Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive116

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


The Cult appearing twice/edit war[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJS59 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:RJS59 popped up and began [[1]] deleting sourced material from the article after this IP [[2]] was banned. I do not believe this is a content duspute, but more of POV pushing. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note - tag-team reverts/edit warring : 4twenty42o, BalthCat, RepublicanJacobite. RJS59 (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The removal of sourced material, with no edit summary, and not talk page discussion, looks like plain vandalism to just about any editor. When the IP made the same edits multiple times, and still made no explanation other than insults and foul language, it seemed even more likely that he was a vandal. He was warned and then blocked. RJS59's account was created, along with that of Tathbreaker, shortly after the IP was blocked, and both began protesting the reverts and the block. Something seems fishy here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Mason[edit]

Editing on the Waterloo Road (TV series)-related articles is traditionally from anonymous editors who SHOUT to assert their edits, and call people 'STUPID'. One is edit-warring by insisting that a fictional character should have their qualifications after their name; as far as I know, we don't display abbreviations like this.

I'm not going to break 3RR over this. I've attempted to communicate with the user/(2), although the varying IP addresses is making it difficult. The JPStalk to me 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a few days to prevent ongoing un-sourced vandalism. Nja247 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:NancyHeise and User:Leadwind reported by User:Karanacs(Result: Both blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 15:00 Nov 14

This is an ongoing content dispute. The content has been discussed since at least the first week of October and has already prompted the open RfC WP:Requests for comment/NancyHeise

  • Leadwind adds POV tag [3]
  • Johnbod removes tag [4]
  • Leadwind restores tags [5]
  • JohnBod removes [6]
  • Leadwind restores tags [7]
  • NancyHeise removes tags [8]
  • Leadwind adds tags [9]
  • NancyHeise removes tags [10]
  • Leadwind adds tags [11]
  • NancyHeise removes tags [12]
  • Leadwind adds tags [13]
  • NancyHeise removes tags [14]
  • Afterwriting reverts NancyHeise because her revert had removed other copyediting changes; this restores the POV tag [15]
  • NancyHeise removes the POV tag, leaving the other changes [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There have been numerous warnings on Talk:Catholic Church warning against edit-warring over this content.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see also most of archives 36-38) [17][18] [19]

Leadwind is the most recent editor to tag this section as POV, but it has been tagged off and on since the beginning of October. There has been repeated edit-warring since then to have the tag removed. Examples of the discussion: 25 Oct and Oct 26 2009 Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While I was in the process of filing this request, another administrator blocked NancyHeise. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I protected the page since multiple editors were involved in the edit warring. I think if Nancy got blocked then Leadwind should to, but the main point is that edit warring is not, and never has been the way to go. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I had only reviewed the past 12 hours or so at the point I decided to block Nancy. Looking at the full 24 hours, it's pretty clear that they were both edit warring, but I have a bit more sympathy for someone who's trying to put an NPOV tag on a section, because unless it's really, really obvious, the removal of an NPOV tag is more likely to be vandalism, and hence 3RR-exempt, than its addition. But, if someone thinks that Leadwind should be blocked as well, I don't have a problem with that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Leadwind reverted against two other editors, and it was being discussed on the talkpage, so this is more content dispute. In addition WP:EW] says that "adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" from EW rules. And since I see that Leadwind has been warned of these things in the past, I think it is sauce for both goose and gander here.--Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The "discussion" seems to run along the lines of "we already settled this, you're vandalizing, go away". That's why I've been hesitant to block Leadwind myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand, edit warring wasn't the way to handle it for either party; no matter how "right" somebody is. Which means we don't attempt to judge "right/wrong" unless it is "obvious vandalism", BLP, etc which this specifically isn't. Like I said, my initial preference was to go the Page Protection route and leave them both unblocked. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cody7777777 reported by User:dinkytown (Result: No vio but ...)[edit]

Page: Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cody7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Reverts of November 14, 2009:

Reverts of November 6, 2009:

Reverts of November 5, 2009:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Same topic, but different issue with another case of edit warring.

Reverts of September 14, 2009:

Reverts of September 11, 2009:

Reverts of September 10, 2009:

Reverts of September 9, 2009:

Reverts of September 8, 2009:

Reverts of September 5, 2009:

The reverted material at issue has long ago been settled by several parties and it was agreed by all that the info box content would be removed as it was too controversial and could not be agreed upon. Cody7777777 has been the lone detractor on this issue and refused to listen to the overwhelming consensus. There has been an option of creating a "Byzantine legacy" article in place of the infobox content as a compromise, but Cody7777777 has refused to go along with this, still insisting on inclusion of the controversial infobox content.

Cody has a history of long term edit-warring (See September edits above) against several users and he being the lone dissenter of the issue. He has stalled discussion and asks repeated answered questions in violation of Wikipedia's 3R Policy.

Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. Dinkytown (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) (Statement of original complaint)
The edits on September, are about a different issue unrelated to the current (and I was simply restoring there a mention supported by sources, which had been part of the article for nearly two years). Regarding, the November edits, I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, and as I had posted on article's talk page, I actually agreed to remove that successors list, but only if it will be replaced there by a Legacy sub-article instead (with a link to this legacy sub-article in the infobox successor section), although I don't understand what are the reasons to remove that infobox successor list, and I have not seen any explanations on the article's talk page why it would be controversial to include in the infobox successor section a list of states which are described by sources as successors/heirs of that empire, while removing that section could make the infobox look weird, especially when compared to the infoboxes of other historic states, even giving the impression that this state had no successors. However, since after several days the users who wanted to remove the infobox section have not actually started the legacy sub-article to replace it, I attempted to restore the infobox successor section until that sub-article was done (and I had already posted these intentions on the article's talk page several days earlier, and no one claimed to oppose there, and as far as I know silence on talk page means agreement), but two users simply started edit-warring, and have refused to explain their reasons on the article's talk page (only invoking an unclear consensus, although Wikipedia is not run by majority vote). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus had been reached and well documented. All agreed the the infobox content was too vague, not informative, controversial and all agreed to remove it. Discussion lasted for weeks and consensus reached with you as the lone detractor. You chose to edit war against consensus. Dinkytown (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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. That said, the fact that User:Cody7777777's edits are being disputed by multiple other experienced users clearly shows that their additions don't have a consensus (also see WP:BURDEN), and if Cody continues in this vein, a block for disruptive editing and edit-warring may be applied, even if WP:3RR is not breached. So I strongly suggest that the user discuss and develop consensus for the additions before editing the infobox. Use WP:DR, if necessary. Abecedare (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Logger9 reported by User:Marie Poise (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Liquid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Logger9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

No need to wait for 3 or 4 reverts. User Logger9 has shown in the past that he will revert again and again.

Implicitely done in change log lines.



We had the same problem some weeks ago; 3 R, page blocked. I attempted to settle the issue on the talk page. Logger9 almost agreed with my proposal, then he posed an additional condition. After some hesitation, I accepted that condition. However, Logger9 never came back to the discussion page. Instead, he tried to insert his material under other lemmas, like Solution.

In order to get Liquid unprotected, I asked on WikiProjekt Physics and WikiProhect Physical Chemistry for other users to express their opinion. So far, only one did: a very clear verdict, calling Logger9's text incomprehensible and unsalvable. Upon which User:Tedder unprotected the page. Upon which Logger9, ignoring the talk page completely, re-inserted his abstruse 40k text. -- Marie Poise (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (by User:Kevin). Abecedare (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

James Duncan disambiguation page[edit]

User: has gone beyond 3rr, repeating adding an entry with no wikilinks, just an external link. I added in my edit summaries why this wasn't allowed, with links to guidelines on this. Anon continues to rv (has now added 5 times) and also vandalised User:Boleyn, my page. When I was checking this out, I realised I've accidentally rv 4 times, so sorry, and if I am banned for a short time I would understand, although I am not interested in pursuing an edit war. Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only see 1 revert by Mr/Ms Unless it's been redacted or something (I wouldn't know). They haven't been around for 3 hours so they may have just given up for the night. I assume this[37] is the talk page thing, which I do admit is pretty weird. I suppose someone should ask about your use of apparently 3 different users, but I'm going to assume you have a deal set up, and you're not abusing their existence any warring or harassment. Any more info you have might be helpful. That or I'm entirely missing a huge conflict somewhere, which is why an admin get to pick this up. To admin: IP only has 3 total edits and only 1 is a revert. Boleyn's RRs seem to be in good faith and summaries were detailed. This might have been a 1-evening thing for them. A 3RR warning was added, change it to user page vandal warning and call it a night? daTheisen(talk) 11:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be the same as User: and User:; certainly exactly the same addition was being added with very similar edit summaries. All three seem to clearly be the same person.

Regarding my accounts, they are legitimate as very similiarly named so as not to mislead and following the advice on WP:Sock puppetry, Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages. Having more than one account is not banned, editors are just advised to use them carefully. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Allriskinrev reported by User:SlimVirgin (result: 31 h + semi-protected)[edit]

3RR violation on Philip Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Allriskinrev (talk · contribs), also editing as (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) Four wholesale reverts of the same material in 23 hours, despite a warning, and after announcing in advance that he intended to do it.

  • Version reverted to 19:00 Nov 12, note the third paragraph of lead: "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."
  • 1st revert: 08:02 Nov 16, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."
  • 2nd revert: 12:36 Nov 16, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."
  • 3rd revert: 02:11 Nov 17, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."
  • 4th revert: 07:03 Nov 17, reverted to "After his death, the publication of his letters and a biography triggered controversy about his reactionary political views, perceived to some extent as racist and misogynist, and about his personal life, which included simultaneous affairs with three women."


User:Allriskinrev announced yesterday that he intended to revert any edits I make to the third paragraph of the Philip Larkin lead, with the edit summary "Mac edit," and that he intended to do that in lieu of further discussion about it. [38] He has since then reverted four times in 23 hours, once with his account and three times as an anon IP address, but they are clearly him as they use the "Mac edit" summary, revert the same material, and come from the same area. After his reverts, I have been compromising, rewriting, and trying to find a lead that's acceptable e.g. [39] [40] but he continues to revert to exactly the same version.

After the third revert, I left a warning on his page about 3RR at 03:05 Nov 17, [41] but it made no difference. I also started a discussion about it on talk at 03:02 Nov 17, [42] but he did not respond, and continued to revert. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours have also semi-protected the page for a week so that the user does not continue to revert while logged out. Will also leave on note on user talk page to explain expected conduct once the block ends. Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)result
Many thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
He is evading the block, signing off Allriskinrev, but editing as (talk · contribs) [43] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
IP blocked. User block extended and warning added. Abecedare (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Should be noted: Misbehaving user was enacting what was the talk page consensus almost-instinct 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Meieimatai reported by User:PelleSmith (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

  • I didn't warn until after the 4th revert, however on his talk page he emphatically stated during a previous discussion with another user that he knew what 3RR was, so I see no reason why a warning would be necessary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]


  • I've only reverted this editor once myself. The reason I find myself here is because when I brought the edit warring between this and another user up with him I was myself accused of edit warring because of my one revert, and I see no signs that this user believes that his 4 reverts aren't somehow justified by being "right". See for instance his responses at his talk page. If he actually self-reverts as I suggested I think this report should be disregarded or considered moot.PelleSmith (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'll also warn User:Shii for edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: blocked 24 hours, protected two weeks)[edit]

