Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Timelessagain reported by User:Eudemis (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3] and [4]

This single purpose account and apparent newbie isn't familiar with Wikipedia sourcing requirements and continues to edit in unsourced material into the Robert Conrad article. It doesn't appear, to me at least, that he understands the discussion pages as he/she hasn't engaged in any discussions regarding his edits. I had requested/invited him to do so. He continues to drop in the same or similar information unsourced leaving the conflicting citations in place or worse miscodes the citations so that they don't appear. He was warned by User:Dr.K. concerning the 3R Rule but continued to revert back in the same text. The reversions have ended for now because we are leaving his latest edits in uncorrected. See the current state of the article. He may be well intentioned but he needs a crash course in Wikipedia policies if he is going to edit this aggressively. Eudemis (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Exactly 4 reverts in 24 hours, including after a warning. Mkativerata (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Big Beautiful Woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP keeps adding loaded wording despite reversions by several editors to neutral wording. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In absence of response here, I have again returned it to clean version.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Semiprotected six months. This page appears to be a long-time vandal target. The name Gr**p is mentioned in the log. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note the IP is still stirring up trouble on my talkpage and the article talkpage.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SpecialKCL66 reported by User:AzureCitizen (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: James O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpecialKCL66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

  • 1st removal: [6]
  • 2nd removal: [7]
  • 3rd removal: [8]
  • 4th removal: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:James_O'Keefe#.22Heavily_and_selectively_edited.22

The words "heavily and selectively edited" appear in the source citation for the sentence in the article here. SpecialKCL66 has removed the words "...found the videos had been heavily and selectively edited and..." from the article four times in a five hour span despite objections from myself and another user on the Talk Page. This user appears to be brand new, so perhaps instead of a block, an admin could politely instruct him more about 3RR and the importance of seeking consensus before reverting? --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Later Update:
Striking through part of my prior comment above after User:SpecialKCL66 aggressively inserted a paragraph of POV-oriented original research with RS issues (I can't provide the direct diff because he made them in the course of 8 intermediate revisions). When user Filmfluff reverted the edits here, user SpecialKCL66 promptly reverted them back here to re-insert his new material. That's not another 3RR, but demonstrates clear intent to edit war to add his POV. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Eliseunder reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:AIDS_denialism#This_article_is_a_disaster.

The user has asserted his intent to edit the article to reflect his POV that HIV does not cause AIDS, seen at the above talk page link. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mkativerata (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Mmann1988 reported by User:Nyttend (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Template:Cobb County, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mmann1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] (I can't remember the proper template, but this note contains both a link to the relevant policy and a notice of the page in question)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none; discussion has been carried on by use of edit summaries, although Mmann1988 has frequently reverted without comment.]


Mmann1988 continues to add a link to this template that has been opposed by multiple editors and supported by none. Despite continued explanations, s/he refuses to engage in productive discussions and either reverts without comment or attacks those with whom s/he disagrees. I reverted to the point of 3RR, miscounting my actions and not realising until afterward that I'd hit that point. Please note that Mmann1988 is functionally a single-purpose account; other than this template and related articles, his/her only edits have been a pointy and obvious bad-faith AFD that was speedy kept. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week The reporter's warning was given after the fourth and most recent revert; however, I am blocking for a week because the edit-warring follows a long pattern of disruptive editing. A warning as opposed to a block would only be justified if the editor had a good faith misapprehension that no rules were being broken by reverting. I can't extend that assumption of good faith here.Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:RomanHistorian (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dylan Flaherty (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: [27]

