Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive119

Page: Life-death-rebirth deity [1]
User being reported: Ari89 [2]

Previous version reverted to: [3]

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

Each revert provides a slightly different frame of words, as i have attempted to find the most moderate tone possible - that will be acceptible to user Ari89, and to make the refences clearer to reinforce the who has done the research. I have not included the reverts of previous user Ceezmad who has also been entangled in an prior edit war with Ari89 over the same issue.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:Edit waring in conjunction with belittling other users, accusations of lies, (in the articles talk pages) refusing to recognise valid research in this area. Ari89 claims that the paper is unrefrenced: i have offered references from The Encyclopeida Britanica, The Catholic Encyclopedia, two Professors in the field and journals; previous editors have also offered refrences which have been deleted by user Ari89. Forgive the clumsyness of my protocall, i have only joined wikipedia within the month; I am still catching up.
Nikopolyos (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Michael E. Mann
• User being reported: Vividuppers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st reversion: 11:56, 25 December 2009
• 2nd reversion: 12:22, 25 December 2009
• 3rd reversion: 12:33, 25 December 2009
• 4th reversion: 13:27, 25 December 2009

• Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Comments

User:Vividuppers is repeatedly reverting to an old version of this article to restore material that was previously removed by several different editors on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV grounds. He has been requested to discuss his changes but has dismissed the previous discussions of this material as "bullshit" [12] and has continued edit-warring to reintroduce it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The first diff doesn't count because I immediately reverted it as it was a mistake. A look at the talk page shows I am discussing the issue, whereas ChrisO isn't, and is simply attempting to get me blocked. Vividuppers (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The presence of an ongoing discussion involving BLP issues is what makes this case particularly worrying. Vividuppers is warring against the efforts of multiple editors to keep the problematic material out of the article while issues are resolved. Chris Owen's pertinent comments about the material were given in a discussion on 20-21st December, which Vividuppers studiously avoids addressing. --TS 13:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy has a history with BLP problems. Remember the Robert Fisk problem? Of course you do, as that was Vividuppers over at fisking in May.[13][14] Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours. WP:BLP/N is the appropriate venue if you believe that the Biographies of living persons policy is being used to chill debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  Probably a bit too much as he had ceased editing some hours before the block. For that reason, should he come back soon and resolve to work in community with the other editors I would recommend an early unblock. --TS 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. If Vividuppers resolves to wait for consensus at the talkpage (and, ideally, engage a little more productively), unblocking would be a good move. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Tareq Al-Suwaidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: suwaidanmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tareq_Al-Suwaidan&diff=334023181&oldid=334010759

1. 00:11, 26 December 2009
2. 00:12, 26 December 2009
3. 00:17, 26 December 2009
4. 00:35, 26 December 2009
5. 01:09, 26 December 2009

Also: (this is same user with I.P. 199.212.7.17 but not signing , see discussion page)

1. 02:39, 26 December 2009
2. 03:16, 26 December 2009
3. 00:17, 26 December 2009
4. 00:35, 26 December 2009
5. 01:09, 26 December 2009
6. 21:46, 25 December 2009

1) The sentence "is a Kuwaiti entrepreneur, Islamic author and speaker, and a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood." has been changed to ""is a Kuwaiti entrepreneur, Islamic author and speaker" multiple times in the last 12 hours.

This section has been deleted multiple times in the last 12 hours:

"Al-Suwaidan has been linked to activities associated with Hamas and has called for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa.[16] In May 2007, Al-Suwaidan was listed by federal prosecutors, along with a group of U.S Muslim Brotherhood members, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, convicted along with its leaders of financing Hamas.[17][18] [19] Al-Suwaidan has not been charged in any associated prosecutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suwaidanmd

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

Comments:

This article has been continually reverted by the same user acting under his user ID and unsigned with the same ID address. Basically, the user reverts almost all material that he feels is "negative" using constantly shifting rationale. Where discussion is provided, it usually concerns one aspect but the entire page is being reverted to the same version . The reversions center on three issues:

1) The identification of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The identification has been referenced to an article from a Canadian newspaper which "which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." The user requested a reference yet despite this reference, all mention of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood have been reverted multiple times.

2) The subject's statement calling for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." This was referenced to a Chicago Sun Times article. It has been continually reverted because the user has stated that such statements "give a false impression." No evidence has been presented to document this such as statements about the Mideast conflict that are in contradiction.

3) The inclusion of the subjects designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. This fact has been reverted perhaps 50 times in the history of the article on the basis that the subject was not charged although, by definition, an unindicted co-conspirator is one who is alleged to have participated but is not charged.

First, the user demanded references and references had either been provided or were further enhanced.

Next, the user shifted his opposition stating "In the coat rack article WP states that it does not matter if the references are true, what matters is that the article doesn't become a coat rack for everything a subject has ever said or done. I will continue revisions based on this." The user has stated he feels that even though all of the facts are true, it is misleading and an example of a "coat rack" article saying "until you pose an argument against the abovementioned WP article [on coat rack articles] I will continue to revert WITHOUT discussion." An argument was made against the article yet the user is still reverting without discussion.

In the latest iteration of the reverting, the user has stated that he is enforcing "the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced" event though there is no such unsourced content.

I would also note that the user has engaged in personal attacks call me at different times a " skewed pundit", an "anti-Islamist activist with slanted views", and "anti-Islamic."

Sgmiller (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for two weeks, the alternative, without being sure about the BLP issues, seemed to be to block everyone and I'm loathe to do that. This should provide time for sorting out any BLP issues. I note what appears to be sockpuppetry - Sgmiller, you might want to file an SPI request. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to resolve this in discussion and if not, put up a notice on the BLP board. I assume SPI is Sock Puppet Investigation but I am not sure how to do this. Can you help me with this?Sgmiller (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - read WP:SPI. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this user's problem is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The359

Edit warring on Yuma, Arizona. *Note user has been blocked for edit warring before.(MDesjardinss (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Protected the article for two weeks. Looking into sockpuppet issue as well; seems fairly clear what his issue is.  :) Kuru ^talk 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kuru! :)(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Page: Negroni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
reported by: Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By this means I'm requesting the opinion of other administrators in the situation being discussed here: Talk: Negroni. My intentions are that the situation does not become a full blown edit war and opinions from noninvolved administrators are more them welcomed. I apologize if this is not the proper forum to announce such a request. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Some anonymous user with a changing IP address keeps changing "Casshan" (the way it is spelled in the latest version of the game) to Casshern (the way it is spelled in every other English translation). He has changed it about seven times now. Link. Also, this edit summary includes a personal attack. Pikamander2 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for three weeks. Please consider WP:Requests for page protection in future. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Waterloo Road Comprehensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.14.114.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resistance to implement the consensus achieved at the AFD. Three different editors [15] [16] [17] turned the article to redirect to the main Waterloo Road (TV series) (per AFD). The user's comments [18] [19] indicate that he intends to go against the AFD decision. Please note the dynamic IP. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected for one month. IP has not edited in over a day. Other issues should be amenable to discussion. Please request at WP:Requests for page protection if the article needs to be unlocked before then, or place {{editprotected}} on the talkpage if the redirect needs to be updated. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:

I'm new here but I feel already fully unwelcome by the behaviour of this established editor. He repeatedly reverted almost every edit of mine[[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]], even removed the picture I added[[33]].--Mamalala (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) User notified about the report[[34]]--Mamalala (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question is obviously bad and needed to be reverted. All one needs to do to spot the problem is look at it. The first time Mamalala made it, I assumed the duplication was inadvertent; but her repeated reinstating of it constitutes vandalism. I should add that I'm not the only one to have reverted her edits, but having seen a few bad ones by her I took it on myself to go through her log and check each one, reverting or fixing the ones that needed it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is bad edit for you may be good edit for me. Who are you to judge my edits and follow me around? I think you should discuss the problem on the talk page instead of reverting me so many times (here[[35]] you reverted me 4 times describing my edit as "nationalistic".) I do not wish to be called such names.--Mamalala (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR. If you were only adding a nationality, this might be considered edit warring, but you were also creating a tandem duplication of material --> reverting that is always OK. Also, since you're new, I should let you know that 3RR isn't a game where the first person to reach four reverts loses. It's just an arbitrary line to avoid endless disputes over when edit warring becomes disruptive. You can be blocked even if you didn't break it, if you were found to be disruptive regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But is this o.k. to follow somebody around reverting everything? What makes his opinion more important than mine[[[[36]]]]? Can you at least advice him to stop stalking me? What is this? Are you guys some kind of closed gang that owns Wkipedia?? Can I appeal your decision?--Mamalala (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You can take your issue to WP:ANI, but you should consider that what has happened here is not a bunch of veteran users gangning up on a newbie, but rather a bunch of experienced editors reverting what they know to be bad, albethem good faith, edits. The page you link to is better off without the image of Copernicus; it is an article about a siege, and unless you intend to make such an argument on the talk page, there is no obvious reason that knowing what Copernicus looks like will help any readers understand the siege better. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article were longer, or didn't already have enough pics all of which are more relevant than this one, then I wouldn't object. But as it is, this pic just clutters it. -- Zsero (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, please help me by not jumping on me and reverting in mass all my edits. I know what you meant now by "clutters". Thank you.--Mamalala (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mamalala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.64.215.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please note that the editor also appears to be operating under an IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that while most of this user's edits appear to me to have been unproductive, almost all of them seem to have been made in good faith. Some of them seem to be due to a certain lack of fluency in English, and some to seeing things from a Polish nationalist POV. Some come down to a judgement call. The specific edit discussed here seems to have been a mistake, but the user took the reversion personally and kept reinstating it instead of looking at it to find what was wrong. The user is not a vandal, even though I labeled some specific edits as vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Note: this is not a report about a 3RR vio but rather a report about an editor who insisted on continuing to remove content involved in an edit war despite being warned)

Previous version reverted to: [37] (This is the version before Scjessey's first revert)

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]

5 reverts in 24 hours by Scjessey

1st revert 2009-12-27T16:15:08 2nd revert 2009-12-28T01:50:00 3rd revert 2009-12-28T05:09:34 4th revert 2009-12-28T05:30:33 5th revert 2009-12-28T05:32:17 (successive revert)

The malformed report is implemented.--Caspian blue 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Direct link to attempt to resolve dispute: [42]

Comments:
I noticed an edit war going on with a few words in the article and made a note on the talk page (I hadn't and haven't participated in the edit war). Ten minutes later Scjessey continued the edit war by reverting ("1st revert"). I noticed this, and put the warning on his page, even putting in the comment section that there was a discussion about the edit war going on on the talk page. Scjessey seemed to get really upset with the warning and put a note on my talk page [43] and a note on the edit war section [44]. He refused to admit he perpetuated the edit war (I actually don't care if he admitted it) and continued to comment about being warned about continuing it. Later the section was added back [45] and once again, despite my warning on the talk page, Scjessey reverted the edit (along with another one he just didn't like) [46].