Ásíyih Khánum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:30, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  2. 14:38, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Wikilink for Baghdad is related but wikilink about khanum is not? Hmmm. Makes so much sense for ignorants.")
  3. 14:47, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 326350700 by MARussellPESE (talk)")
  4. 15:10, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  5. 15:14, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "You are a vandal. Now there is a separate page just about Khanum. Telling you what it is. Irrelevant? No! confusing? No... what is your excuse now?")
  6. 15:22, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Put the accent on a and you'll see it. Just click on the link.")
  7. 17:45, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I didn't make the wiktionary entry, it was there. How about this? It's just a footnote with a link to wiktionary. Any thoughts?")
  8. 18:49, 17 November 2009 Another one
  9. 19:37, 17 November 2009 And another one
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Page semi-protected for 2 weeks as well. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:660gd4qo reported by User:Datheisen (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Worth noting: I've been accused of a "3RR violation" even before submitting this, but I stopped at 3, specifically leaving a note "To admin" that I was at 3 and backing off. Not sure how much more I could have done to make sure I was alright.

Previous version? This[51] please, as it's the last before anyone at all involved in this touched the article yesterday.

Description: It's... an edit war? Huggle kept screaming about this article and figured I'd go look since no one seemed to be going to edit. I saw a long-standing consensus, and for the past 3 days or so the same user coming and reverting every single change. After looking through the diffs, well, I always have to wonder why someone who is claiming someone is POV pushing is reverting 3 different editors with entirely different points of view of the article. I know no involved party, I don't care what happens to the article, but I will not be bullied as a result a patrol stop. User has attempted to declare 3RR amnesty, saying they were protecting the page. I'm not qualified enough to know everything about the article, but "reverting long-term consensus" isn't usually "protection".

Had to add that last one on an edit. I was literally baited[58] into revert this so I would have actually violated 3RR. The version I suggested at the top is still the last clean one from what I can tell.

  1. Note: 5th revert(&oldid=326340763) and 6th revert(&oldid=326340763) are same URL. User:Datheisen try to cheating admin.
  2. 2nd revert(oldid=326331357) is not revert of 1st (oldid=326318595).
  3. 4th revert(oldid=326338309) is not revert of previous. it is add note and add doubious tag.
  4. And, all of changes are "reference" changing. Not main article change.
  5. The Shindonga magazine reference is a copyvio case.Talk:Taekwondo#copyvio_references Reverting copyvio is a exceptional case of 3RR. not counting 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

--From 660gd4qo (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning: [59] ...this was before I did anything, even. I'll send another, I guess? I can just copy and past off my talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Same as above; I actually waited until the 5th RR to do this because user had not allowed me to speak with them yet and I wanted a chance to just because of this part. After carpeting 10 messages on my talk page, I give up. Make that 11. 12? It's a lot[60]. Only some of it is insulting! It's not in my interests or worth my time to put anything on this User's talk page.


There's probably a listing for me on this page by now. I'll chuckle, given this was an AGF page patrol for me and how much I really hate filling this out.

Thanks. daTheisen(talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is content dispute. not edit war. This is completely wrong 3rr.

Wikipedia:Edit warring

Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason. Especially, reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point. Misuse of reversion in these ways may lead to administrator warnings or blocking.
Well, Unlike him, I did numerous discuss at here. Talk:Taekwondo But, daTheisen NEVER join any single discuss before revert. I did not change article without "improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion".


  1. Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
  2. Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
He "claims" I reverted 5th. But, 2th, 4th, 5th was not revert. It was add some note.
My edits was "improving", "add", "changing". it is improving article "bit by bit" than whole revert.
It was Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.(See Talk:Taekwondo#copyvio_references) And this case Exceptional case of 3RR. It is not count in 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR
biased or poorly sourced controversial material is also exceptional case of 3RR. It is not count in 3RR. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR
i already suggest he join in discuss. User_talk:Datheisen#WP:CULT.3F Becasue this is a content dispute. not edit war.

--660gd4qo (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion, after never using a talk page, that going against total consensus with a fringe view, that you're immune from 3RR? Okay. This is what admins are for. Give up on the personal attacks too, please. You're free to file a complaint to the socks notice board, if you'd like. I will still suggest you drop your post below, since it really, really isn't a 3RR violation and an admin is not going to be amused. They also dislike having regulations repeated to them. They know them. See WP:DTTR. You're not worth my time at this point, to acknowledge further, sorry. daTheisen(talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. You add 'difference cases' in 3rr. you reports 6 cases. but, 3 cases are not "revert".
  2. according to wikipedia definition, 3rr violation is "Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor rather than improving upon them". Certainly My edits are not reverting, and accept improving and changing.
  3. Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR And i changed copyvio references. copyvio, biased and controversial material are Exceptional case of 3RR. It's are not count in 3RR.
  4. Actually, It is not a main article changing. below small references changing.
  5. Your problem is... that article continually improving by discuss.Talk:Taekwondo It is not whole reverts war. (except for one single user, User:Reinosuke, this user just revert without any single discuss & reason) It ceratinly improving "bit by bit" than whole reverts.