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

Dylan Flaherty is engaging in edit warring behavior. He has actually been doing this for quite a while with me. I feel he is Wikihounding me. For about a month he has been reverting just about everything I do on this most other religion articles. He almost never comments on the discussion boards, he just reverts. Whenever he gives any reason he just says my views are fringe. He also adds a good number of personal attacks against me. I made some changes to Gospel of John and other users agreed though modified what I did, and he just blanket reverted everything several times within a few hours. My first change included a single source which he called fringe, so I added 14 sources and he reverted that as well, also calling it fringe. As you can see on the discussion page, he has said almost nothing concerning his blanket reverts. Also notice the revert by Hardyplants [28] where he reverts one of Dylan Flaherty's reversions and says he is engaging in edit warring behavior. I also noticed that he has persistently engaged in edit warring with other members. I see that he was cited for edit warring above (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PiCo_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_Dispute_resolution.29). It seems to be an ongoing behavioral problem for him. I noticed from his comment page that he has only been a Wikipedia member for a month. That is a lot of edit warring in a short period of time. I guess that means he started edit warring with me about the time he signed up for Wikipedia. He is pretty knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies for someone who has been on Wikipedia for such a short time. I wonder if he might be a sock puppet.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that RomanHistorian is being less than completely candid. He's been making broad changes against consensus, leading a number of concerned editors to revert his changes. He has edit-warred against consensus and that's why he was just blocked. As soon as he regained the ability to edit, he abused it by wikihounding me. He went to the articles I most recently edited -- including many he knows and cares nothing about -- and reverted my changes. I find it richly ironic that he is guilty of the things that he accuses me of, while I am innocent of them. I believe that RomanHistorian needs a longer block at this time. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You have reverted a good number of edits by other users on these same pages over these same issues (see the reverts above). You also have no idea what my interests are. If I was wikihounding you I wouldn't have left most of your recent edits alone.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why you reverted these articles, when you had never edited them before and mine was the last edit. Show me why we should believe it was in good faith. Start by explaing this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
With those articles you were engaging in your destructive edit war/reversion behavior. It seems pathological with you. I didn't touch the articles where others had dealt with your behavior. Actually your behavior is all around destructive, and I find it interesting that below you identify yourself with PiCO who has engaged in similarly destructive behavior.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan has just violated 3RR on Gospel of John. He should be blocked for that reason if none other. He is repeatedly reverting everything he doesn't like on Gospel of John. He just reverted an edit by John J. Bulten, who had filed the edit war complaint earlier and cited Dylan as a culprit. It appears that he is indiscriminately reverting everything. It is becoming very difficult to make changes to many of these articles. He is simply reverting things whole sale and not just those I make. As mentioned above, he has edit warred with others.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You do yourself no favors by lying. Yes, I did revert that article, but no, I did not violate 3RR. Anyone can go see for themselves, just as they can see that you were blocked for edit-warring over these same topics. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
He has a history of edit warring separate from these mentioned incidents User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty#3RR.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Translation: I have a history of reverting your broad, anti-consensus changes. PiCo and I are awaiting the mediation on these topics. I am willing to work with others and come to a consensus; this is how we differ. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a history of reverting many other people's 'anti-conensus' changes. It seems the 'consensus' is whatever you define it to be.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, this is another bit of dishonesty. The 3RR warning was given to me and to PiCo because we reverted your changes. It has everything to do with these mentioned incidents. At the time I received the warning, I did not know what 3RR was. Now I do. I hope you do, too, since you were blocked for violating it and I never was. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why I was blocked for 3RR, as I didn't actually violate it. The first of the 4 reversions that was cited for that was not a reversion but the original edit. Not much I can do about their mistake though.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Roman, around here anything counts as a revert; on that first one you were deleting work somebody else put in years ago, get it? On Gospel of John because of intervening edits a very loose interpretation could put me at "three reverts" already even though I am improving the article and only one was a straight undo. On another article I made only improvements except for reverting two words, yet I was still found to be warring and the article is protected for 2 weeks. Another editor in the incident had a clear 5RR but got no block and only a day of protection. But "quit yourselves like men". JJB 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: My report below is redundant with this one, apparently on the same four reverts, but the diffs may be easier to follow. The fourth revert undid four other helpful editors simultaneously, but Dylan called it a revert to a consensus version. Dylan also apparently claims to know what 3RR is prior to engaging in these four reverts. JJB 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Fully protected. For the rationale, see another report of the same dispute, given below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Perspectoff reported by Walter Görlitz (talk) (Result: already blocked, see below)[edit]

Page: Ubuntu (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:03, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 05:01, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 390008162 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
  3. 05:04, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 390008523 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
  4. 06:57, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "") and 07:03, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 07:11, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 390020700 by Cindamuse (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Walter_Görlitz reported by User:Perspectoff (Result: 24h for reporter, declined for reportees )[edit]

Page: Ubuntu (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter_Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

  • 1st revert: [30]
  • 2nd revert: [31]
  • 3rd revert: [32]
  • 4th revert: [33](suspected sockpuppetry)
  • 5th revert: [34](suspected sockpuppetry)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]


External links in question have been in place since November 2008. User:Walter_Görlitz took exception to external links (See [36]. All external links except for official link from info box were removed by Gorlitz.