I would like to note that I have tried to be civil about the whole "hey, you're involved in an edit war" thing but Scjessey has been uncooperative and rude (as you can see here) ever since. Scjessey has continuously pushed his POV on the article and, despite my clear warning about him being engaged in an edit war, refused to follow wikipedia policies and unbelievably, again continued to remove the exact same sections. I thought the edit before I alerted him was in good faith but the edit since is clearly not and should be appropriately handled by an admin. jhe_iv (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To put this in context, a number of editors have been adamant about various points in the article, which is rife with edit warring over many details. Scjessey, though opinionated and somewhat aggressive on the topic, is not an outlier here - it is a dispute over whether the obtaining and release of unautorized emails from a computer server represents data theft, hacking, or something unknown. Addressing the problems on the article requires some thoughtful engagement, not blocking editors randomly for reaching 2RR. This report is just not ripe. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that comment means. The facts are clear:

• I made an effort to point out to Scjessey that he was involved in an edit war
• He obviously realized that by his responses
• He continued to revert the edits ignoring the warning

I'm not in support of blocking anyone for "reaching 2RR" but I am in favor of blocking people who, despite being fairly warned, and despite there being a perfectly reasonable section of the talk page to discuss, continue to perpetuate the edit war. Edit wars are annoying and distract everyone. If the commitment to preventing edit wars is as strong as it is stated on the Noticeboard than this issue should be open and shut.jhe_iv (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this article for the past couple months or so and I've noticed that Scjessey has been edit-warring over this article and many others in the global warming topic space during this time period. I only have a couple hours a day to devote to Wikipedia, so I don't know if Scjessey has violated WP:3RR, but it's quite clear that there is a pattern of abuse that extends over a long time frame. A topic ban for Scjessey would improve the project. Let Scjessey work on other articles for a while. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of edit warring on my part, as this malformed report demonstrates. Furthermore, it is quite extraordinary that you would have the audacity to suggest a topic ban for me. My edits in article space are all discussed on talk pages, with proper justifications given as routine. In contrast, you seem to think that an edit summary is sufficient to explain disruptive, agenda-driven reversions. I will remind you that I am not the one who thinks the word "scandal" is appropriate in an article when there are no sources to support it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have me confused with another editor. For the past few weeks or so, I've hardly edited the article except to make minor changes. My contributions to the article are primarily in the discussion on the talk page. So for you to accuse me of "disruptive, agenda-driven reversions" is really quite bizarre. As I've pointed out again and again, I don't even particularly care about this topic. My involvement in this article is only to make sure WP:NPOV is followed. If you have a problem with WP:NPOV, then take it up with editors of that policy talk page. Until then, I will continue to advocate neutrality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I added diffs to implement the malformed report regarding Scjessey's edit warring. He indeed violated WP:3RR and all list edits are reverts per the edit summary.--Caspian blue 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Scjessey actually did violate the three-revert rule, since it was not the simple back-and-forth edit-warring that normally characterizes this sort of thing. Even in absence of that, I am not convinced that a block will accomplish anything other than "punishing" Scjessey, since the page has been protected. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added the diffs because of Scjessey's comment (There is no evidence of edit warring on my part) that contradicts his tendentious edit warring to the article for the past few weeks and his intimidating tone to the reporter[47]; Furthermore, if you look into the article history, his reverts are not limited to this reports.[48][49][50]. Besides, 3RR violation does not to be identical (but his reverts are all in one same vein), so I disagree with your assessment, J.delanoy.--Caspian blue 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• The 3RR report non-admin closing by the involved party

I think Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)'s closing of the 3RR report is questionable[51], given his heavy involvement in editing the article in question.155 edits (ranked 2nd most editor who's edited the article I recommend him to revert the closing and let other uninvolved admins to handle the report properly. --Caspian blue 16:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently protected for about a week. What conceivable policy could be satisfied by blocking an editor on the basis of this out-of-date report? --TS 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the final closing comment is "page protected" or "warning", that is what admins should decide to do, not your job. I thought you, Tony Sidaway is an admin, which is not.[52] Therefore, I remove the inappropriate closing by such non-admin as the involved party who shares the same POV with Scjessey. --Caspian blue 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the report here is that it wasn't timely. Jheiv made the report at 0815 but the article was protected at 1220, and by that time ScJessey had ceased edit warring while others continued. Since no edit warring could continue on a protected article, no blocks are merited by the blocking policy.

The fact that I've edited the article in the recent past is immaterial. No administrator action within blocking policy will result from the report at this late stage. The fact that I marked the result myself and am not an administrator is not a problem: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

If it should happen that edit warring is continuing elsewhere, do file another report, or contact an administrator directly. --TS 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My reply to the above comment of Tony Sidaway at his talk page .--Caspian blue 16:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be very inconsistent that one party get free without any single warring for their 3RR violation and edit warring. Moreover, the reports show that Tony Sidaway is indeed too much involved on contrary to his assertion.--Caspian blue 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:Tony Sidaway reported by User:Dimawik (Result: Page protected) on 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:Vryadly reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 31 hours ) on 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:Scjessey, User:Tony Sidaway reported by Vryadly (talk) (Result: No violation ) on 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Scjessey has pestered my talk page with accusations of trying to WP:GAME the system. If this could be handled as it would normally, regardless of the page protection (that I requested, btw), it would do a lot to "teach" Scjessey about the policies of Wikipedia which he refuses to admit he violated. jhe_iv (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If this could be handled as it would normally - the normal way of handling a report, for a page that is protected, is not to block people. Blocks are preventative not punative. Also, this revert [53] should not have been necessary - the page should be semi. It it regrettable that experienced editors are making malicious edits [54] [55] to this page that need reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While it appears I may have violated the letter of 3RR, characterizing as edit warring is far-fetched. I am disappointed that editors like User:Caspian blue (not involved in this topic, as far as I can tell) have appeared out of nowhere to add to the chorus demanding sanction. I have crossed swords with this agenda-driven editor before, so I would recommend treating CB's bad faith assertions with the respect they deserve. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I received a blatant WP:personal attack to my talk page from Scjessey[56] as he did to jheiv earlier. Unlike William M. Connolley's charming recommendation to "repent his fault", I also see the same baseless bad faith accusations by Scjessey here. The editor has known that I dislike any unfairness per his Obama ArbCom case. I could not stand your outright falsehood, so provided the diffs. History tells you that your "agenda-driven" editing get you in troubles now even here.--Caspian blue 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you must be bureaucratic about this, Caspian, I'll just close this myself, although I wasn't planning on it at first. Happy now? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious violations are obvious violations. That's why we need admins to sort out such things, not by "involved non-admins". If admins are not willing to do their job based on a same ground, why we need admins and should respect them? :-p--Caspian blue 18:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain how blocking someone (for edit warring) several hours after the page in question was protected prevents damage to the project. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain how condoning someone's 3RR violation who has been tendentiously edit-warring to the same article over and over is to reduce damage to the project. They have been reported "before" and reported here "again" for "edit warring". You seemed to leave a comment without even looking into the diffs, and just went away without closing the report. Then, the demand for proper closing should be blamed for being bureaucratic? Absurd.--Caspian blue 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the way we do things. Once the article is protected, we usually don't block, because blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. What would a block prevent? Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not demand anybody to be blocked, but provided diffs to show that one party indeed edit warred by breaking 3RR rule on contrary to his assertion. Then an involved party improperly closed the report. Please don't distort my stance.--Caspian blue 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the discussion. But then I'm confused. Either this is about whether to block Scjessey (in which case, my comment stands) or it's about who did what where and when, in which case this isn't the venue for this discussion. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I'm having trouble with scjessey over on the Talk:Barack Obama page. He just got out of his temporary topic ban there from what I heard and is now participating with several other very suspicious users there to prevent changes to the article despite considerable sourcing and at least 1 dozen articles on Wikipedia already providing the same content. He recently closed a discussion on the talk page (Neutral Point of View) when it was becoming clear the users opposed all had no substantial reasons for achieving 'consensus' that the material should not be included. When asked what the reasons were, they would just quote links to the Consensus page and state Consensus had been achieved, or say it wasn't a significant controversy despite numerous sourcing, quotes by public figures, and the fact that it was referenced on numerous other Wikipedia pages. Am not sure this is the place to mention it, but it's getting pretty serious over there now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, you are tenditiously editing on that talk page against overwhelming consensus, and Scjessey's edits there are irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with him (or any of the other "suspicious" editors), file your own report on the appropriate board. Dayewalker (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is doing anything disruptive, please file an appropriate report. Arguing about it here doesn't help. --TS 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is my first time going through these proceedings, and am still learning the process. Will look to file a similar report elsewhere. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• TS was wrong to close this 3RR as he has been very heavily involved in the article. In addition, it because of edit warring on this article that it has been locked down so many times since its creation. WVBluefield (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I give up. I tried doing things the right way, documenting ongoing edit wars, notifying users and then reporting those users who refused to listen. If you guys don't want to handle it the correct way (for whatever reason, it being easier not to, the editor being your friend, wanting to brush this under the rug, etc) than I'm unbelievably disappointed in your decision. The rules are clear on this but you refuse to act. As WVB pointed out yes, the article has been protected since the edit warring violation -- but as a direct consequence to the continuous edit warring that this editor perpetuated. If you want editors to take time to do things the right way, I have no doubt that after seeing the casual disregard for the rules displayed here you will get the complete opposite -- I can tell you without hesitation that I will no longer spend time trying to sort out an edit war on the talk page but rather simply revert. The apparent refusal to handle things appropriately is extremely disappointing and is very instructive about the editors involved. jhe_iv (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're misinformed. Check the editing history of the article and you'll see that the user your reported for edit warring stopped doing so and the edit war cntinued, and then the page was protected. Now if he had continued to edit war then there would have been some sense in blocking this user and whoever else was edit warring, but as it happens he stopped and the article was protected a few hours later. What more do you want to be done? If this editor has a history of edit warring, follow dispute resolution. This page isn't for documenting edit wars, it's for handling edit wars that are currently out of control and are largely the responsibility of one or two editors. --TS 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}} and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}}
User being reported: Chrisjnelson (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

Comments: For some reason, Chrisjnelson believes it's his call to decide which color scheme looks good and which does not. There is an ongoing discussion about those templates (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#NFL color templates) which Chrisjnelson ignores. --bender235 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned - 2/0 (cont.) 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]: Best I can tell as far as text goes (the original addition; issues with image is pretty simple to see

• 1st revert: 10:34 26 December
• 2nd revert: 3:39 27 December
• 3rd revert: 3:51
• 4th revert: 4:00
• 5th revert: 4:04
• 6th revert: 4:45
• (7th revert: 10:57)
• I don't know if this gets counted too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] for a recent one.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59] Not a diff, but section.

Comments:

More recent reverts are adding an image that multiple editors felt was not needed and inappopriate. Grsz¹¹ 05:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Sorry, try WT:WikiProject Terrorism for outside eyes on the matter. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page List of heads of state and government by net worth‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reported by The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm requestion an admin intervention because theres been a bit of an edit war going on between Wikipedia editors and the user named Enawga over the question of an addition to the list which many of the editors believe does not have a credible source for its addition and consensus on the talk page supports this. Enawga however continuously ignores the editors and consensus and continues to add the addition along with making some seemingly libelous comments as well. I leave this open for the help of the admins The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Omitting related vandalism reverts, Enawga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has inserted the same point 8 times in the past three weeks, which is as far back as I checked ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]) The page was protected for one week on the 13th over this dispute ([68]); on the 20th, Enawga resumed edit warring. However, nobody seems to have taken the time to explain to Enawga why this is unacceptable or any of the other norms of editing an encyclopedia. Please re-report if user does not wait for consensus before inserting the material again. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Akmal Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 91.103.41.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:
An IP user determined to get dubious material into an article that is a current event. JBarta (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

7 reverts and counting. Warning given [74].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment See below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

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

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

Comments:
Some of the above reverts are consecutive edits (combined to one) - notice the sentence on scientific consensus, and the repeated reinsertion of Vaclav Klaus and Delingpole. Most of these are repeats of older edits by various socks over time, but i am assuming that this editor is acting in good faith - although i do feel a bit concerned about his comments on my talk[82]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins, please note my comment on ChrisO's talk page regarding my human error in the fourth edit. Rerettably the User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, who filed this complaint, has made the choice not to WP:AGF. The user who filed this complaint has, regrettably, made the choice to engage in a tit-for-tat after I reported user for WP:VAN, which is par for this user's past behavior regarding the entry in question. From a review of logs user appears to engage in aggressive reporting of any person participating in this entry. Since entry in question is often in the news, this has created a very problematic situation where a single entry is being "defended" by a chronic problem user. I can only assume this will be the first of many complaints that will be filed against me by this user as long as I attempt to participate in contributing to this entry. I'm sorry the valuable time of the admins was consumed by this content/personality dispute. Thanks.Nothughthomas (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BS. You left your comment (on ChrisO's talk page) 2 full hours before making the 4th revert.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the third undo; the fourth revert in question was a minor edit of issues not under contention and followed a brief chat between ChrisO and me in the article's talk page - (1) deletion of a dead source, (2) addition of one new source, (3) deletion of a blog entry per ChrisO's counsel. It was hardly edit warring. Sorry for the confusion, I'm multi-tasking and not paying as close attention to the variances in edits and timestamps as I should to correctly identify them by the numerical order in which they occurred. This is the first time I've ever encountered an article with a POV "page defender" so I may not be as tip-top on my legalese as much as the user in question whom, it appears, has a great amount of experience in filing a very great many complaints against many other contributors to this entry for assorted slights user believes user suffered. ;) I'd ask readers of this to bear with me as I play catch-up and AGF! :) Thanks! :) Nothughthomas (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for persisting in edit warring after notice. Page has recently been semi-protected for ongoing sockpuppet disruption, but discussion on the talkpage of this material appears to be productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]
• 3rd revert: [86]
• 4th revert: [87]
• 5th revert: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] and also [90] (existing restriction of revert function given to user on 18 Dec 09. There are a further 10 warnings about recent edit-warring on the user's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:
3RR violation and persistent edit-warring. User: MariAna Mimi has become a seriously problematic editor, having been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations on this article alone. In addition to her blocks, the admin who blocked on both occassions also instructed her that she could no longer use the revert function on this article in particular for a period of one month (starting from 18 December 09). Her most recent block was for 55 hours and expired last week. She has now resumed edit warring by reverting adequately sourced details without discussion on the talk page (something she has been repeatedly instructed not to do), and is once again demonstrating a territorial attitude to the article which she seems to view as her own property. Her own talk page contains a mass of warnings about edit-warring (as well as WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN violations), with a large portion of them regarding this article alone. It's clear that a 55 hour block has done nothing to correct her behaviour, and so I would recommend a much lengthier term in the hopes that she will see this kind of disruptive behaviour is not acceptable. 80.47.9.124 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Since I own this issue, I'm taking it on. My AN3/EW noticeboard knowledge isn't the best, so other admins should feel free to fix this entry if I've messed up. tedder (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you tedder. I think the only other thing you needed to do was put the result in the header of the report above, but I've just done it for you. Hopefully the two week block will make the user think about her behaviour, though I doubt she'll learn from it given her history and attitude. 80.47.77.146 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have faith that a productive user can modify their behavior. tedder (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Akmal Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 91.103.41.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