--660gd4qo (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This looks to me like POV-warring by 660gd4qo about the national origins of Taekwondo, mixed in with implausible claims about copyright violations that (if true) would conveniently support his position in the POV dispute. I've asked 660gd4qo to promise to stop edit-warring on this article, on the theory that such a promise might help him to avoid a block. I suggest waiting a few hours to see if he responds. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is content dispute. But i NEVER claims my My POV Pushing only. Actually, edits chaging bit by bit. I'm a Neutral. Just avoid some Heavy POV Pushing. copyright violation is cleary true. edit-warring will stop until reach agrrement. ---660gd4qo (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, This is not 3rr vio. Some POV quotes should be moderate in discuss page before article change.(remeber, this is not main article change, below references change). so if JJL and User:Reinosuke(anyway, this user is a really annoying, just repeat reverting without any discuss) agree this, edit war will certainly STOP. I think we need much discuss for reach agreement. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Like EdJohnston metioned my page, "you could agree not to edit the article for a week. If you do so, you may be able to avoid a block.". If article protected at here[61](removed controvercial quotes until dispute solve), then i will discuss at talk page only without main article change. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That article already moderated 2 years ago. [62] Most editors disagree JJL. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Only 2 users problems. JJL and User:Reinosuke. JJL's content dispute already end at here[[63]]. User:Reinosuke, is problem. this user just keep reverting without any singe discuss. Admin must give warning to this user,User:Reinosuke. I will report this user later.--05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - 31 hours. My offer to 660gd4go was not clearly accepted, so I went ahead and blocked for 31 hours. Since I posted on his talk page, he went ahead and edited the article one more time, removing a sentence about the claimed Japanese origin of Taekwondo from the article. There may be a legitimate question about the national origins of Taekwondo, but WP policy does not tolerate edit-warring in pursuit of any one view of the matter. If you wait for a Talk page consensus before making controversial changes, you should never get any trouble from admins. I caution this editor that his view of our copyright policy is completely wrong, and if he continues to revert out short quotations from good sources he may be blocked for a longer time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result: 24 hr block)[edit]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours

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

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

The present dispute between this editor and myself is about integrating a "personal life" and "career" section into one whole article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]


Extended discussion

I had been asked as a neutral editor to help opine at Roman Polanski and that did seem to help.

This editor and Proofreader77 were filling up the talkpage so I started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed to sort that out. The consensus seemed to be that Proofreader77 was in various ways overwhelming the page and needed to amend their communications asap. Which they seem to have been doing. Part of the issue was volume and now Tombaker123 is tingling my Spidey senses that their headed in the same arena. I was hoping to avoid this and that but maybe the stop here will help ease the disruption.

After the ANI thread died down and the NPOV tag removed I performed numerous cosmetic changes, added an awards section, and integrated the two main sections, "personal life" and "career". The vast majority of my changes have been generally well accepted but there was some concerns which were being worked out when a series of reverts and then re-applying the POV tag started. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note - Tombaker321's actions should be viewed in context of Revision 02:15, 6 Nov 09 -Benjiboi/Banjeboi *surprise* condensing of Sexual assault case section [~628 words down to ~389] (which kicked Tb321/Pr77 contention into NPOV tag battle etc etc) ... and then 19 consecutive edits - 17 Nov 09 - Benjiboi/Banjeboi *surprise* restructuring of article. I believe Tombaker321 sees these "surprises" by Benjiboi/Banjeboi as outrageously presumptuous usurpation of collaborative/consensus editing norms. (And use of *surprise* ANI and AN3 has unseemly tactical appearance, given instigating "surprises" ... without which there would not have been ANx's at all.) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Edits to Roman Polanski (note: some manual-count data, slight errors possible)

    Benjiboi/Banjeboi - 37 edits - Note: Since ANI - 19 +2 adjustments +2 reverts of TomBaker321

    Tombaker321 - 55 (19 since recent ANI responding to Benjiboi's 19-sequential-edits surprise)

    [Proofreader77 - 32 (one revert of "child rapist" from lede since ANI)] -- Proofreader77 (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is about large changes without talk page peer review, being insisted to become accepted without consensus or a reasonable amount of time given to build. Specific objections raised to Benjiboi in discussion, were not responded to, with their reversions driving back those single handed changes. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As Benjiboi state above, they raised a questions about the balance of the article and controversial nature of the article, to the ANI forum. After which they took it upon them self to enter in large scale changes to the article, which they have stated no frame the article in the form of Narrative writing. They did this simultaneously with removing a NPOV Tag as alluded to in Benjiboi remarks above. Instead of starting with a review and preview of these large changes in the discussion page, Benjiboi instead made the changes single handedly. After which she states above that concerns were raise. When Benjiboi reverted the original article to their rewrite, they stated there was no consensus for a revision away from their version. Which fully acknowledges there was no consensus to their version, and that their version changes were significant enough to merit review with other contributing editors. My edits have been a process of restoral to aggressive article changes by an editor.

Benjiboi, does not seem to acknowledge the need for review of their changes, prior to implementing them. When concerns were raised, and done so in talk, specific to the reversion to the pre-edited text, Benjiboi did not respond to the concerns in talk, and simply chose to revert to their version, repeatedly.

I object to the assertion that Benjiboi, is somehow a neutral editor above the other collaborative editors who have been working on the article. Benjiboi, should acknowledge that other editors are indeed acting in good faith, and don't need a page owner to oversee the entire entry, and make changes without peer review in the discussion page.

Again, when specific concerns were raised to Benjiboi, they did not respond and engage the objections by other editors. I believe it to be appropriate in light of Benjiboi entire article reformatting, to ask for a Page Protection, to allow a timeout, and allow for all editors, to raise their views in page discussion. I also am very concerned about snap consensus determinations by single editors. Benjiboi, self determination of their changes to be consensus, was made in hours of the changes. Consensus should be drawn with a modest amount of time for contributing editors to offer their voices.

Benjiboi, states their "spidey senses" were activated about concerns and hoping to "avoid", however they seem oblivious to the significant changes they have instigated, and how they were objected to by other editors. For example, Benjiboi, restructured the article to have its timeframe measured in Movie release dates, which by then, they separated content groups to fold into the movie release date time frame. The disassembly of content into a unique measurement of time, yielded an article most likely to become confusing to new readers. No matter what regard or need for the changes by Benjiboi, the end result should not be view as something that should be passed by the talk page prior to implementation. Which was only compounded by their insistence that their changes were immediately within hours the new consensus.