Text of article then changed in an effort to reach a middle ground, with the references now containing the external links. Suspected sockpuppet User:Cindamuse immediately removed both text, references, and a subsection of the article in order to filter the references as well. This article is about Ubuntu. The filtered references links are to the official Ubuntu support Forums and to official and unofficial Ubuntu support wikis.

User:Gorlitz and suspected sockpuppet User:Cindamuse then engaged in Wikihounding of User:Perspectoff.

Perspectoff is unable to count. The first edit is over a week before the the latter two and User:Cindamuse and I are not the same. We have not been hounding User:Perspectoff, simply warning user of his abuse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Reporter violated 3RR, reportees did not and sockpuppetry is unlikely (although reporter is encouraged to file a SSP after block is over). All parties are encouraged to stop edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: earlier, now

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by RomanHistorian. Full disclosure: I was asked by RomanHistorian to look at the article history and observed Dylan had already performed 3 reverts. I began a normal article-cleanup process and was cold-reverted by Dylan without warning or cogent summary, along with intervening diffs by 3 other editors. I had no intention of tempting Dylan to close the circuit with a fourth revert, as made clear by my fixes of his reverts being limited only to restoring issue tags and wikilinks, and by starting with obvious policy problems like weasel words rather than the large deleted paragraphs.

I just mentioned Dylan in a related report still listed above at WP:ANEW#User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution), which should be reviewed in full as well before determining timeframe of any penalties. JJB 07:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on any of this at the moment except to point out that this is a duplicate report. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I just noticed so myself, but I hope it's slightly more comprehensive. Reviewers should please see all three related reports on this page. JJB 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to comment: look at the dates and the other revisions in between. It's obviously not a 3RR violation, although it's true that JJB and RomanHistorian are edit-warring. Read the talk page and you'll see the full context. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you're about to learn what edit warring is. Making two improvements on an article I've never touched is not edit warring, even if minor reversion of your deletion of tags and wikilinks is included. Your four undoings of prior edits or edit sets, without adjustment or discussion, is absolutely edit warring. Admins also consider a lot of related behavior edit warning, so please keep in mind, after you (presumably) get blocked for this one, that if you're too obvious about pushing the limits of what you think is edit warring next time even without breaking them, that too is edit warring. Verbum sat. JJB 08:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, after Andrew C informed me about 3RR, I read up on it. I am not violating that rule. If I get blocked, it can only be due to administrators finding some other reason. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between 3RR and edit warring. 3RR can be objectively measured. Edit warring is a pattern of behavior that skirts 3RR but is still disruptive. Dylan, your editing exhibits this pattern of behavior. However, a block is not necessary (blocks are not punitive) if you'll simply agree to altering (for the better) your approach to editing this article. Rklawton (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Dylan believes that he was both warring and committing the objectively measured fourth straight revert. He is using the fact that RomanHistorian was blocked for three reverts and a deletion to show that his reversions are justified. Further, the agreement must involve the broad scope of Dylan's whole editing approach, not just this article, because of his same behavior on the articles in PiCo's report and elsewhere. It would also need to be an explicit statement from Dylan's part and not just assumed by the monitoring admins. JJB 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are Dylan's four reverts which I believe constitute a 3RR violation, since they are within 24 hours and each one undoes some work by another editor:
  1. 08:56, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "undue weight on a fringe belief")
  2. 19:35, 10 October 2010 (edit summary: "no, these skew far away from the mainstream and give undue weight to non-mainstream views; please talk this over and gain consensus first")
  3. 02:04, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "there is still no consensus in support of these changes, so please make your case before editing")
  4. 07:26, 11 October 2010 (edit summary: "restore consensus version")
If anyone believes that this is not a WP:3RR, can they explain? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems Dylan is trying to redefine what 3RR is. 3RR is 4 reversions on a page within 24 hours, even if other editors made other changes within that time period. I think he thinks the other edits by other editors within that time period means his 4 reversions are not true reversions. The real problem for him isn't the 3RR, it his his pathological edit war behavior. I think he should get much more than a 24 hour ban, because what he has done from the moment he came onto Wikipedia has been far worse than a simple 3RR.