Edit ward has erupted between two anonymous editors - onto 10th revert at least - concerns inclusion of use a reference to an online message board to support a (possibly POV) assertion about public opinion. Edits and comments are confrontational and disruptive. 7ofclubs (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Blocked for 31 hours by User:LessHeard vanU. Recent execution - valid edits are coming fast and furious, but may need protection anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]
• 5th revert: [103]
• 6th revert: [104]

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

Comments:
This user has been trouble for some time, assuming ownership over a variety of cartoon articles. I filed a WP:ANI report on him before the holidays, and it appears someone else filed another one over the holidays. This editor frequently "forgets" to log in, editing from multiple IP addresses - maybe not specifically to evade 3RR, but that's one side effect. This user has exhibited very little desire to work with others, labelling others contributions as vandalism, which constantly reverting to his preferred versions, after being warned by quite a few different editors. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this user just removed multiple notifications about his continued addition of unsourced information and edit warring, claiming they were "vandalism". TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• 22:29, 29 December 2009 Medieval Warm Period
• 22:26, 29 December 2009 Medieval Warm Period
• 22:26, 29 December 2009 Medieval Warm Period
• 22:22, 29 December 2009 Medieval Warm Period
• 21:07, 29 December 2009 Medieval Warm Period

Would somebody like to deal with this fellow? I've had enough of playing silly buggers with him on Medieval Warm Period. Edit warring with BLP overtones in edit summary. --TS 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is multi edit warring by multiple editors on the climate change articles, it would be unfair to punish this IP alone, the IP has not been warned and was not offered the opportunity to revert his last edit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  There can be no doubting his purpose in coming to Wikipedia, and it wasn't to make a high quality encyclopedia. --TS 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  He just has a different opinion than your opinion, you should always warn someone and then give them.. for good faith.. give them a chance to revert their last edit and then you have a strong case, this is you and him reverting to your favored position, I have requested page protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  It is hard to see this [106] as good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Page semi-protected by tedder for one week. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Barack Obama (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Barack Obama|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• 5th revert: [112]

This is an unusual case where 3 different editors conspired together to close an active topic[113] which had 18 comments from 7 different users within a period of 3 hours before the closing of it. Motivation for closing the thread appeared to be that the discussion was proceeding such that it was becoming very clear for the offending parties that there was no good reason for the 'consensus' behind excluding material.

Over a 3 hour period, they had the topic closed, and were working so closely in unison that each made reverts of the closed topic within 1-3 minutes afterwards - despite an over 2 hour waiting period before reverts of the closed topic were made.[114] It appears to have been an attempt to get me to violate the 3RR rule by taking turns closing a constructive and active topic for which there was no reason to close, all without discussing why it was being closed on the talk page, so that each would have fewer total reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments: Appears to have been very in-depth attempt to remove discussion when said discussion led to proof that consensus was being made by users without reason against proposed edits. While I am not choosing to pursue bans on the selected users, I do think they should be prevented from pursuing disciplinary action against future users as they are willing to manipulate events to cause violations by others. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have listed diffs that show you edit warring with four or five other editors. Do you seriously want somebody to block you, or do you promise to stop edit warring? --TS 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I made either 3 or 4 reverts to the topic closing. Once I realized there was a 3RR rule of some kind, I stopped. However, as shown, this was a concerted attempt by several users to get me to violate that rule that I stumbled into and fortunately stopped before it went even farther. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that around 2/3 of the discussion on the page covers the issue at hand. However, User:Frank just today closed the sections Coverage of Controversies, Consensus, NPOV, Comment About Proposal, Talk Page Censorship, Proposed Changes, and Obama's Legal Philosophy that made this clear, seemingly as a response to Dayewalker's request that the discussions be closed because the page took too long to load. Other sections involving the issue that were also recently closed included Notable Controversies and Neutral Point of View. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• You blatantly violated 3RR. Perhaps when even users who were previously disagreeing with each other agree that you're wrong, you should just admit you're wrong and move on. UnitAnode 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The rest (or at least more) of the story:

• The threads were not closed through or because of any edit warring. They were closed because they were covering no new ground, and consensus had established that the material doesn't belong in the article.
• Jzyehoshua didn't stumble into anything, and the way he realized there was a 3RR rule of some kind was through notices placed on his talk page.
• The conversations aren't gone; the page is still almost 600KB (and growing) and unless action is taken, they won't be archived for two weeks. They remain available for any interested party to read without going to the history. Nothing was removed, and unfortunately, the page is still quite slow to load because of the long, drawn-out discussions. The closing of those discussions does make it somewhat easier to navigate, however.
• Conspiracy is a pretty strong word and doesn't seem to apply here anyway. I realize that just because everybody disagrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong, but neither does it mean that everyone is conspiring to suppress your point of view. In this case, as in so many around here, what matters is not truth or right/wrong but rather WP:CONSENSUS. When an overwhelming majority of people in a discussion are disagreeing with the person who is trying to change something, that is not necessarily a conspiracy - it's an indication that consensus has been reached.
• It has been suggested that Jzyehoshua read WP:TEND more than once. I once again suggest it strongly.
• Choosing to pursue bans (or not) is irrelevant to the conversation. Nobody is being banned over a talk page discussion that reached consensus. (You may want to read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK, but none of the reported (or involved) editors is being blocked over this either.)
• This is at least the fifth venue in which Jzyehoshua is attempting to redress perceived grievances; the other four I am aware of are: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#User:Jzyehoshua, Talk:Barack Obama, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack Obama, and User_talk:Wikipedian2#Dispute_Help_Requested. In addition, there are plenty of less-than-good-faith accusations on User talk:Jzyehoshua and Talk:Barack Obama which aren't helping (and may be hindering) the situation, including accusations of a "sinister tactic" (with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in), and right here on this talk page (search for "it's getting pretty serious over there" above), among others.  Frank  |  talk  13:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first I did not initiate, the second is the talk page required for the other ones, and the 4th was merely asking someone for advice, who had put their name at the top of the list of users to ask.[117] Frank's accusation that it was anything else is addressed on the user's talk page.User_talk:Wikipedian2#Dispute_Help_Requested --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is really stupid. Recommend Jzyehoshua is given a short block per WP:PLAXICO. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear per this edit that I am an unindicted co-conspirator in Jzyehoshua's conspiracy fantasy. For the record, I've not had any conversation with any other editor of this article, other than a message posted on User talk:Jzyehoshua to explain a word the user seemed to not understand. Also, I keep my watchlist open in a separate tab on my browser and refresh/check it frequently, so it may appear to clueless paranoid delusional nutters that the vast invisible wikispiracy is reading their mind and know what they're doing perhaps even before they do it. User Jzyehoshua seems hell bent for leather to get a particular POV edited into the article at any cost, whether it be through argumentum ad hominem, tiresome rants, WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Edit warring, or the like. I support Scjessey's recommendation, although I think it may be a bit short (they're too kind).--averagejoe (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to challenge scjessey's statement that "For the record, I've not had any conversation with any other editor of this article". As an examination of his user contributions[118] will show:

• December 17th: 9:24 pm: He goes on my page, some 20 minutes before my edit gets reverted, telling me "Just saw these edits while browsing RecentChanges. Excuse my bad language, but you've got to be fucking kidding, right? I suggest you self-revert that stuff post haste!"[119]
• December 17th, 9:46 pm: He reports on the administrator's noticeboard saying eyes are needed at the Obama article because of my initial edit since he is still banned until next week.[120]
• December 17th, 9:57 pm: He goes on to GoodDay's page when I ask GoodDay why the edits were reverted, saying "Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers..."[121]
• December 18th, 12:05 am: When I remove his comments for the profanity, he goes on my page to state, "Please assume good faith, which means don't accuse fellow editors of being spammers when that's complete bullshit."[122]
• December 22nd, 9:43 pm: Scjessey goes on DD2K's talk page to suggest he should "consider filing an WP:RFC/U or something" against me.[123]
• December 23rd, 7:48 pm: Goes on Tarc's page to commend him for being around on a separate topic.[124]
• December 24th, 9:40 pm: Goes on Misortie's page to suggest they file a "WP:RFC/U" against me instead of addressing it on the talk pages.[125]
• December 25th, 2:21 am: States on Wikidemon's page that he would do a "wholesale removal" of my material but "I have recently emerged from a topic ban on the subject, I lack the confidence".[126]
• December 25th, 8:39 am: Refers to me on Lulu of the Lotus-eater's page by saying that "we are in complete agreement with respect to the new Keyes fan."[127]

As you can see, it is slightly misleading for him to say he did not communicate with other article editors. Just right on his user talk page that statement is contradicted! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears user Jzyehoshua has their head so far up their own ass that they suffer from oxygen deprivation. "I would like to challenge scjessey's statement that "For the record, I've not had any conversation with any other editor of this article". " -- that statement was made by me, editor averagejoe, NOT by editor Scjessey. Perhaps Jzyoyo should refrain from editing until they've completed the extraction of their cranium from their rectum, successfully completed Hooked on Monkey Fonics, and learned how to play well with others. Until then, the letters STFU come to mind.--averagejoe (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The only "edit-warring" I did myself was to fix Scjessey's incomplete attempt to close the thread. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment closing in progress ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The first, third, and fourth diffs labeled "revert" are just formatting fixes. I would like to remind everyone that when you revert an edit, you are responsible for the new version. If the edit being reverted is not the edit you thought it was, you may end up looking silly. Given the timestamps, I expect that edit conflicts come into play in this particular case, though. A better summary of this particular case is:

• Dayewalker calls for the thread to be closed 2009-12-28T08:26:51 - not the first call, just the last
• Scjessey closes discussion 2009-12-28T08:38:36
• Jzyehoshua opens discussion 2009-12-28T11:09:41
• Unitanode closes discussion 2009-12-28T11:11:33
• Jzyehoshua opens discussion 2009-12-28T11:28:53
• Scjessey (Undid revision 334615357 by Jzyehoshua (talk) - closing perWP:TEND) 2009-12-28T11:31:12
• Jzyehoshua begins discussion of thread closing 2009-12-28T12:02:10

• Warned As Jzyehoshua started a discussion (which has itself grown a bit long), 3RR was not broken by anyone, and other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place, I think a warning to Jzyehoshua to: edit more collaboratively, recognize when a discussion has run its course, respect consensus, and pursue dispute resolution through appropriate venues are all that can be done here. I explicitly make no comment on the Obama AE. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. I don't think the message quite sunk in, as Jzyehoshua is at it again without even the courtesy of an edit summary to explain; not once, but twice, sandwiching 1 attempted re-close of my own. I will not attempt to do so again, so can we get another administrative opinion on this user's continuation? Tarc (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Wildcat formation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.246.229.135 (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]
• 5th revert: [133]
• 6th revert: [134]
• 7th revert: [135]

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

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

Comments:

• Stale NJA (t/c) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]
• 5th revert: [143]
• 6th revert: [144]
• 7th revert: [145]
• 8th revert: [146]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fifth_generation)#Muscle car

Comments:

This isn't a 3RR violation because all of the edits have happened outside of 24h. This is an edit war violation, though. The first 2 edits were done by an anonymous IP before the user signed up with Wikipedia, but the user himself has already taken credit for that IP several times. All of the others are done with their new username. Within the warring, references were added to back up the claims that were being removed which is why you see more text being removed in the later reverts. The user has already been blocked once for a username violation, but has been unblocked because a rename has been requested. Several editors including myself have attempted to avoid the edit warring with our current discussion. Throughout that conversation, most of the reverts above have occurred. I have attempted to educate the user several times by properly welcoming them, pointing them to a list of all policies and guidelines, and pointing them specifically to the vandalism policy. Please advise. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Roguegeek is the minority opinion in the discussion, his sources have been directly contradicted, and supporting evidence of our position has been overwhelmingly presented, including from the source responsible for the subject of the article. Roguegeek has not acted in good faith, has made several veiled threats, including claiming vandalism for my editing an article with published sources as reference. My screen name was reported and renamed, even though said name was a quote from a network broadcast television program (and therefore within FCC decency guidelines), so no more dispute is valid there nor relevant to this complaint. My edits to the article have been thoroughly documented with established literary references and all evidence in support presented. I have asked repeatedly for him to state his position why my edits are incorrect and he has refused to do so. Roguegeek seems to simply not like the outcome and is seeking to fight me with threats and not discuss any further.