By Benjiboi, statement that they were asked in to act as neutral editor, and then their agressive single handed edits raises appropriately the question if they are acting as owner of entry. WP:OWN Thank you --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support and recommend page protection to sort this out. The version that is in place currently is the version (with some minor changes) that was built over time, the version prior to the large Benjiboi edits. I would not object to those changes to be backed out also, to leave a pre-event version. I earnestly believe that my request for citations (which comprise most of the edits to the pre-event version) to be not greater than than a minimal change. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Page Protection might be good idea. The article has been overhauled to such an extent in the last 48 hours that it can't possibly have been modified through consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. These are all interesting points which indeed illustrate the issue of POV editing that have disrupted the article. The facts remain, however, that I am a neutral editor not caring if Polanski raped someone or not etc. I only care about our readers and that is my sole reason for editing there. That fact also remains that Tombaker321 is claiming OWNership issues on me while displaying textbook example themself. The fact remains that generally all the editors there were not terribly concerned about the restructuring - with several stating full support - but expressed concern that the Tate section not be diminished. The fact remains that in an 11 hour period Tombaker321 has edit-war reverted five times to his version. Stalling every change to admonish other editors to follow processes the way they wish them to be is also disruptive, so is BTW endless meta-discussion about every aspect of discussion. I didn't think it before but both Tombaker321 and Proofreader77 may simply need to take a break from the article so that other editors can wade in, give opinions and move on allowing the article to improve. -- Banjeboi 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
With some more research, this issues is able to be boiled down now. Benjiboi instigated large scale reformatting of the style of article. When the article was restored through straight edits to its original form, Benjiboi insisted on reverting. My edits were to restore back to the version prior to Benjiboi change of entire style of the article.
The operative policy states that what Benjiboi did was not appropriate, and anticipates problems if Benjiboi insists on changing the article unilaterally.
WP:STYLE Stability of articles: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
Benjiboi single handedly changed the style of the article without reason beyond mere choice. The was no substantial reason, and no offering of one either. Benjiboi's optional style put things into motion. If they followed policy, this would have not occurred. The policy states if disagreement is present, that the style need to defer to status quo style coming from the first major contributors.
I have notified Benjiboi of this policy and do not expect Benjiboi to force in their global changes again. I believe this to be resolved. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You have edit-warred to rollback to your preferred style, please don't pretend anything else has occurred to justify ... edit-warring. You could have discussed but you didn't, you could have allowed others to comment but you simply reverted time and time again. That you overwhelm and frustrate what you see as your opposition does not in any way vindicate your actions. -- Banjeboi 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Pardon, we had a long standing baseline, you broke the guidelines and pushed in changes. Objections we raised by others, and then I had to edit back in the original document by hand, very time consuming, it was not just a click of a put the article back to its ORIGINAL state. I gave clear reasons why, in talk. You did not address them at all, and instead pushed back your modified away from baseline version. You acknowledge the objection existed immediately yet you insisted your way was to be the way for every editor contributing. I raised issues and responded.
That there are specific rules against your wholesale restructurings is not surprising, it makes sense, and has the wisdom of the experience of others, who adopted means to avoid conflict. The rule anticipates the edit warring you instigated to keep your changes in. While it is understandable you may not have known a specific rule, it is only common sense in a multiple collaborating editor environment, that single handed unilateral changes to the content of the entire article......are going to be problematic, and should be reviewed first. You make no suggestion you passed the large changes by anyone, other than what you felt was correct for everyone. Part of assuming good faith, it to not do an end around run and bypass process just to get your view installed. I don't feel vindicated, I do feel that I was pushed into keeping the groups consensus version instead of your own single handed version. Bottomline, you broke policy, which is just common sense about respecting other editors, you went full into WP:OWN mode.--Tombaker321 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
All your concerns, voluminous and repeated much the the volume here demonstrates, were indeed addressed by myself and others. You simply reverted despite myself and another editor encouraging you not to. No one else is edit warring there, you are the only one and now your version is what stands. Everyone else is discussing civilly and without bad faith assumptions. -- Banjeboi 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Peter Lee and User:Mario Roering reported by User:Frmatt (Result: 24 hours each)[edit]

Page: World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Peter Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Mario Roering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71] Note: not actually reverted to, but this is the diff before everything started between these two least recently

(there's a lot more, but I think you get the point...)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] and [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] Not I, but User:4twenty42o who brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#World_Genseiry.C5.AB_Karate-d.C5.8D_Federation where I attempted to give them a hand in the absence of anyone else who took notice of it.


  • Each blocked for 24 hours. Normally I would just warn here given that the reverts stopped after the warning, but the extreme edit war combined with extreme incivility pushes it over the edge. I strongly encourage both participants here to civilly discuss the issue, or engage in dispute resolution. Next time for this type of conduct will likely be much longer than a day. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mindgladiator reported by User:Jujimufu (Result: Voluntary restriction)[edit]

Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Ramtha)
User being reported: Mindgladiator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original Version

  • 1st revert: 23:07 15 Nov 2009 (undid revision without justification)
  • 2nd revert: 23:55 16 Nov 2009 (undid revision, but justification provided was inadequate; further comments on his justification were not addressed)
  • 3rd revert: 18:25 17 Nov 2009 (undid edit without providing further justification)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mindgladiator

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:J. Z. Knight


  • Result - This is a valid complaint about edit warring by Mindgladiator. In lieu of admin action, the latter has accepted a voluntary restriction. He has agreed not to edit the J. Z. Knight article for 30 days. This expires at 18:23 UTC on 20 December, 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jujimufu reported by User:Mindgladiator (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Ramtha)
User being reported: Jujimufu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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