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually think Dylan should be permanently blocked. In his short time on Wikipedia, he has constantly engaged in edit warring. He also routinely uses personal insults against me (I am fringe, anti-catholic, extremist, a bigot, don't know what I am talking about, ect). I have been on Wikipedia for probably about five years and have made a lot of changes (I created the entire Roman Constitution series and got much of it promoted to Good Article status), and I don't think I have ever encountered anyone as destructive as Dylan. No one else has singled me out for harassment either. If you look at his history, he seems to involve himself in mini-edit wars on just about everything he edits. Just to pick randomly, it looks like he has done this in the last couple days on John the Baptist and Historicity of Jesus. It seems to me he adds almost nothing, but rather his activity on Wikipedia is mostly just reverting the work of others. Looking at Q source, for example, shows that he recently reverted a one-word change from "most" to "some" (thus restoring a more extreme wording) and said nothing other than this one word change (which rightfully mellowed the language) needed to be explained although apparently his reversion did not. If someone disagrees with him, he will revert, no matter how legitimate the change was. He is discouraging legitimate changes to other areas of Wikipedia. Other articles need to be touched up in various ways, but he simply reverts everything while providing no explanation other than the occasional personal insult. I can't make a one word change without him reverting it for no reason. As you can see on Gospel of John other editors raised legitimate issues with my edits, I adjusted them and we reached a compromise. Compare that with Dylan, who just reverts without discussion. He is very destructive, and I feel he is stalking me because sometimes I just make random edits and within a couple hours he just so happens to revert them while calling them "fringe". He called my changes to Gospel of John fringe because he doesn't like the source, so I added 14 different legitimate sources and he reverted it for the same reason. This apparently was too much for the other editors since they allowed these changes because they were so well sourced. It upsets me greatly when just about everything I do is reverted by him for no apparent reason other than it was I who made an edit. Even look at Book of Genesis or Book of Exodus where he reflexively reverts one word changes I make with no explanation.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Fully protected two weeks, to curtail edit warring. I perceive that several editors, not just Dylan, are making large-scale edits for which they are unlikely to be able to show a talk page consensus. Any admin may lift the protection if they believe the problem has gone away. Discussion should be pursued on the Talk page even though the sides may be far apart. WP:Dispute resolution explains what to do when agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
For future reference the next time Dylan decides to edit war (any hour now no doubt) I found another instance of him edit warring in the bowels of Wikipedia: Talk:Battle_of_Jericho#Archaeology_evidence (from Alky2000 to Dylan) "The sentence you entered does not have any sources, and is your opinion. Whether evidence is sufficient is a matter of opinion", Dylan brings up his usual rational of "consensus", and then Alky2000 says to him "I don't appreciate you trying to persuade me to stop editing, and simply pointing to sections instead of actually providing a source isn't helpful". Apparently Dylan's actions here resulted in yet another edit war notice (User_talk:Alky2000). As usual, the common denominator is Dylan. One has to wonder how endemic his edit warring is, and how many other times he has done it. I am sure I will be reporting him again here in the not so distant future....RomanHistorian (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh and it appears Dylan just promised to continue edit warring User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty#October_2010.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see for yourself that RomanHistorian is lying. Sadly, he does not show the least bit of integrity. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Dylan should still be blocked, not just because he violated 3RR but because he routinely engages in edit warring behavior on a large number of articlesRomanHistorian (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This was fast. Dylan has already begun edit warring again. I made some changes to Battle of Jericho and he reverted them after a few minutes[40].RomanHistorian (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who might otherwise believe RomanHistorian to do a diff and see that I removed sentence that wasn't even proper English. If this is edit-warring, we are all edit warriors. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I just found two new examples of Dylan edit warring in the last couple of hours. Both cases, surprise surprise, are simply reverts of the last edits. He seems unable to do anything on Wikipedia other than erase the work of others [41], [42]. We should start a new Wikipedia article: The many dubious reverts of Dylan FlahertyRomanHistorian (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I encourage anyone who might otherwise believe RomanHistorian to go see for themselves. For example, the edit I made to Carl Paladino was to restore a cited paragraph that was erased without a stated reason. It was restoring, not deleting, which proves that RomanHistorian is either being careless or dishonest. The more he grinds his axe, the harder it is to believe the former. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating your modus operandi to us all. You did yesterday what you just did an hour ago to that article: reverted the prior edit for no reason other than your usual excuse of "no cited reason". Now if you weren't engaging in pathological edit warring behavior, manifested mostly through whole-sale reverts, a revert here or there would be acceptable. But your method is just to revert everything. Much of what you revert has no place being reverted. You are all around destructive. I am just going to keep a log of your reverts rather than try to correct the damage. At some point we will have to try to get you banned for your behavior.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when someone erases a paragraph for no stated (or apparent) reason, it's a very good thing for someone else -- like me -- to revert it. This is how we fight vandalism and bias. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So your reversion of Rossnixon's edit on Jesus, 3 minutes after it was made, was because Rossnixon is a vandal? RomanHistorian (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