"I'm still waiting for an explanation why the Mustang, Firebird, Challenger, and other pony cars don't get muscle car as well if you are so intent on leaving it on the Camaro page. Why does ONLY the Camaro deserve that label? And how many times do I have to ask? You also keep ignoring that both CZ and I have cited much more reliable sources, such as books from established sources and GM corporate, not magazine or newspaper review opinion articles. If GM considers it a pony car, and there is overwhelming evidence from numerous books that it is a pony car (and there clearly is), then the discussion is over. It's a pony car. If you want to argue over what the current miss-use of the word muscle car is, then take it to urban dictionary or the muscle car page on wikipedia. But for this article, give it up. The discussion was is the Camaro a pony car or a muscle car. GM, published books, and the Muscle Car Club call it a pony car. Newspaper reviews can call it a muscle car all they like, but citing their opinion doesn't make them correct. I can show you newspaper articles calling the AR-15 a machine gun all day long as well, but that doesn't make it true.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   You're going to have to keep waiting then. I'm editing this article. Not those. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

       Then you obviously aren't interested in discussion and are only here for vandalism. CZ and I have made our case, you haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

           Another policy you should read is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Just an FYI for ya. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

               I've asked repeatedly for you to make your argument as to why only the Camaro article gets special consideration against other articles from its same class that have been cited by both sides in the discussion. You have both failed and refused to do so. You have been shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position, and still fail to yield. Trying to intimidate me with Wiki policies or changing the subject of the argument does not help you to personally "win" it or help the group achieve consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

                   Bit, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism too and stop reverting sourced information. Also, keep in mind consensus isn't always going to be reached on your schedule. There are many many editors on this article that need to chime in. The reason you aren't hearing from me is because I'm looking for other editor's feedback at this point. I know where you stand already. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Excuse me, but by what right did you remove my sources, given that they are from published books more reliable than your opinion articles? You've just vandalised my work.

   Camaro: A Legend Reborn by Larry Edsell, an officially licensed GM book, also by Motorbooks, ISBN-13: 9780760328194, states the original and 2009 Camaro as a pony car, from quotes from its own GM designers. Or do you refute this as well?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Directly from Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

       Umm, who is 75.1.183.243? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)"

Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple things to keep in mind. This project page is for reporting edit warring and not debates on subjects. I'm reporting exactly that. Mine and the other editor's edits could be considered part of this as well if it weren't for the fact that I was able to make additions and cite more references for the things the user was removing, countering the reverts. The user has become so disruptive at this point that the discussions are being held in other discussion pages now without the user. This is made even more clear by the above comments. They are doing exactly what you aren't suppose to do here and what is clearly told at the top of the page not to do here. Do not continue a dispute on this page. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted examples from the discussion, per the instructions on this page, of where you, Roguegeek have been uncooperative, unwilling to discuss, and threatening. As for your reverts, I had already directly contradicted them from your same sources, so for you to revert my edits at that point was edit warring on your part. Don't try to hide behind policies you yourself aren't following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NJA (t/c) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

This user is repeatedly reverting the fourth paragraph in the History Section of the Philippines article which gained consensus after a fruitful discussion here [148]. Changes are welcome but I requested that they are discussed in the Talk Page first [149]. This request has not been respected. Reliable sources to support the consensus version were ignored [150]. This user switched to an ideological debate about the Spanish influence in the Philippines. This appears to reflect a strong bias which is against the Wikipedia policy of WP: NPOV. Ignoring reliable information also goes against WP:VERIFY. See here the two versions of the disputed paragraph [151]. Please advise on how to proceed. JCRB (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (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. Though there is clearly a content dispute, with some edit warring that may lead to blocks if it were to persist. NJA (t/c) 17:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Barack Obama (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Barack Obama|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 15:12, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Neutral Point of View */")
2. 15:17, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Neutral Point of View */")
3. 15:23, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "Not this time. There will be an accounting for the closing of an active, constructive thread - whatever the outcome.")
4. 15:38, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "not far enough")
5. 15:43, 30 December 2009 fifth revert made during compilation of this report (edit summary: "minority opinion decided by sources - not users")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (this is just the most recent attempt) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Note: user was blocked by User:2over0 for 24 hours [152]. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: List_of_adventure_films_of_the_1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 201.13.196.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [153]
• 2nd revert: [154]
• 3rd revert: [155]
• 4th revert: [156]
• More follow in series

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:201.13.196.48 (First edit to talk - can't diff)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157][158]

Comments:
Note that I'm just reporting this as an uninvolved third party, but the evidence is pretty clear. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User continues to revert despite warnings and notification of this discussion. Q ^{T C} 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: List of adventure films of the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: List of action films of the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 201.13.196.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]. My comments have been removed by the user as well three times: here and here.

Comments:
This anonymous user has been vandalizing the page and refuses to discuss items on the talk page. Changes include adding unverified additions and going against WP:CIVIL and WP:RS while ignoring suggestions to discuss it on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked per above section Q ^{T C} 21:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Preston City Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 12:17, 29 December 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "rv this should be merged"
2. 21:13, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334769779 by Polaron; please stop. (TW)")
3. 21:20, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334788940 by Polaron; please develop the other article. (TW)")
4. 21:27, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334790056 by Polaron; please stop -- you're the one who started this. (TW)")

There have been 4 reverts by Polaron to return the page to being a redirect, several of them right while i was developing the article, causing edit conflicts.

—doncram (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron is well aware of 3RR policies. I have brought him here at least once before. He is an experienced edit warrior, and has taught me a lot about the practices.

Advance discussion about this specific article, and ongoing discussion, at Talk:Preston City, Connecticut. This relates to long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck and many other locations, involving invited mediation by User:Acroterion. My brief version: Polaron has fought, inexplicably, to delete/prevent there being articles on NRHP-listed historic districts in Connecticut. Polaron prefers to redirect these wikipedia-notable topics to sometimes/often crummy articles on sometimes notable, sometimes non-notable "villages". This has been talked out extensively, patiently.

Polaron explicitly agreed to cease edit warring in cases like this one, in agreement reached some time ago at Talk:Poquetanuck, an agreement which he has otherwise followed. I don't know what is triggering this edit warring now. I request he be given a 24 hour block and/or otherwise told forcefully to back off. doncram (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

I resent the accusations of bad faith editing. I was trying to avoid having two duplicate articles about the essentially the same topic. I can live with redirecting the other article to Doncram's preferred article title. To avoid content forks, there should be only one article. I am not deleting any content at all. The locality and historic district are basically the same and I don't see why there should be two articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, the way to communicate is to use Talk pages and talk to other editors, not to battle by edit-warring. You have done altogether too much of this all along. Cumulatively, it is incredible to me that you are still resorting to edit-warring / deleting to communicate your views. Despite your finding many many times over that your position was uninformed/incorrect. I just revisited the Waldo House NRHP in the same area, about which you had battled about whether it was in 2 counties or not, with no source, counter to sources. There are probably dozens of other incidents here where you battled, where you would now agree. That is the most basic thing, that you should ask a question, make a comment, whatever, not edit war. I do feel that Polaron should be blocked. That would help now, to prevent Polaron edit warring on the related Preston City, Connecticut article, where he has now redirected it to the NRHP HD article. That is not appropriate either; the NRHP HD article is not set up to absorb what is appropriate for a settlement article (including categories, including history not relevant to the district, including modern stuff). I believe that Polaron, right now, is implying that he will battle to prevent the separate article on that. This is cumulatively intolerable behavior, in my view. doncram (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Waldo House, you will see that you have now basically restored my version after you've seen the source so your edit warring then was the one that was uninformed/incorrect. We can put settlement categories in the redirect as is done in some instances. The main thing about Preston City is that there is essentially no modern history. It stopped developing, which is why it is a historic district. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like obfuscating or conveniently forgetting. The edit warring on Waldo House was in many edits vs. Nyttend and me, on June 19, starting with this deletion by Polaron of the Waldo hs entry in the county list-article. It was discussed out here: Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut/Archive 1#Waldo House. I can't believe you don't remember that, and are trying to make up something about my recent editing of the individual article.

I imagine the current residents of Preston City would find your views rather arrogant and insulting, too. It's a matter for an AFD; it is contentious to delete the settlement article now; it is not right to try to get your way by edit warring. doncram (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend wanted it simpler without explaining how it extended into New London. Look at my most recent version and compare it with your version. It's basically the same! Also, you keep on saying deleted. Nothing has been deleted. A redirect is not removal of content as all the content is either in the town or historic district article. --Polaron | Talk 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still talking about the Waldo House, and confusing edits in October and recently at the individual Edward Waldo House article, where there was no edit warring. The edit warring you engaged in during June on this was at the New London County list-article. See the diff i gave above.

Your edits redirecting the Preston City article to the new HD article did delete information, specifically losing some quote about a school that i added, and losing a reference and mention of the Congregational Church (which is outside the HD) that had previously been there, put in by Orlady. Also doing that destroys structure, a place for other editors to add stuff about schools, churches, events, etc. in Preston City outside of the HD area. I give links and comment more at Talk:Preston City, Connecticut. Your adding village/settlement/community categories to the redirect, in lieu of having the article, seem to me to be incorrect, contrary to Wikipedia policy too, which I believe is that redirects do not get categories, tho I am not positive about that. doncram (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed talking about the list article. Compare your text to mine [[165]]. Also no content was deleted. It's in the town article. Adding categories to redirects is used often in cases where people want the category to be complete even if the articles do not perfectly match category entries 1:1. You do not seem to be reading what I'm writing carefully. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And this sort of garbage is the reason I'm not contributing much on NRHP properties at all these days. The whole WP:NRHP project is becoming a fiasco as a result of this continued argument. (Not that my contributions were ever very useful in the first place, of course.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't think that is fair, if you're directing a complaint towards me. I was innocently enough using newly available-online NRHP documents to do some decent work, i thought.

By the way, Polaron is indeed now edit warring on the Preston City, Connecticut community article, redirecting it again rather than discussing. It's clearly notable. doncram (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's notable because it is a historic district. Again, there should be only one article about Preston City. I have deferred to Doncram's version and redirected the locality but now Doncram is edit warring over this as well. --Polaron | Talk 23:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have had problems with User:Polaron, he is always edit warring with me. He always wants it his way, at least with me. I have reported him here before and he was just warned. Also, Polaron has already been blocked for edit warring in the past. I will find the link and post it here, it may be of some help. House1090 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Link: [166] House1090 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator please restore my last version of the Preston City Historic District article, and a version of the Preston City, Connecticut article, and page-protect them? This is nonsense, P is rejecting what he himself agreed to, that seemed to settle a huge long debate, and is unilaterally deleting, now the Preston City article. It is not how Wikipedia works; you do not make controversial page moves, redirects, mergers without some discussion and consensus. He is at 6RR reverts to redirect now, if you count the two to the Preston City article, which forces a merger. He agreed to stop the edit warring on merger-split issues like this, under exactly these conditions. I don't have time to keep spelling this out to him. Please just block him and/or page-protect. doncram (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators cannot intervene to restore an editor's preferred version. You both are at 4RR. I strongly suggest that you accept the fact that a Preston City Historic District article exists, as you wished. Acroterion _(talk) 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron should have allowed Doncram the opportunity to develop the content: a merge proposal afterwards would be more appropriate and courteous than reverting to a redirect. There are serious concerns on my part about Doncram's stated interest in developing articles specifically addressing National Register, rather than addressing their place in locales and in the encyclopedia as a whole. This diff [167] states his intention, which is at the root of a long-running dispute between Doncram and Polaron over separate articles on historic districts versus inclusion in locales. See User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list for the whole sad list. There are valid arguments in favor of both sides, and I feel the issue must be afddressed on a case-by-case basis. Acroterion _(talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't over-interpret that diff of my intention. In general, i am historically more interested in developing NRHP articles, and Polaron is historically more interested in developing town/village articles. I am willing to develop NRHP information within other articles, but here i judged, consistent with the facts available (including that facts about the village are fuzzy) that a separate NRHP article was the way to go. And, I am not intimately familiar with 3RR dispute practices, but the nature of 6 edits by P are all to revert to redirect, eliminating content/structure that i was developing. Whatever you are counting as 4 reverts by me, were mostly my proceeding with the developing i was doing. He was interrupting me at work.