We have both halted editing the page and we are currently in the process of trying to understand the reasons behind each person's Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

its and reverts. -Jujimufu (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to "skepticism [...] is not helping the topic to be factual or helpful to the reader", I would like to point out that refusal to look at the skeptic or critical side of such a controversial topic when such a side exists is complicit behaviour to the promotion of Ramtha's claims regardless of their validity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cult-gathering/converting place, and should thus present such extraordinary claims with the least respectable amount of skepticism and critical thinking they deserve. That includes skeptical scrutiny that these issues have undergone in the past and by acclaimed authors, scientists and skeptics who have written so in their publications, which deserves a mention and a highlight in the article. Please correct me if you believe something contrary to what I just said, or provide evidence/support that Ramtha's claims have been scientifically acclaimed and supported by experimental information published in peer-reviewed journals, which would in turn warrant the criticism and skepticism around the issue null and deem their place in the article useless. But unless such information is provided, I believe the skeptical side should appear in the page.

I feel I have already addressed issues with respect to your claims of "addition of content to article with extreme anti-topic views", "[addition of] off topic information" or "own personal views on Ramtha and teachings" in the article's discussion page. My replies on these claims have yet to be addressed, yet it seems User:Mindgladiator is keen on removing any information that contradicts the belief that Ramtha is a real entity, which is at least debatable (as the scientific community and skeptics around the world have shown - all of which are referenced clearly and precisely in each and every one of my edits). "Irrelevant information" includes an analogy between Ramtha's core teachings and a list of common messages by channelers by Russell Chandler (in his "Understanding New Age"; the extract I quoted from the book follows a conversation particularly about Ramtha). I do not see this as "off-topic information", but rather on-topic elements which contribute to presenting the claimed channeled entity Ramtha in a more balanced way.

Again, none of the issues I addressed in the talk pages has been addressed, and if they are to be addressed I would like to ask a coherent, logical, and grounded reply like the one I provided. I will not settle for quasi-new-age beliefs and excitements from other members due to having watched (highly questionable and of dubious validity) videos from Ramtha's website to counter a scientific approach to investigate this issue (which -if it has not been stressed enough already, in this reply and in my replies in the article's talk page- are not my investigations, but investigations by other scientists, skeptics and authors who have published their views and whose writings I quoted, referenced and cited in every single one of my additions).

I hope I am being understood, and if not, please ask and I will try and clarify my stance better.

-Jujimufu (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed some very dubious ELs in this edit [87]], but they were restored again by User:Mindgladiator here. The user seems to have very poor grip on WP policies despite several attempts being made to ppoint him at them. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
While Mindgladiator may seem inexperienced with Wikipedia, he already knows how to file complaints at WP:RFPP and the 3RR board. I've left him a very specific warning about edit wars and invited him to respond here. The J. Z. Knight article seems to be almost his only interest on Wikipedia since his account was created in August. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello.. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am learning very quickly about how to do things. I have used wikipedia for many referencing reasons in the past and then decided to look at the JZ Knight page. I was shocked to find that anyone was saying whatever they liked about this person, the teachings of Ramtha and the School of Enlightenment. I do have an interest in the article I have had experience of the subject matter. What I find worrying is that I have used wikipedia for other reasons and trusted the information so that is what people will also be doing with this article. Some users seem to just use this page to push their own opinions pro JZ or anti and I dont agree with either. Now I dont have as much to say as Jujimufu in my responses within these chat and discussion pages but I do value wikipedia and do not wish to see it devalued it this way. My critisism of Jujimufu has been clear, this user does not seem to take a neutral line..

I will learn fast and start referencing and following protocol correctly. As I said to Jujimufu I am happy to work together to make sure we both discuss and remain neutral with posts, that offer still stands. My only interest is to make she its not all one sided, Jujimufu talks about there being no scientific back up for various points in the article, I put on a External link that shows a discovery by the scientific community that does relate to Ramtha's teachings and Jezhotwheels removes it!! So what do you want, references and linking to relevant information or not? It may be that I am just referencing etc in the wrong way, well in that case help me to understand, by showing me how you would include the link and its information into the article... I am willing to learn and not about to go away..

Mindgladiator (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The ELs removed were links to Knight's Ramtha websites or news articles which did not follow WP:EL. The only one which could remotely be considered "scientific" is a newsletter written by Knight citing a photograph sent to her by an alleged scientist, Sonia García Ramirez, who appears to be a post-graduate student in Colombia.[88] This is not a WP:RS for anything and does not meet the criteria of WP:EL. The subject of the photograph has nothing to do with "Ramtha", except in Knight's unreliable synthesis. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The link you provided about the "scientific foundings" which "support" some of the claims by Ramtha came from JZ Knight's own website, with no external source, and thus is dubious at best. If you find an article in a published scientific journal that shares the same results and which has been shown to support Knight's claims, then go ahead and put that article in.
You keep shouting and throwing in words, but you still have not summoned the intelligence to provide a clear-cut argument against my neutrality on the nature of the article. The article would only be "devalued" if we were to take whatever Ramtha's website says at face value without looking into the reality of things. And the reality of things shows that Ramtha has troubled quite a few scientists and skeptics, which have expressed their opinion in their writings. Which I referenced and sourced.
I still fail to see how this is irrelevant, or compromises the "value" of the article.
There's a difference between us, but it is not how familiar you are with the WP protocols or regulations: it is the fact that, when you read the article you saw that "anyone was saying whatever they liked about this person", whereas when I read the article, I saw that it is an article without a grain of skepticism, and an article which definitely requires a good dose of some.
Skepticism of Ramtha exists abound in the relevant texts (which -surprise, surprise- do not include Ramtha's own websites), which has been relevantly sourced in the article.
If the article was once one-sided, that was before any additions were made, when it contained only links, readings and articles from Ramtha, or Ramtha's website. Is that one-sided enough for you?
-Jujimufu (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jujimufu.. I see you are now enjoying the freedom to reference many anti references to this article, is that one sided? I think so.. Many of your references are to what people have thought about Ramtha and the teachings at his school but negative, why then can I not link to positive references?