More edit warring from Dylan. It seems he was doing more reverting, and almost triggered another war with another user (see Olive's complaint against Dylan over his behavior on User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty#Jesus. She says he was reverting the consensus view) See the reversion list: [43]. Notice this was a different person and different article from the near edit war over Battle of Jericho an hour earlier. This list of Dylan's warring behavior will be quite extensive before too long. RomanHistorian (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there buckaroo. No edit warring and no complaint. Dylan did not revert. I reverted him for weasel wording ... a simple copy edit revert which I made. He also replied civilly and seemed ready to take advice. Isn't this a new user. It can take a while to figure out Wikipedia and it can be hard if the user feels they've been misunderstood. I won't go further with this, but this was my experience and I wanted to clarify what happened. Make sure comments are accurate and fair, please.(olive (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

User:Myk60640 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Page protected for one week)[edit]

Page: United States Chamber of Commerce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Myk60640 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44] (It's more complicated than a single reversion I'm afraid. I'm trying to link to a page before the edit warring started, but it's hard to pin down what a "good" revision is)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] Diff of user responding and still not understanding the meaning of WP:OR:[51] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailsbystars (talkcontribs) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Several users are attempting to add non-RS and SYN information to the article in question. This particular user refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page. Article could desperately use some more outside help and possibly full protection from the ongoing edit war (in the interest of full disclosure, in which I have participated).

Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE The edit war continues unabated. I have reached 3RR and ceased editing. I think NeutralityPersonified (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may have also breached 3rr. Now an IP is involved, as are a smattering of other users. Where the heck are the admins? Sailsbystars (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Plenty of warring to go around. Protection may be lifted early once disruption is unlikely to resume. --Chris (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cavai Dobrescu Marius reported by User:ErikHaugen (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Page: Iosif Cavai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cavai Dobrescu Marius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments: The editor keeps removing notability/needstranslation tags, etc.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Don't want to sit him/her out for too long as he/she may decide to try in good faith to save the article from deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerrymahal reported by User:Anapologetos (Result:warned)[edit]

Page: New Tribes Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jerrymahal (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: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

This user will not discuss edits on Talk page--It is very clear that his edits are against the no original research policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anapologetos (talkcontribs) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Proper warning had not been given. Please report if this continues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User: (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Serbo-Croatian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

3RR in 27h (2RR in 30 minutes!) on the article Croatian language.

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

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

User often violate rules:

Tavio is playing the system, with his reverting he floods the history log in such a way that it is very hard to keep track of the changes.