Acroterion, you are the invited mediator in this long-running dispute. Polaron and I both agreed to abide by your considered decisions, and P and I both, at your direction, came to an agreement to settle most cases. I understand you are not entirely on board with what P and I agreed to at Talk:Poquetanuck, that you would have carved up the cases differently perhaps, but it is the only workable agreement ever put out. Here, all you need to do IMO is look at what P is doing (IMO, it is forcing a merger, contrary to letter and spirit of the big agreement) and tell him to stop. He should abide by that, as he said he would abide by your judgement, though I don't know if this now is starting to mean that he is not willing to abide by agreements he makes. Honestly i don't get it, P is not responding to my pointing out that this is what he agreed to, not even making any defense that it is an abrogation of his agreement. doncram (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Touché on the over-interpretation part (note: I've recently told Doncram he was doing that with some of my comments). You'd like purely NRHP articles, Polaron favors integration. I left a note on his talk page concerning my view of his actions. I can't and won't take administrative action on this, as I'm involved in mediating this mess. Acroterion _(talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think User:Polaron should be block as he/she has a history of edit warring. He has already been bock for this in the past, June I believe. He could maybe take some time off and think about what he/she has done. This may be what he/she needs to learn a lesson and stop him from edit warring in the future. I was blocked in the past for having sock puppets, and I learned my lesson. As for Doncram, I don't know his history, I don't know if he has been involved in past edit wars. If neither user is blocked then may I suggest the page be blocked from being edit by users until both users can come to a compromise. House1090 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I do know Doncram and he has contributed alot to articles I care about, he is a great editor with much more to contribute, I have successfully worked well with him in the past. Like many great editors he is forceful in what he believes is best for Wikipedia; this to some is a failing or a flaw, to me and many others this dedication to what is best for Wikipedia is an asset. He has pulled be out of the fire many times when my mouth would have gotten me kicked off of Wikipedia. I know many dont think good editing and good intentions outweigh some bad behaviors, but I do. For Polaron, the name is very familar, I believe I have had good dealings with him, I think a good look at his history and seeing if his contributions will be missed if he is blocked is important. If his intentions in this edit war were in good faith that he was fighting for what is right I do believe that should weigh into a decision, instead of just saying "he editwars alot"; the circumstances of the various edit wars should matter. Editwars are not all created equal. Some are less serious than others, its the reasons behind the edit wars that matter. I hope an admin does real delving into this matter instead of basing any decisions on what people (including myself) happen to say about either party. I think a disservice is done to Wikipedia anytime an editor who contributes alot of good work is blocked for even 24 hours. Sometimes blocks make things worse and instill distrust and perpetuates drama. If this is because of a content dispute then AN/I is not the place for it.Camelbinky (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left notes for both Polaron and Doncram, asking them to explain why both should not be blocked for 24 hours, since they both seem to have gone past 3RR. There is a long-running dispute about keeping separate articles for towns and their historic districts, and there have been previous discussions (some of which I have read). If I were the admin closing this case, I would accept a promise not to edit war on any future cases involving separate articles for historic districts. Admins should treat this as an opportunity to solve a long-running issue. If admins make a vigorous response, or if the parties come to a sincere agreement, it could prevent the thing from drifting endlessly or going up to Arbcom. If neither party makes a useful gesture a block is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To respond to EdJohnston, I don't think I have gone past 3RR. I was developing an article, using newly online-available source, in accordance with all agreements and general Wikipedia policies, and even gave a courtesy announcement that I would be meeting all terms of all agreements. P would have been aware already that I was developing various other New London NRHP articles to include HABS pics so that they would be illustrated, and this is one where HABS pics are available (and in fact one such pic has been added). In all or most of the edits I made, I was seriously developing the article, not reverting to one fixed previous version. You can tell me that R's for 3RR counting purposes are counted differently than I suppose, or that as a general matter you can't distinguish between tearing-down-type edits vs. constructive-building-type edits, but the honest facts are that I was editing/building, and finding out to my surprise that P was tearing down/destroying. It does surprise me, it is inconsistent with how I viewed P as more positively wanting development of CT articles.

I thot the parties had come to a sincere agreement, in fact i am sure of it. There has been tremendous time put in, by me, Acroterion, Orlady, others, into talking everything out, and P had made an agreement with me that we were both pretty meticulously honoring, despite some badgering and testing of situations by Orlady. A key thing about the agreement was that it put onus on, and gave permission to, anyone who actually wanted to constructively develop articles, to do so if they would collect and use sources such as the NRHP docs. I truly don't understand what P is doing, in just badgering me while I was developing an article, doing exactly what was wanted. So what you have here is a sincere agreement, reached under support of mutually agreed upon mediator, being violated by one party. P has not even responded about that. What now? What would be the consequences now, of a more formally ArbCom decision being violated by one party. Honestly i don't know exactly, but I think it should be that any administrator can impose suitable consequences on the one party violating. doncram (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky (and others): I don't buy the argument that meatball:VestedContributors should be allowed to break the rules just because they're "great editors" or because their contributions would be missed. WP:3RR is a rule and a policy, not just a suggestion. I lost adminship because I violated WP:NPA, which is a rule and a policy. I also don't buy the argument that the encyclopedia will suffer if longtime contributors are blocked, sanctioned, or otherwise held accountable for screwups. The encyclopedia isn't hurt by the absence of articles like Hinckley Fire Relief House, Kettle River Bridge, Minnesota Point Lighthouse, or Grey Cloud Lime Kiln. However, it did get hurt -- irreparably -- because I yelled at some people who were having an argument about professional wrestling. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way did it get hurt -- irreparably? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think E is being humorous, which I appreciate. I looked at that meatball:VestedContributor link and don't think any of that has been going on. I honestly value how, in wikipedia, everyone starts equally, and even tho it takes a lot of time, every issue can be talked out ad nauseum for each new person coming in who doesn't agree. Here in this dispute with P, though, it is getting really old, and it is way past being done, especially with having reached an agreement. The agreement specified terms for when the placeholder articles (in absence of real knowledge of relationship btwn a NRHP HD and a supposedly notable "village" or neighborhood) should be a merged article vs. separate ones, and when extra work would allow someone to effect a better solution like an appropriate split, as here. doncram (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way in which I am being humorous. As far as being irreparably hurt, ask some of the people in the professional wrestling WikiProject. Talking things out ad nauseam is not working in this case, because this argument has been going on for many months in several venues (WP:3RR, WT:NRHP, WP:AN/I, and User talk:Acroterion). Nothing is being accomplished here because the parties keep skirmishing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason this has dragged is because I haven't had sufficient time (of my own, not calendar time) sort the issues out, as I had been asked to do by Doncram. Real Life keeps intruding with more pressing demands. On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of articles in dispute, and I'm not a one-man ArbCom. In any case, I doubt that any agreement brokered by me alone would stand. I do see some signs of hope, the current dispute apart. All parties need to read the principles I've enumerated at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. Nobody has commented there to any significant degree, even though everybody's piled on with articles for contention at the top of the page. To get more participation from parties other than those involved, an RfC may be in order on the subject. I beleive that Doncram and Polaron view the issues as something to be codified between the two of them in between squabbles, then ratified and enforced by me. That won't work. Acroterion _(talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I will just let Doncram have his way regarding article structure as he is more hard-headed than I am. From this point, I will just ensure that the content in the disputed articles is accurate and is not redundant. If the content is clarified and there are backlinks, readers can still get a good grasp of the topic even if they have to look at two or three different articles for a single topic. --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Essentially, there's a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution or request page protection. If you keep it up however, one of you (or both) are likely to be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. NJA (t/c) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To Elkman- All policies are our "best known way of doing things" and ARE in fact suggestions; Wikipedia does not have rules or laws. 3RR is not a "hard fast rule" that if you break it you are punished; NONE of our "rules" act like that. All that matters is consensus of the Community; if we dont want someone blocked then they arent blocked, we dont blindly apply the letter of the "law". I respect your opinion that good contributions dont outweigh things like 3RR or whatever, but that is your opinion and mine (and some others) is different. Neither opinion is the true Wikipedia way. The only true Wikipedia way is that consensus of the Community trumps everything (yes, even ArbCom because we can always decide to disband ArbCom and they cant overrule that; pretty much only Jimbo and the Foundation are higher than consensus); policies do not dictate what we MUST do or not do; hence IAR.Camelbinky (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

About the suggestion for DR, there has been extensive informal mediation, involving an invited mediator who was a 3rd party, going on. That is one form of DR. But, this seems to be resolved now, per discussions at User_talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron_3RR_case, User talk:Doncram, and User talk:Polaron. doncram (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing - I changed the header to say Result: Negotiation per the subsequent history, and will notify the closing admin, NJA to see if he objects. Polaron accepted a voluntary restriction for six months, and Doncram seems to have accepted some kind of deal that he previously worked out with Acroterion, per User talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron 3RR case. At least Polaron's restriction should be enforceable by admins. Doncram's, probably not. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amandagates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 02:57, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
2. 03:08, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
3. 03:13, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
4. 03:16, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
5. 16:10, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
6. 16:10, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Watch Sherlock Holmes Online */")
7. 17:30, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
8. 17:36, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
9. 17:44, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
10. 17:49, 30 December 2009
11. 19:18, 30 December 2009

—BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked for another violation. NJA (t/c) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Wildcat formation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.246.229.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

• 1st revert: [169]
• 2nd revert: [170]
• 3rd revert: [171]
• 4th revert: [172]
• 5th revert: [173]
• 6th revert: [174]
• 7th revert: [175]
• 8th revert: [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:

Relisting. After the case was listed the first time, the edit warrior ceased his reverts. About 90 minutes after the request was closed as stale, he resumed activity. I'm hoping someone can either block the account or possibly protect the page.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation as page semi'ed anyhow, plus no clear 3RR vios. You need to start discussing issues directly on people's talk pages rather than overusing revert. NJA (t/c) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.176.222.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Comments:

This is an IP vandal misusing the free editing available on Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

• No violation Wrong board. This is a vandal, not a classic edit warrior. Edits should be reverted and warnings placed on their talk page, and then reported to WP:AIV once sufficient warnings given. I've went ahead and gave them a L3 warning for vandalism. NJA (t/c) 08:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Darryl98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]
• 5th revert: [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Comments:

Murder of Meredith Kercher is an article with a very difficult history. User:Darryl98 is an account only active today and only on this article.

I have removed material from the article on WP:BLP grounds, and User:Darryl98 has repetedly re-inserted this marterial either in whole or in part (see diffs above). I have explained WP:BLP and encouraged User:Darryl98 to look at it. I believe I have given a full explanation on the talk page. I have also warned about repeated re-insetion of material. User:Darryl98 has subsequently reduced the quantity of text he is inserting, but since BLP issues have been raised in relation to the material, re-inserting any of it without consensus could constiute edit-warring, which I have drawn to User:Darryl98's attention.

I'll be satisfied if Darryl agrees to stop inserting material about which I have raised BLP issues, in which case, according to admin discretion, a block may not be reuqired.

Please note that my own reverts should be protected per WP:BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

__________________

I wish to report FormerIP for edit warring or violation of 3RR. He has repeatedly deleted posts concerning a prosecutor named Mignini over a period of weeks. He will not allow any unflattering information to be included about him in the article. FormerIP deletes the material without first discussing it. Today he deleted the whole section about Mignini without first discussing it, even though some of the sentences clearly did not violate BLP. He is engaging in censorship, while hiding behind BLP. Here is the last modified version of the section he deleted:

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini Giuliano Mignini is the Pubblico Ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia.^[1] Mignini led the interrogations and the prosecutions of Knox and Sollecito. Mignini's prosecution of the case was controversial in part due to his theories that the Kercher murder involved Halloween ritual, satanism or sex orgy as possible motives for the crime. ^{[2][3] [4][5]} Concern has also been raised over his handling of issues pertaining to freedom of speech. ^[6] For example, Mignini brought criminal charges against American author Joe Cottonwood because Cottonwood wrote an e-mail critical of Mignini's handling of the Knox case, which wound up in an Italian newspaper. ^[7] That case has not yet been resolved.