It seems that editing this article is restricted to those who want to dis-credit and add skeptisim, thats not right.. You have linked to the Glen Cunningham video, and then removed the video link to students card reading... why? Because you think he is right and the card readers are dubious.. Well that stinks. There are many videos, and places on the internet where people talk about and demonstrate their wonderful experiences at RSE, if I refernece these will you leave them there or report me for pushing promotion material.. In many cases there is no scientific back up for some of the things happening at the school, but is there any scientific back up to Glen Cunningham or other peoples 'published' thoughts about jz, Ramtha or the school? No. This is where the article becomes unreliable and you become hypocrytical.. Like you I will now gather up lots of references to Ramtha, the school and JZ which are positive. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me, because you have done exactly the same but the negative.

I have sat with students who have read through a whole pack of cards with the face turned downwards, see the future consistantly and move objects with only their mind. Now was there a scientist there at the table who could publish the findings, no.. That is coming, 2 students are currently undergoing extensive test and experiments with a well know US institution, into their abilities to read through solid objects consistantly. This is not my opinion, this is what is happening and I intend to reference this material / videos into the article. I think it comes down to you not believing that these things are possible, and maybe they are not for you, but other people are doing it as a result of JZ Knight and Ramtha's teachings and this article should have some reference to that.

A couple of weeks ago Derren Brown had a television program on in the UK where he had the whole UK population doing a remote view, over 30% did this successfully. Then the following week he had a program about how he can win the roulette wheel by predicting numbers acurately. The first of the series he and a group of UK citizens acurately predicted the lottery. Unless you have your head in the sand you can see that these things that Ramtha teaches his students to do, are going on all around you all the time. There are students at school who do predict half of the lottery numbers correctly all the time now. This information is available to anyone who wants to know... However it cant be included in this article because you think it is dubious, what does that say about the way you see your own possibilities?

Once again I say, I am happy to curtail my enthusiasm about the subject and create a neutral article but please dont be hypocrits and tell me not to post pro references when you are doing the same the other way.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindgladiator (talkcontribs) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, you don't seem to be able to understand, so I now state that I am not going to argue any further. A consensus has been reached between me and the rest of the people contributing in this dispute that your edits are against wikipedia's basic principles, and you have been warned with a 3RR warning. You seem unable to understand basic principles of encyclopedic approaches to a subject, and furthermore you seem heavily biased towards Ramtha and his teachings, by being in close contact with students of the School and by showing instant belief for every information taken from Ramtha's website. If you want to find support for Ramtha's claims, then you are very welcome to do so - but not from self published sources (as was mentioned to you in the article's talk page), and when it comes to extraordinary claims, you need to provide the relevant extraordinary evidence. You can't just use a dubious (not because of its origin, but because of the way it's shot and presented) from Ramtha's own website to support Ramtha's own claims.
Your additition of a "Praise and Accolade" section has no place, as this is not a site to praise certain figures, but to provide as much information about them as possible. "Praising" is personal, while "Controversies and Criticism" is not. If Ramtha doesn't like that section in the article, he can go to the critics individually and prove to them his existence.
Your reference to Derren Brown in your previous response seems to have a clear misunderstanding of his nature: Derren Brown is an illusionist, a magician and 'mentalist', who tricks people but acknowledges that he does so publicly. He himself said "I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game." (Brown, Derren (2006), Tricks of the Mind, London: Channel 4, ISBN 9781905026265) (also, Derrek Brown gives a fantastic interview here with Richard Dawkins, where he discusses cold reading and other similar skills).
As I said, I am not going to argue any further with you - so far you have shown no adequate ability in argueing coherently, meaningfully and/or clearly, so until you do that I will undo any meaningless edits on the page, and keep reporting you, if necessary.
-Jujimufu (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Seems your endless bias is working for you and the article is becoming more and more biased.. your way .. Am I really the only person who can see how biased you are with you edits????

The changes will continue and increase with accurracy and reference. I do not and will not agree that you should be able to say what ever you want, then backing it up with some hashed together evidence from a disgruntled ex employee (for example).. You will always be able to find plenty of that sort of entry on the internet with this sort of subject..

How can you also say "Praise and Accolade" is personal, while "Controversies and Criticism" is not. That is absolute bull.. This is a one sided approach which I clearly see you are not willing to change.

I really thought that the administrators of wikipedia would warn you against being so biased but that also seems to be missing.

