Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive119

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ari89 reported by Nikopolyos (Result: )[edit]

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)

User:Vividuppers reported by User:ChrisO (Result: 31 h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [10]
  • 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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)

User:suwaidanmd reported by User:sgmiller (Result:Page protected for two weeks )[edit]

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

User:The359 reported by User:MDesjardinss (Result:Page protected for two weeks )[edit]

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))

Request[edit]

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

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars (Result: semi-protected)[edit]

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)

User:92.14.114.234 reported by User:The JPS (Result: protected)[edit]

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 · edit 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 JPStalk 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)

User:Zsero reported by User:Mamalala (Result: No vio)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [20]


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

User:Scjessey reported by User:jheiv (Result: Page protected by Chamal N)[edit]

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 · edit 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)

5 reverts in 24 hours by Scjessey

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. jheiv (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.jheiv (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.delanoygabsadds 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. jheiv (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.delanoygabsadds 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.delanoygabsadds 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. jheiv (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)

User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:bender235 (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}} and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}}
User being reported: Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

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)

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

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: stale)[edit]

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

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)

Admin intervention request (Result: Enawga warned)[edit]

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 · edit 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)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Omitting related vandalism reverts, Enawga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

User:91.103.41.50 reported by User:Jbarta (Result: 31 h)[edit]

Page: Akmal Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 91.103.41.50 (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: [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)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment See below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: 24 h)[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75]


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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)

User:MariAna Mimi reported by User:80.47.9.124 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)]] (Result: blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [83]


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)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)

User:91.103.41.50 reported by User:7ofclubs (Result: blocked 31 h)[edit]

Page: Akmal Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 91.103.41.50 (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: [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)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)

User:StevenMario reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: blocked 24 h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 24 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

89.15.9.186 (Result: semi)[edit]

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

User:scjessey, User:Unitanode, User:Sceptre reported by User:Jzyehoshua (Result: reporting user warned blocked 24 h)[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log), Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

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)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg 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:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg 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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 24 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:70.246.229.135 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [128]


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

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale NJA (t/c) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bitemyshinymetalass78 reported by User:roguegeek (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [138]


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 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely NJA (t/c) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Lambanog reported by User:JCRB (Result: No 3RR)[edit]

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