I do not believe that the section violated BLP policy. Therefore, FormerIP's many reverts and deletions of the materials about Mignini should not be protected by BLP policy. He should be discussing the material first on the talk page, attempting consensus, and then proceeding in a rational manner to make the best decision along with other editors before deleting the whole section. Simply deleting a whole section prior to discussion is not a collegial and productive way to proceed. Some of the sentences may have to be removed, but some may be usable. A wholesale deletion of the section is not reasonable. Thank you for considering both sides of the issue. Darryl98 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Result -- 24h to FormerIP, indef to Darryl98 as a sock, 1 month to PilgrimRose for violation of WP:SOCK. The BLP exception to 3RR is narrowly drawn and is not enough to justify the extended revert campaign by FormerIP. The issues that he is talking about here are in the realm of WP:Undue weight, which is a matter for the consensus of editors, and not something that allows individuals to revert with impunity. Admins must enforce the BLP rules according to the community definition; people can't make up their own more strict interpretation and expect others to excuse their reverts. I note that FormerIP has not opened a case at WP:BLP/N and he should consider that. Darryl98 is confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of PilgrimRose in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 so he is blocked indef. PilgrimRose has previously edited the article, and is trying to evade scrutiny for edit-warring, so is blocked for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [189]

• 1st revert: [190]
• 2nd revert: [191]
• 3rd revert: [192]
• 4th revert: [193]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments: I was not the first to interact with this user regarding his violation of WP:3RR. User:Charles Matthews first discussed why the user's revert was inappropriate on his talk page; the diff of which I have provided above. After incessant reverting, User:Charles Matthews notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to deal with the user's revert. I subsequently did so, but only to be reverted again four minutes later (see 4th revert given above). User:Pohta ce-am pohtit then warned the user; the diff of which I have provided above. Thus, although I am filing this report, another user discussed the matter with him, and yet another user warned him. The matter has already been noted in this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Pierre_Deligne; the user has reverted five times and it appears difficult to discuss the matter with him. His only response to our comments was this. His reverts do not conform to WP:V and WP:BLP. --PST 12:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ComtedeMonteCristo is continuing to edit war and to insert WP:OR and WP:POV material at the Pierre Deligne page. A quick admin action is needed in view of continuing disruption. Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Daffy - The Commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

• 1st revert: [197]
• 2nd revert: [198]
• 3rd revert: [199]
• 4th revert: [200]
• 5th revert: [201]
• 6th revert: [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Comments:
StevenMario continues to insert unsourced information into articles, continuing a pattern of ownership over articles he edits. Blocked for 3RR yesterday on another article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fenn is equally obsessed. Today he deleted stuff from a cartoon article claiming it was unsourced, and the source was given within the portion he deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Immediately returned to edit warring and original research following expiration of previous block. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Preston City Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 12:17, 29 December 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "rv this should be merged"
2. 21:13, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334769779 by Polaron; please stop. (TW)")
3. 21:20, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334788940 by Polaron; please develop the other article. (TW)")
4. 21:27, 29 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 334790056 by Polaron; please stop -- you're the one who started this. (TW)")

There have been 4 reverts by Polaron to return the page to being a redirect, several of them right while i was developing the article, causing edit conflicts.

—doncram (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron is well aware of 3RR policies. I have brought him here at least once before. He is an experienced edit warrior, and has taught me a lot about the practices.

Advance discussion about this specific article, and ongoing discussion, at Talk:Preston City, Connecticut. This relates to long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck and many other locations, involving invited mediation by User:Acroterion. My brief version: Polaron has fought, inexplicably, to delete/prevent there being articles on NRHP-listed historic districts in Connecticut. Polaron prefers to redirect these wikipedia-notable topics to sometimes/often crummy articles on sometimes notable, sometimes non-notable "villages". This has been talked out extensively, patiently.

Polaron explicitly agreed to cease edit warring in cases like this one, in agreement reached some time ago at Talk:Poquetanuck, an agreement which he has otherwise followed. I don't know what is triggering this edit warring now. I request he be given a 24 hour block and/or otherwise told forcefully to back off. doncram (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

I resent the accusations of bad faith editing. I was trying to avoid having two duplicate articles about the essentially the same topic. I can live with redirecting the other article to Doncram's preferred article title. To avoid content forks, there should be only one article. I am not deleting any content at all. The locality and historic district are basically the same and I don't see why there should be two articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron, the way to communicate is to use Talk pages and talk to other editors, not to battle by edit-warring. You have done altogether too much of this all along. Cumulatively, it is incredible to me that you are still resorting to edit-warring / deleting to communicate your views. Despite your finding many many times over that your position was uninformed/incorrect. I just revisited the Waldo House NRHP in the same area, about which you had battled about whether it was in 2 counties or not, with no source, counter to sources. There are probably dozens of other incidents here where you battled, where you would now agree. That is the most basic thing, that you should ask a question, make a comment, whatever, not edit war. I do feel that Polaron should be blocked. That would help now, to prevent Polaron edit warring on the related Preston City, Connecticut article, where he has now redirected it to the NRHP HD article. That is not appropriate either; the NRHP HD article is not set up to absorb what is appropriate for a settlement article (including categories, including history not relevant to the district, including modern stuff). I believe that Polaron, right now, is implying that he will battle to prevent the separate article on that. This is cumulatively intolerable behavior, in my view. doncram (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Waldo House, you will see that you have now basically restored my version after you've seen the source so your edit warring then was the one that was uninformed/incorrect. We can put settlement categories in the redirect as is done in some instances. The main thing about Preston City is that there is essentially no modern history. It stopped developing, which is why it is a historic district. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like obfuscating or conveniently forgetting. The edit warring on Waldo House was in many edits vs. Nyttend and me, on June 19, starting with this deletion by Polaron of the Waldo hs entry in the county list-article. It was discussed out here: Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut/Archive 1#Waldo House. I can't believe you don't remember that, and are trying to make up something about my recent editing of the individual article.

I imagine the current residents of Preston City would find your views rather arrogant and insulting, too. It's a matter for an AFD; it is contentious to delete the settlement article now; it is not right to try to get your way by edit warring. doncram (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend wanted it simpler without explaining how it extended into New London. Look at my most recent version and compare it with your version. It's basically the same! Also, you keep on saying deleted. Nothing has been deleted. A redirect is not removal of content as all the content is either in the town or historic district article. --Polaron | Talk 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still talking about the Waldo House, and confusing edits in October and recently at the individual Edward Waldo House article, where there was no edit warring. The edit warring you engaged in during June on this was at the New London County list-article. See the diff i gave above.

Your edits redirecting the Preston City article to the new HD article did delete information, specifically losing some quote about a school that i added, and losing a reference and mention of the Congregational Church (which is outside the HD) that had previously been there, put in by Orlady. Also doing that destroys structure, a place for other editors to add stuff about schools, churches, events, etc. in Preston City outside of the HD area. I give links and comment more at Talk:Preston City, Connecticut. Your adding village/settlement/community categories to the redirect, in lieu of having the article, seem to me to be incorrect, contrary to Wikipedia policy too, which I believe is that redirects do not get categories, tho I am not positive about that. doncram (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed talking about the list article. Compare your text to mine [[204]]. Also no content was deleted. It's in the town article. Adding categories to redirects is used often in cases where people want the category to be complete even if the articles do not perfectly match category entries 1:1. You do not seem to be reading what I'm writing carefully. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And this sort of garbage is the reason I'm not contributing much on NRHP properties at all these days. The whole WP:NRHP project is becoming a fiasco as a result of this continued argument. (Not that my contributions were ever very useful in the first place, of course.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't think that is fair, if you're directing a complaint towards me. I was innocently enough using newly available-online NRHP documents to do some decent work, i thought.

By the way, Polaron is indeed now edit warring on the Preston City, Connecticut community article, redirecting it again rather than discussing. It's clearly notable. doncram (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's notable because it is a historic district. Again, there should be only one article about Preston City. I have deferred to Doncram's version and redirected the locality but now Doncram is edit warring over this as well. --Polaron | Talk 23:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have had problems with User:Polaron, he is always edit warring with me. He always wants it his way, at least with me. I have reported him here before and he was just warned. Also, Polaron has already been blocked for edit warring in the past. I will find the link and post it here, it may be of some help. House1090 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Link: [205] House1090 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator please restore my last version of the Preston City Historic District article, and a version of the Preston City, Connecticut article, and page-protect them? This is nonsense, P is rejecting what he himself agreed to, that seemed to settle a huge long debate, and is unilaterally deleting, now the Preston City article. It is not how Wikipedia works; you do not make controversial page moves, redirects, mergers without some discussion and consensus. He is at 6RR reverts to redirect now, if you count the two to the Preston City article, which forces a merger. He agreed to stop the edit warring on merger-split issues like this, under exactly these conditions. I don't have time to keep spelling this out to him. Please just block him and/or page-protect. doncram (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators cannot intervene to restore an editor's preferred version. You both are at 4RR. I strongly suggest that you accept the fact that a Preston City Historic District article exists, as you wished. Acroterion _(talk) 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Polaron should have allowed Doncram the opportunity to develop the content: a merge proposal afterwards would be more appropriate and courteous than reverting to a redirect. There are serious concerns on my part about Doncram's stated interest in developing articles specifically addressing National Register, rather than addressing their place in locales and in the encyclopedia as a whole. This diff [206] states his intention, which is at the root of a long-running dispute between Doncram and Polaron over separate articles on historic districts versus inclusion in locales. See User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list for the whole sad list. There are valid arguments in favor of both sides, and I feel the issue must be afddressed on a case-by-case basis. Acroterion _(talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't over-interpret that diff of my intention. In general, i am historically more interested in developing NRHP articles, and Polaron is historically more interested in developing town/village articles. I am willing to develop NRHP information within other articles, but here i judged, consistent with the facts available (including that facts about the village are fuzzy) that a separate NRHP article was the way to go. And, I am not intimately familiar with 3RR dispute practices, but the nature of 6 edits by P are all to revert to redirect, eliminating content/structure that i was developing. Whatever you are counting as 4 reverts by me, were mostly my proceeding with the developing i was doing. He was interrupting me at work.

Acroterion, you are the invited mediator in this long-running dispute. Polaron and I both agreed to abide by your considered decisions, and P and I both, at your direction, came to an agreement to settle most cases. I understand you are not entirely on board with what P and I agreed to at Talk:Poquetanuck, that you would have carved up the cases differently perhaps, but it is the only workable agreement ever put out. Here, all you need to do IMO is look at what P is doing (IMO, it is forcing a merger, contrary to letter and spirit of the big agreement) and tell him to stop. He should abide by that, as he said he would abide by your judgement, though I don't know if this now is starting to mean that he is not willing to abide by agreements he makes. Honestly i don't get it, P is not responding to my pointing out that this is what he agreed to, not even making any defense that it is an abrogation of his agreement. doncram (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Touché on the over-interpretation part (note: I've recently told Doncram he was doing that with some of my comments). You'd like purely NRHP articles, Polaron favors integration. I left a note on his talk page concerning my view of his actions. I can't and won't take administrative action on this, as I'm involved in mediating this mess. Acroterion _(talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think User:Polaron should be block as he/she has a history of edit warring. He has already been bock for this in the past, June I believe. He could maybe take some time off and think about what he/she has done. This may be what he/she needs to learn a lesson and stop him from edit warring in the future. I was blocked in the past for having sock puppets, and I learned my lesson. As for Doncram, I don't know his history, I don't know if he has been involved in past edit wars. If neither user is blocked then may I suggest the page be blocked from being edit by users until both users can come to a compromise. House1090 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I do know Doncram and he has contributed alot to articles I care about, he is a great editor with much more to contribute, I have successfully worked well with him in the past. Like many great editors he is forceful in what he believes is best for Wikipedia; this to some is a failing or a flaw, to me and many others this dedication to what is best for Wikipedia is an asset. He has pulled be out of the fire many times when my mouth would have gotten me kicked off of Wikipedia. I know many dont think good editing and good intentions outweigh some bad behaviors, but I do. For Polaron, the name is very familar, I believe I have had good dealings with him, I think a good look at his history and seeing if his contributions will be missed if he is blocked is important. If his intentions in this edit war were in good faith that he was fighting for what is right I do believe that should weigh into a decision, instead of just saying "he editwars alot"; the circumstances of the various edit wars should matter. Editwars are not all created equal. Some are less serious than others, its the reasons behind the edit wars that matter. I hope an admin does real delving into this matter instead of basing any decisions on what people (including myself) happen to say about either party. I think a disservice is done to Wikipedia anytime an editor who contributes alot of good work is blocked for even 24 hours. Sometimes blocks make things worse and instill distrust and perpetuates drama. If this is because of a content dispute then AN/I is not the place for it.Camelbinky (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left notes for both Polaron and Doncram, asking them to explain why both should not be blocked for 24 hours, since they both seem to have gone past 3RR. There is a long-running dispute about keeping separate articles for towns and their historic districts, and there have been previous discussions (some of which I have read). If I were the admin closing this case, I would accept a promise not to edit war on any future cases involving separate articles for historic districts. Admins should treat this as an opportunity to solve a long-running issue. If admins make a vigorous response, or if the parties come to a sincere agreement, it could prevent the thing from drifting endlessly or going up to Arbcom. If neither party makes a useful gesture a block is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To respond to EdJohnston, I don't think I have gone past 3RR. I was developing an article, using newly online-available source, in accordance with all agreements and general Wikipedia policies, and even gave a courtesy announcement that I would be meeting all terms of all agreements. P would have been aware already that I was developing various other New London NRHP articles to include HABS pics so that they would be illustrated, and this is one where HABS pics are available (and in fact one such pic has been added). In all or most of the edits I made, I was seriously developing the article, not reverting to one fixed previous version. You can tell me that R's for 3RR counting purposes are counted differently than I suppose, or that as a general matter you can't distinguish between tearing-down-type edits vs. constructive-building-type edits, but the honest facts are that I was editing/building, and finding out to my surprise that P was tearing down/destroying. It does surprise me, it is inconsistent with how I viewed P as more positively wanting development of CT articles.

I thot the parties had come to a sincere agreement, in fact i am sure of it. There has been tremendous time put in, by me, Acroterion, Orlady, others, into talking everything out, and P had made an agreement with me that we were both pretty meticulously honoring, despite some badgering and testing of situations by Orlady. A key thing about the agreement was that it put onus on, and gave permission to, anyone who actually wanted to constructively develop articles, to do so if they would collect and use sources such as the NRHP docs. I truly don't understand what P is doing, in just badgering me while I was developing an article, doing exactly what was wanted. So what you have here is a sincere agreement, reached under support of mutually agreed upon mediator, being violated by one party. P has not even responded about that. What now? What would be the consequences now, of a more formally ArbCom decision being violated by one party. Honestly i don't know exactly, but I think it should be that any administrator can impose suitable consequences on the one party violating. doncram (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky (and others): I don't buy the argument that meatball:VestedContributors should be allowed to break the rules just because they're "great editors" or because their contributions would be missed. WP:3RR is a rule and a policy, not just a suggestion. I lost adminship because I violated WP:NPA, which is a rule and a policy. I also don't buy the argument that the encyclopedia will suffer if longtime contributors are blocked, sanctioned, or otherwise held accountable for screwups. The encyclopedia isn't hurt by the absence of articles like Hinckley Fire Relief House, Kettle River Bridge, Minnesota Point Lighthouse, or Grey Cloud Lime Kiln. However, it did get hurt -- irreparably -- because I yelled at some people who were having an argument about professional wrestling. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way did it get hurt -- irreparably? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think E is being humorous, which I appreciate. I looked at that meatball:VestedContributor link and don't think any of that has been going on. I honestly value how, in wikipedia, everyone starts equally, and even tho it takes a lot of time, every issue can be talked out ad nauseum for each new person coming in who doesn't agree. Here in this dispute with P, though, it is getting really old, and it is way past being done, especially with having reached an agreement. The agreement specified terms for when the placeholder articles (in absence of real knowledge of relationship btwn a NRHP HD and a supposedly notable "village" or neighborhood) should be a merged article vs. separate ones, and when extra work would allow someone to effect a better solution like an appropriate split, as here. doncram (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way in which I am being humorous. As far as being irreparably hurt, ask some of the people in the professional wrestling WikiProject. Talking things out ad nauseam is not working in this case, because this argument has been going on for many months in several venues (WP:3RR, WT:NRHP, WP:AN/I, and User talk:Acroterion). Nothing is being accomplished here because the parties keep skirmishing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason this has dragged is because I haven't had sufficient time (of my own, not calendar time) sort the issues out, as I had been asked to do by Doncram. Real Life keeps intruding with more pressing demands. On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of articles in dispute, and I'm not a one-man ArbCom. In any case, I doubt that any agreement brokered by me alone would stand. I do see some signs of hope, the current dispute apart. All parties need to read the principles I've enumerated at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list. Nobody has commented there to any significant degree, even though everybody's piled on with articles for contention at the top of the page. To get more participation from parties other than those involved, an RfC may be in order on the subject. I beleive that Doncram and Polaron view the issues as something to be codified between the two of them in between squabbles, then ratified and enforced by me. That won't work. Acroterion _(talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I will just let Doncram have his way regarding article structure as he is more hard-headed than I am. From this point, I will just ensure that the content in the disputed articles is accurate and is not redundant. If the content is clarified and there are backlinks, readers can still get a good grasp of the topic even if they have to look at two or three different articles for a single topic. --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Essentially, there's a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution or request page protection. If you keep it up however, one of you (or both) are likely to be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. NJA (t/c) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To Elkman- All policies are our "best known way of doing things" and ARE in fact suggestions; Wikipedia does not have rules or laws. 3RR is not a "hard fast rule" that if you break it you are punished; NONE of our "rules" act like that. All that matters is consensus of the Community; if we dont want someone blocked then they arent blocked, we dont blindly apply the letter of the "law". I respect your opinion that good contributions dont outweigh things like 3RR or whatever, but that is your opinion and mine (and some others) is different. Neither opinion is the true Wikipedia way. The only true Wikipedia way is that consensus of the Community trumps everything (yes, even ArbCom because we can always decide to disband ArbCom and they cant overrule that; pretty much only Jimbo and the Foundation are higher than consensus); policies do not dictate what we MUST do or not do; hence IAR.Camelbinky (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

About the suggestion for DR, there has been extensive informal mediation, involving an invited mediator who was a 3rd party, going on. That is one form of DR. But, this seems to be resolved now, per discussions at User_talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron_3RR_case, User talk:Doncram, and User talk:Polaron. doncram (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing - I changed the header to say Result: Negotiation per the subsequent history, and will notify the closing admin, NJA to see if he objects. Polaron accepted a voluntary restriction for six months, and Doncram seems to have accepted some kind of deal that he previously worked out with Acroterion, per User talk:Acroterion#Doncram.2FPolaron 3RR case. At least Polaron's restriction should be enforceable by admins. Doncram's, probably not. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amandagates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 02:57, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
2. 03:08, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
3. 03:13, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
4. 03:16, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
5. 16:10, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
6. 16:10, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Watch Sherlock Holmes Online */")
7. 17:30, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
8. 17:36, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
9. 17:44, 30 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Plot */")
10. 17:49, 30 December 2009
11. 19:18, 30 December 2009

—BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked for another violation. NJA (t/c) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Wildcat formation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.246.229.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]
• 5th revert: [212]
• 6th revert: [213]
• 7th revert: [214]
• 8th revert: [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [217]

Comments:

Relisting. After the case was listed the first time, the edit warrior ceased his reverts. About 90 minutes after the request was closed as stale, he resumed activity. I'm hoping someone can either block the account or possibly protect the page.

Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation as page semi'ed anyhow, plus no clear 3RR vios. You need to start discussing issues directly on people's talk pages rather than overusing revert. NJA (t/c) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.176.222.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [218]
• 2nd revert: [219]
• 3rd revert: [220]

Comments:

This is an IP vandal misusing the free editing available on Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

• No violation Wrong board. This is a vandal, not a classic edit warrior. Edits should be reverted and warnings placed on their talk page, and then reported to WP:AIV once sufficient warnings given. I've went ahead and gave them a L3 warning for vandalism. NJA (t/c) 08:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Darryl98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [221]
• 2nd revert: [222]
• 3rd revert: [223]
• 4th revert: [224]
• 5th revert: [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227]

Comments:

Murder of Meredith Kercher is an article with a very difficult history. User:Darryl98 is an account only active today and only on this article.

I have removed material from the article on WP:BLP grounds, and User:Darryl98 has repetedly re-inserted this marterial either in whole or in part (see diffs above). I have explained WP:BLP and encouraged User:Darryl98 to look at it. I believe I have given a full explanation on the talk page. I have also warned about repeated re-insetion of material. User:Darryl98 has subsequently reduced the quantity of text he is inserting, but since BLP issues have been raised in relation to the material, re-inserting any of it without consensus could constiute edit-warring, which I have drawn to User:Darryl98's attention.

I'll be satisfied if Darryl agrees to stop inserting material about which I have raised BLP issues, in which case, according to admin discretion, a block may not be reuqired.

Please note that my own reverts should be protected per WP:BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

__________________

I wish to report FormerIP for edit warring or violation of 3RR. He has repeatedly deleted posts concerning a prosecutor named Mignini over a period of weeks. He will not allow any unflattering information to be included about him in the article. FormerIP deletes the material without first discussing it. Today he deleted the whole section about Mignini without first discussing it, even though some of the sentences clearly did not violate BLP. He is engaging in censorship, while hiding behind BLP. Here is the last modified version of the section he deleted:

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini Giuliano Mignini is the Pubblico Ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia.^[1] Mignini led the interrogations and the prosecutions of Knox and Sollecito. Mignini's prosecution of the case was controversial in part due to his theories that the Kercher murder involved Halloween ritual, satanism or sex orgy as possible motives for the crime. ^{[8][9] [10][11]} Concern has also been raised over his handling of issues pertaining to freedom of speech. ^[12] For example, Mignini brought criminal charges against American author Joe Cottonwood because Cottonwood wrote an e-mail critical of Mignini's handling of the Knox case, which wound up in an Italian newspaper. ^[13] That case has not yet been resolved.

I do not believe that the section violated BLP policy. Therefore, FormerIP's many reverts and deletions of the materials about Mignini should not be protected by BLP policy. He should be discussing the material first on the talk page, attempting consensus, and then proceeding in a rational manner to make the best decision along with other editors before deleting the whole section. Simply deleting a whole section prior to discussion is not a collegial and productive way to proceed. Some of the sentences may have to be removed, but some may be usable. A wholesale deletion of the section is not reasonable. Thank you for considering both sides of the issue. Darryl98 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Result -- 24h to FormerIP, indef to Darryl98 as a sock, 1 month to PilgrimRose for violation of WP:SOCK. The BLP exception to 3RR is narrowly drawn and is not enough to justify the extended revert campaign by FormerIP. The issues that he is talking about here are in the realm of WP:Undue weight, which is a matter for the consensus of editors, and not something that allows individuals to revert with impunity. Admins must enforce the BLP rules according to the community definition; people can't make up their own more strict interpretation and expect others to excuse their reverts. I note that FormerIP has not opened a case at WP:BLP/N and he should consider that. Darryl98 is confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of PilgrimRose in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 so he is blocked indef. PilgrimRose has previously edited the article, and is trying to evade scrutiny for edit-warring, so is blocked for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [228]

• 1st revert: [229]
• 2nd revert: [230]
• 3rd revert: [231]
• 4th revert: [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments: I was not the first to interact with this user regarding his violation of WP:3RR. User:Charles Matthews first discussed why the user's revert was inappropriate on his talk page; the diff of which I have provided above. After incessant reverting, User:Charles Matthews notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to deal with the user's revert. I subsequently did so, but only to be reverted again four minutes later (see 4th revert given above). User:Pohta ce-am pohtit then warned the user; the diff of which I have provided above. Thus, although I am filing this report, another user discussed the matter with him, and yet another user warned him. The matter has already been noted in this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Pierre_Deligne; the user has reverted five times and it appears difficult to discuss the matter with him. His only response to our comments was this. His reverts do not conform to WP:V and WP:BLP. --PST 12:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ComtedeMonteCristo is continuing to edit war and to insert WP:OR and WP:POV material at the Pierre Deligne page. A quick admin action is needed in view of continuing disruption. Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Daffy - The Commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

• 1st revert: [236]
• 2nd revert: [237]
• 3rd revert: [238]
• 4th revert: [239]
• 5th revert: [240]
• 6th revert: [241]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

Comments:
StevenMario continues to insert unsourced information into articles, continuing a pattern of ownership over articles he edits. Blocked for 3RR yesterday on another article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fenn is equally obsessed. Today he deleted stuff from a cartoon article claiming it was unsourced, and the source was given within the portion he deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Immediately returned to edit warring and original research following expiration of previous block. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Page: Christ_myth_theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User being reported: Haldraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 13:07, 29 December 2009 (edit summary: "extreme POV text")
2. 21:16, 29 December 2009 (edit summary: "made text more closely reflect refs and used more encyclopaedic tone")
3. 22:31, 29 December 2009 (edit summary: "RV: nice try at an encyclopaedic tone? thanks, I thought so too")
4. 09:10, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "unfortunately for you pastor it is not significant information about the actual subject of the page, as opposed to Christian criticism of it")
5. 21:17, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "what bit of 'see the discussion on the talk page, do not remove this tag until it is resolved' do you not understand?")

Comments: User already warned by multiple editors. —Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional edit warring from 1/1/10:

1. 13:06, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "blogs are not reliable sources per WP:V")
2. 14:31, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "that would lead leave them with no refs instead of ones that are unreliable per WP:V")
3. 14:52, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "please provide refs per WP:V for yours")

Comments: Haldraper has posted to Talk:Christ myth theory, but not to discuss these specific edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The second 3RR case in the last two weeks about this article. (Cf. [243]). Those who believe the article is unbalanced need to persuade other editors, not simply revert. Find more references if you can. An WP:RfC could be tried, but unless more references are found, it's unlikely to make a difference. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tombaker321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 01:15, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "Uses best information supported by citations. While Polanski claimed he was working on a proposed project for Vogue Hommes, the magazine specifically denied it to investigators. As Per TALK")
2. 01:17, 30 December 2009 (edit summary: "Well established content, reviewed with citations. Previously within the article. Gives first hand views of both parties, whom are the subject of this entire section.")
3. 22:38, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Stops deletion of well cited content,long established in the article Undid revision 335142691 by Proofreader77 (talk)")
4. 22:40, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Restores factual information of BLP, deletion inappropriate Undid revision 335144663 by Off2riorob (talk)")
5. 22:51, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverting removal of factual content, which editor seems to not want to have reflected. The stated POV of the editor, is attempting to remove facts, he does not find tasteful")
6. 23:11, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Again, this content is well established and has been in the entry for months prior to its repeated removal by Proofreader77 who continues it now.There's absolutely no consensus against this informatio")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244]

• Talk:Roman_Polanski#Reverting
• Note: Two long-time editors who have been dealing with WP:SPA for a long time

• User:Proofreader77 Does not have consensus
• User:Off2riorob - Thats correct, this thread is actually an attack by this tombaker account, yawn.

• NOTE: The short-hand response in above two diffs is due to LONG TERM issue. We are exhausted from burden placed by SPA Tombaker321. Bigger problem of how to resolve BLP/NPOV complexity in current-events inflamed article like Roman Polanski is something that will require much work. (Note: Two people, at BLPN and ANI, have said you can't get anyone to give a ruling on that. I.E. Complex problem, not to be solved by edit-warring by disruptive SPA. And note, I have never used the word "disruptive" to describe any editor other than this one — I do not use that word casually. )

Comments:

• See also recent ANI (wrong forum for long term issue, but illustrates context of issue) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski
  Waiting until after the holidays to initiate as per suggestion in resolve.
• Note: Re my recent (and only) block. The recent issue on User talk:Jimbo Wales was a misunderstanding to be resolved (I was posting message regarding a $1,000 donation to Wikipedia when blocked by mistaken perception I was posting in another topic). Tombaker321 is making much noise about this: Understandable. (Distraction.)
  -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in this case. Your last block had nothing to do with edit warring. People usually throw that in your face when they have nothing to argue about. I see some Assumptions of bad faith by the Tom account too.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New listing of diffs: Since the 22:38 and the 22:40 are adjacent, they make at most one revert. There is also a 23:19 not included in the above list. Here is the revised set of four reverts, all of which happen within 24 hours:

1. 22:38, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Stops deletion of well cited content,long established in the article Undid revision 335142691 by Proofreader77 (talk)")
2. 22:51, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverting removal of factual content, which editor seems to not want to have reflected. The stated POV of the editor, is attempting to remove facts, he does not find tasteful")
3. 23:11, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Again, this content is well established and has been in the entry for months prior to its repeated removal by Proofreader77 who continues it now.There's absolutely no consensus against this informatio")
4. 23:19, 31 December 2009 (edit summary: "Restoring Content after Proofreader77s repeated reverting")

EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For 3RR violation. I encourage the editors to make wider use of WP:RFC to settle disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

2000s (decade) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Artx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 05:09, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "Re-added intro - No name has been accepted.")
2. 05:48, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Names of the decade */ Re-added Time Magazine article ref.")
3. 06:00, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Names of the decade */ removed non cited change to Noughties section.")
4. 08:43, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 335255253 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
5. 08:48, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 335255810 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
6. 09:12, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 335257467 by Arthur Rubin (talk) consensus request required")
7. 09:25, 1 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Names of the decade */ returned to previous version")

• Diff of warning: 09:15, 1 January 2010

He's been doing this on and off for a couple weeks, now. This is just the first time he's done 4 in a row. It should be noted that I did have 4 reverts, but I self-reverted the 4th, and then added {{verification failed}} tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Artx's reverts are very numerous and conspicuous. Any admin who thinks that Arthur Rubin should also be sanctioned is welcome to study the history further. I suggest that Arthur take a break from editing this article. If he is concerned about strange stuff being added, there are many others working on the article who can revert it out. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Some of the edits I've seen from this user are strong violations of WP:OR, with edit-warring to enforce them. I'd thus be opposed to a block of Arthur Rubin, which would serve only to discourage good users addressing policy violations of thow-away redlinks and anons. Hopefully the block will alert the user to the existence of editorial etiquette. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

how do i report a user. i have been giving the stament of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)

the stament i used is below

• critics of islam(such as Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders e.t.c) think this was a terrorist attack carried out by Muhammad.

i have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"

but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.

he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.

in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.

But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !

he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Incomplete report. Please start over and use the proper submission procedure for 3RR complaints. Start with 'Click here to make a new report,' which is in large type near the top of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

Comments: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't understand a fourth revert was necessary in the 3RR. Maybe we can get some attention, anyhow? Excuse me if this isn't the place to do this, I thought I was right to put it here when I initially did.

Page protected Not a 3RR violation. I make it two against two on the talk page, for 'autistic son' versus 'son with autism,' (not counting Little Mookie who is now blocked). If neither side will budge, open up an WP:RFC and advertise it to get more opinions. Meanwhile the article is protected for three days. Blocks may be issued if reverting continues after protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Ole Miss Rebels football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 75.66.75.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [250]User continues to revert this change

• 1st revert: [251]
• 2nd revert: [252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254]
• 5th revert: [255] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.8.7 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [256] [257]

Comments: I believe my changes add facts to the article. I'm not sure why they are being reverted.

75.65.8.7 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. It looks to me that ALL the IPs working on the article in the past six days have been edit warring. The submitter of this report, 75.65.8.7, has made some effort to discuss, though if he only leaves comments on his own talk page (and keeps changing IPs) it is not clear that it will be effective. Nobody has posted anything on the article's talk page in the last six months. Please start a reasonable discussion on the article talk page about the disputed points. Semi can be lifted if at least some of the IPs start behaving reasonably. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Life-death-rebirth deity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life-death-rebirth_deity&oldid=333853348

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life-death-rebirth_deity&action=history

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

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

Comments:

I am also guilty of violating the 3RR on this page, first I tried talking then I lost my cool and got Involved in the edit war, I am willing to be blocked from making changes to the page if Mr. Ari89 is also blocked, I think other peoplle should be able to give their opinions on that page.

• Stale Latest 3RR violation I can see was one month ago. I see that there is still a current dispute with another user on the page, however. Have you tried to create consensus on the talk page? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried talking to the dude, but he would just ignore me and Reverse my entries, I gave up after a few edit revisions going back and forth. Right now there is another user trying to make edits and he is having the same problem. How can we solve this issue? --Ceezmad (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 07:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to talk to me instead of reporting me for 3R violations when no such violation exists. --Ari (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude I am not the first one that tell you this Please see this version of your page {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ari89&oldid=334960808} User:Andrew c also gave you a warning. You have since deleted his warning from your page along my comment. Right now some one else has warned you for your edits on Claims to be the fastest growing religion on your talk page. --Ceezmad (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok how are we solving this, you say that you need sources, but when I add Encyclopedia Brittanica you still delete my sources. What sources would satisfy you to stop deleting this entry. I know you do not like this page due to your religious beliefs, but you can not just go around deleting all the stuff you do not like. --Ceezmad (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems That Mr. User:Ari89 is not interested on discussing this issue, Is there a way I can get an editor to mediate this? I do not what to revert to an edit war but I would like to go back to a past edit. {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life-death-rebirth_deity&oldid=327347986} this is the version that was on the page before our edit war started. --Ceezmad (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: 2010
User being reported: Homerjay90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 01:18, 2 January 2010
• 2nd revert: 01:20, 2 January 2010
• 3rd revert: 01:21, 2 January 2010
• 4th revert: 01:28, 2 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see links above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2010

Comments:

This anonymous user disrupting edit in 2010 article, unless it may discuss in the recent year's talk page. The user is an accused sockpuppet to three multiple accounts. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User also at work on WP:RY using one of the sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homerjay90 for sockpuppet discussion. ttonyb (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

• 1st revert: 06:19, 2 January 2010 (edit summary: "RV to Akhilleus Dec 5th prior to massive changes. This article is being subject to whole sale revisions which violate previous discussions over the last 3 years.")
• 2nd revert: 06:50, 2 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 335416162 by Akhilleus (talk) no they have not been. I don't see any discussion of these hundreds of changes")
• 3rd revert: 07:01, 2 January 2010 (edit summary: "show me where the discussion to remove Wilson is. Show me where the discussion to reinorient the entire chart, etc..?")
• 4th revert: 07:41, 2 January 2010 (edit summary: "chart reverted to June 24th, (not the same as Dec 5th) which is the last version to have a consensus. Anything from here is edit warring")

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

See Talk:Christ_myth_theory#What_the_heck_is_going_on.3F.2C_discussion_of_RS. Before today, Jbolden1517 hasn't been involved in recent discussions on the talk page, and is simply reverting to a version of Dec. 5. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
This isn't a 3RR violation--it's just a report of current edit warring--but the article has seen a bunch of edit warring lately, and 2 users have been blocked, so this current round needs to be nipped in the bud. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Added one more diff; you've got to love it when someone reverts to their preferred version from 6 months ago and then says "anything from here is edit warring." --Akhilleus (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fully protected --slakr^\ talk / 15:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Muhammad and assassinations‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [259]
• 2nd revert: [260]
• 3rd revert: [261]
• 4th revert" [262]

Comments:

There may be more reversions, particularly if this edit [263] is included, made by an SPA that will hopefully be looked at as a possible sock for Misconceptions2 soon at this SPI case [264]. However, Misconceptions2 is basically taking incremental edits made by 3 or so other editors and rolling them all back in sweep after sweep. So in those reverts above he's reverted some edits made by me, some edits made by other folks. So it amounts to multiple reverts at a time, of multiple editors, across multiple parts of the article. The edit warring pattern from this user, from before i got to the page is pretty clear (he's already been blocked for socking and repeatedly reinserirting copyvios at the page.) Another editor at the page thinks Misconceptions2 is at 5rr [265] but i can't vouch for it. It's all a mess -- largely engineered by misconceptions2, who is confounding efforts to fix the article. The edit warring has been a hot topic at the talk page [266], and misconceptions has participated in the discussion.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think he has reverted 8 times in 24 hours : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And somehow, he has got this idea that infinite wait till complete consensus has to be done at his version of the page -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blatant edit warring and, since they were blocked for socking within the last month, I have moved to the next block point, which is two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

• 1st revert: [267]
• 2nd revert: [268]
• 3rd revert: [269]
• 4th revert: [270]

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

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

Comments:

I am not involved but I noticed that this user reverted another 4 times on their talk page within less than 4 hours. The reported user has not explained why they are reverting in the edit summaries, violating WP:3RR.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but 3rr does not apply to user talkpages. Editors are generally permitted to remove whatever material they like, and deletions simply show that they have read the material posted.--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages on their own talk pages (provided they're not completed unblock requests or stuff like that). –MuZemike 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is news to me, editors have been blocked in the past for talk page edit warring. Ikip 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not on their own user talkpage? It is an exception mentioned here. The confusion is no doubt my fault for not specifying reversion on one's own talkpage above. --Slp1 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AtlanticDeep has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't know who the master is. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really surprised, somehow.--Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [271]
• 2nd revert: [272]
• 3rd revert: [273]
• 4th revert: [274]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [276]

Comments:
My involvement was prompted by this posting on WQA [[277]]. Gerardw (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note page protected by another admin. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The effect of protecting the page is to lock in the version desired by the editor MisterWiki. The documentation above indicates he went 4rr. Attempts to discuss with him during the edit conflict were unsuccessful.(Talk:Guitaret) While I am sure this is not the intent of the WP community the effect appears to be to endorse edit warring. I would appreciate it if an admin would spent a little more time analyzing this situation. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR board is not going to review issues that are now stale, even if the person made four reverts in the past. Why not leave a comment at Talk:Guitaret that explains how you think the article should read. An outsider who comes to that talk page will not get a clear picture of what's going on. If the other editor continues to be stubborn (after protection expires on 2 January), you can try to get outside opinions, or even open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The answer to "why not" post on the talk page is: Because I don't care how the article reads very much, I was just trying to help out a new user whose contributions were being deleted by an edit warrior. Since I don't understand why the 4rr issue was not dealt with when it was not stale and no one seems to wish to address the issue, from my perspective the logical conclusion is the tedium of filling out 4rr templates is not warranted. Gerardw (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)