Mindgladiator (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Mindgladiator has quite a problem with understanding the WP concept of neutrality. This diff [89] shows him removing information cited to WP:RS. He really should be blocked for this, in my opinion. He has had sufficient warnings and refuses to discuss this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: I am watching this case, have discussed things with Mindgladiator, and may close the issue soon if no other admin gets to it first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
User Mindgladiator has gone a step further with their extreme edits: his most recent edit on the J. Z. Knight-related content is in the article's talk page, in which he removed all evidence of previous conversations on the topic ( diff ). -• jujimufu (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - No action. This case is a complaint about edit warring by Jujimufu. (See a related complaint about Mindgladiator just sbove). I do not see edit warring by Jujimufu, but I caution him to make full use of the Talk page before making substantial changes to the article. Although you've been reverting some POV edits, such reverts are not an exception from the WP:3RR rule, so please be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Todd Gallagher reported by User:22015va (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: State Guard Association of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Todd Gallagher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]


<New to Wiki, I have made every effort to be objective and limit my eidts to small increments. However, user: Todd Gallagher keeps using the "undo" command to wipe hours of editing. He continues to selectively cites old sources that are archived on a third-party site and deletes current links on the organization's. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 22015va (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) -->

A Wikipedia Editor has intervened and I believe with his assistance we will be able to reach a consensus with this article. A discussion paragraph has been added to the articles discussion page22015va (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Result -- Both parties warned. There has been a very sharp dispute, but there are no edits by Todd Gallagher since 17 November. The submitter of this complaint seems to be affiliated with the State Guard Association which is the article subject. Both parties are warned that they must follow Wikipedia policy, and I urge User:22015va to read the WP:Conflict of interest guideline. If revert warring starts up again, both paries risk sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Doctorfluffy reported by User:A Nobody (Result: 55h)[edit]

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

  • Edit war A:

Page: Kimber Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below for explanation.

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

  • Edit war B:

Page: J. Wellington Wimpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Wimpy


User is currently engaged in multiple edit wars over fictional character articles. User in question has been warned for edit warring elsewhere and has a history of engaging in long-term edit warring that while perhaps not technically always being 3RR in 24 hours, nevertheless goes well beyond 4 reverts total and will continue to do so despite being undone by multiple different editors. Another recent example of an edit war warning can be found here. In most of these cases, the user in question redirects fiction/popular culture related articles and the undoes anyone who challenges his redirects. He has again, been doing so for months now and should know better. Other examples I recall were [110], [111], [112], etc. or [113], [114], [115], etc. or [116], [117], [118], [119], etc. Another long-drawn out edit-war from this user is the following: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], etc. --A NobodyMy talk 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another admin blocked 55 hours. See User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Update.--chaser (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:RavShimon reported by User:Ya Rasulullah Madad (Result: 72hr)[edit]

This user has breached the three revert rule and thus should be blocked. He consistantly adds historically inaccurate pictures to an article when a consensus has been reached against them.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Fastily. JamieS93 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Maverick16 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Maverick16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here, and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: editor's sole "attempt"

This is a contentious article anyway. Unilateral action is strongly discouraged on such articles. Warring editor made no attempt to discuss action even after it was suggested that s/he attempt to gain a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult reported by Chase wc91 (Result: Warned/Stale)[edit]

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:05, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; Unless this is discussed on the talk page first, do not change. (TW)")
  2. 03:29, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; WP:LEAD as long as info is in the body of the article the lead/infobox does not require citations. discuss on the talk page first. (TW)")
  3. 04:39, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Chasewc91; Seek administrative action if you wish. My actions are within policy. (TW)")
  4. 10:44, 20 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by NeilN; The source itself is not the issue. talk page discussion uses allmusic in addition to other sources. (TW)")

It should be noted that most of these reverts came from myself and another editor who were adding sourced genres to the page. It appears as if Bookkeeperoftheoccult just didn't like how reliably-sourced genres were listed. Possibly a little stale, but I was just now made aware of this, and I think action should be taken.

Chase wc91 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The last revert was over 12 hours ago, so I have warned rather than blocked Bookkeeper. NW (Talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nyttend reported by Sswonk (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:53, 9 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Name for the Frederick Ayer Mansion")
  2. 18:11, 10 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Link")
  3. 16:29, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This is the official name; we can't change the official name unless there's an error. Also changing alphabetisation: C before Y")
  4. 03:33, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "These aren't names of properties on the Register")
  5. 13:07, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deviance from the Register's formatting is at variance with the policy of WP:NRHP and at variance with WP:V")
  • Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]


User Nyttend is reverting proper formatting of ship names/linked article titles to match the ALL CAPS style found on lists provided by the National Register of Historic Places. Other users are attempting to use consistent styling, in accordance with WP:ALLCAPS. Nyttend did not specifically mention the reversion in the first two reversion edit summaries and those reversions were included along with several other copy edits. The last three diffs show a 3RR violation beginning at 16:29, November 17, 2009 followed by two further reverts within 24 hours. The edit summaries provided by Nyttend indicate that names are being changed which violates the "policy" of the WikiProject WP:NRHP and result in unverifiable material. In fact, only the capitalization and use of periods within names of ships are being changed, the names are obviously correct and unchanged. N.B.: The article contains several dozen images and over two hundred {{coord}} listings, and as a result may take some time (up to 10 seconds) to load diffs.

Sswonk (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There has been no action on the above post for 12 hours, other than a relatively mild suggestion at Nyttend's user talk, which has received no response.[140] However, shortly before that post Nyttend did delete[141] the {{uw-3rr}} notice with the summary "I'm not in violation of 3RR, and you've done at least as many reversions." I am just learning that 3RR violations occur at the fourth revert in 24 hours; however, I have never done more than two such reverts on this or any article—the edit summary presents a falsehood. Irrespective of Nyttend's sysop status, which should not have any bearing here, his actions are disruptive and contrary to the consensus formed at the article talk page. I am adding this comment to draw attention here, Nyttend apparently has not learned anything from a similar block incident from five months ago.[142] Something more than a deleted template and unresponsive behavior is expected. No acknowledgment and outright unsupported denial is tantamount to declaration of the right to behave disruptively on Nyttend's behalf and should be addressed further. Sswonk (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Result -- No action. Nobody has tried to change either to or from the all-caps style since 18 November, so for the moment there is no edit war. If it resumes, it will present a puzzling situation. Since Nyttend is an admin, we assume that he knows how to negotiate to get a consensus for his change. I had hoped he would reply to this report, since he has been properly notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Black Hawk Down (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs</