Try to find the value in other peoples POVs even when they don't match yours. If you fail to do so, you will simply end up fighting, rather than cooperating to make your edits. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

According to to that 3rr does not apply to me. I was reverting the violation of wp:blp. Om the other hand the rule does apply to User:Vexorg, who not only reverted me more than 3 times, but has done in the violation of wp:blp.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External observations: (1) both editors seem to be clearly in violation of 3RR based on a simple observation at the article history. (2) A paragraph in question on at least one of the diffs is quite poorly written. (3) I've seen no citation for one of the fact tags added by Mbz1 (regarding Knesset donation[176]), and it is relevant to a biography - though, not of a living person. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the edit you're pointing out to. I am talking about that [177]. Changing the section name to "Zionism" and changing ""Many Rothschilds were supporters of the State of Israel" to "Many Rothschilds were and are supporters of the State of Israel" is the violation of WP:BLP.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still not clear why you see this as a BLP violation, at least not to me. Are you saying that the category is inappropriate and if so how ? Does the and are fail WP:V compliance ? Is it inaccurate in some way ? Is the category/title being applied too broadly to the entire family given that many weren't supporters of Zionism ? Is it offensive in some way from your perspective ? What's wrong with someone supporting Zionism and wiki categorising them as a Zionist or using the term as a section heading ? Many people are proud to call themselves as Zionists so it's not at all clear to me why you would edit war over this and regard it as a BLP violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It does mot matter, if somebody is proud or ashamed to be called a Zionist. If you'd bother to read the section, you will see "Many Rothschilds were supporters of the State of Israel, although other members of the family opposed the creation of the state.". This one sentence is enough to see how adding the article to Zionism category and changing the section's name is a violation of WP:BLP. BTW the word "many" should be changed to "some"--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should aslo mention that the user made edit warring over the same thing with few other editors in the past [178];[179];[180];[181];[182].--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the section. I read the entire article. I also read the source cited in the article which says "And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world." So, based on the source and the section in the article where is the BLP violation ? It seems to me that what you are actually saying is that the category/title is being applied too broadly to the entire family given that many they were split over their support for Zionism. If so, that isn't a BLP violation, it's a categorization error/dispute (that I happen to agree is probably too broad). You can't justify disruptively edit warring over things like that on the grounds of BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I sure can. Here's a real life story: Once Conjoined twins were involved in a car accident, which has resulted in an injury or even a death of another person. The twin, who was driving, was guilty in the accident, but the judge refused to put him to jail, in order not to put there his innocent brother. For some people, who are not Zionist to be called a Zionist is a big offense, and very defamatory. To name the section that is talking about living persons, who are not Zionists "Zionism" is wp:POV, and is a violation of WP:BLP--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Vexorg 1 -- There was no violation of WP:BLP by having the section entitled Zionism or the category Zionism. Even though some of the Rothshilds may have opposed the creation of Israel the family has broadly been Zionist supporters. They were the agents between the Zionist Federation and the British government ( Arthur Balfour in particular it seems ) in 1917 and 1919 ) and members of the family paid fore the Knesset and Israeli supreme court buildings, etc,etc - Suport of Zionism is notable within the Rothshild family and therefore completely appropriate to entitled the section Zionism,and add the Zionism category, even if not all members of the family supported the creation of Israel. WP:BLP should be applied however on a case by case on articles of individual members of this family. Vexorg (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Vexorg 2 - There seems to be some personal agenda against me by the user Mbz1 - I may have unwittingly upset upset him/her at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners] ‎- FURTH adn very concerning is this user's almost obsessive arguments here which have appeared sine last night -- [[http://en.wikipedia.org

What an absurd suggestions. Quite a few people voted to delete it, so why is my "personal agenda" applies only to Vexorg?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External observation (extended): (1) I'm not aware of the history of discussions over this but if Vexorg is promoting contested changes in this manner over an extended period, then it adds to the gravity of his current violation. (2) Also, I agree that "and are" counts as a real BLP concern. (3) Words like 'many' and 'some' are among WP:WTA. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the section title being Zionism or Support of Israel or various other perfectly sensible titles. I don't think it's a problem having the Zionism category but I can see that someone could legitimately object on the grounds that it places the entire family into a set when members of that family are not actually members of that set. On the other hand categories are primarily about helping people find information so in that sense having the category helps. The bottomline is that it's not BLP related, it's just a simple content dispute or it should be and there will be differences in opinion. There's no reason to edit war over it. There is no excuse for not sorting it out on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"The bottomline is that it's not BLP related, it's just a simple content dispute" - I second this.

"There is no excuse for not sorting it out on the talk page" - Strongly second this. NickCT (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are, aren't you? Have you seen those [183];[184];[185];[186];[187] by any chance?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them. The 'are' statements don't comply with WP:V. Neither did the statements before the edits were made. It's a content dispute. It's about complying with policy and finding consensus. Those edits are significantly less troublesome than your comment "Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause!". If I were an admin I would have blocked you on sight for that remark. You need to calm down, stop throwing serious accusations around like they are candy, talk to Vexorg and try to work it out with him and other editors. No one needs to edit war over things like this. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, just between the two of us, if I am to get blocked for "Well, at least you got blocked fighting for the right cause!" I will be PROUD, but I doubt I could get blocked for that. On what grounds? What will be the block reason? What policy did I violate. Your comment about me getting blocked over my statement clearly shows your own agenda here, as well as it shows you are not enough familiar with wikipedia policies to discuss some.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)