This was posted by User:Kubura and is completely baseless. Indeed, it is User:Kubura who is abusing the system with pointless warnings on his the Talk Pages of those who don't share his POV. He has made no constructive contributions to Croatian language whatsoever. See User Talk:Taivo for Kwamikagami's opinion of this posting. --Taivo (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The fourth revert was actually a self-revert. Taivo's use of the {{cn}} tag might constitute a third reversion, but not fourth. Please use dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:321sakel reported by User:Hezery99 (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Kajang–Seremban Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 321sakel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps on spamming the "Beams collapsed at Pajam Interchange" as if he is the reporter for that event. Even though Aiman abmajid and I as regular editors for Malaysian highway articles team up together to clean up the mess caused by 321sakel, he is still persistent to revert back the spams that he has done previously. To all admins in English Wikipedia, please do something to 321sakel to stop him from spamming the article. Thank you. - Hezery99 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry? You cross wires with me and can only say sorry?... (Just kidding, hope I got you...) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyway, thanks a lot to the admins on duty for helping me out with this issue. Anyway, I've just realized that 321sakel is actually a sock puppet of Lekas123, the original vandal, from the spelling of his name. I have reverted the article to what it used to be and, hopefully, there won't be any more vandal for that article. Thanks a lot to all admins in duty, I really appreciate that. - Hezery99 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nowayjoesay reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 72h)[edit]

I do not need to give link, his action act for himself, at least he started to discuss, but never gave up edit warning. TbhotchTalk C. 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Four reversions. I've gone for longer than 24 hours due to personal attacks (albeit on the mild side) and the threats of further reversions indicating no attempt to edit collaboratively.[70] Hopefully three days out of action might change that. Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't really think that (s)he'll stop doing it, I gave him(her) many reasons and continue with "I am right you are wrong and have a nice day". TbhotchTalk C. 00:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
He does have constructive contributions on his record, so we'll just have to hope for the best. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Harrypotter reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:declined)[edit]

List of examples:
    • see his talk page, he is unwilling to discuss a solution
    • See the pages of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and People's Commissariat for Finance revision history, he is creating articles which has copied material from the ministry articles' i wrote. See his recent edit on the Council of People's Commissars. Sources say it was renamed, Soviet sources from the renaming process says it was reorganised, I don't really give a dam about the reorganisation process seeing these organisation had very little effect on the basic structures on these ministries. --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I see no evidence of edit warring, rather just a dispute. I have warned the editor for cut-and-paste moves. I see no further action necessary other than following proper dispute resolution channels. Otherwise, this is a malformed report, and there's no way any administrator can figure out who's responsible for what and where. Please follow the instructions for filing a complete report if there is extensive edit warring on the same page. If on different pages, again, try dispute resolution or WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gyrobo reported by User:FleetCommand (Result:no action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [71] 3 October 2010; Edit summary: (Huge ref fix, removed a ton of duplicates.)

  • 1st revert: [72] 6 October 2010; Edit summary: MINOR EDIT (Undid revision 389155743 by FleetCommand (talk) The discussion is not over.)
  • Important event: 8 October 2010: A Third opinion is requested and received
  • 2nd revert: [73] 10 October 2010; Edit summary: (Changing dates per Talk:WebP#Date format.)
  • 3rd revert: [74] 12 October 2010; Edit summary: (Changing dates per concensus, see Talk:WebP#Date format.)
  • 4th revert: [75] 13 October 2010; Edit summary: (Reverted good faith edits by FleetCommand; Reverted per DATERET, see talk page. (TW))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Gyrobo#Your_edit_warring_in_WebP

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

The following are important highlights of this case:

  1. Roots of the dispute: On 1 October 2010, I tried to unify the date style of the article to one of two that WP:MOSDATES recommends, i.e. DD MMM YYYY format. On the same day, Gyrobo changed the article date format to YYYY-MM-DD format; a bold violation of policy to which I responded per R part of WP:BRD. ([76]). I sent him a BRD notice which he later transferred to talk page, where you can presently find. I did not included these diffs above because they were not part of an edit war; they can be justified per WP:BRD. (But after all, one cannot say that I tried to hid these diffs; they are here after all!)
  2. Third opinion: Gyrobo reverted the article in his own favor twice – on 3 and 6 October 2010 (see diffs above) – before he called for a WP:3O while there was obviously no consensus. On 8 October 2010, a third opinion is requested. User:Macwhiz responded (you may observe it in talk page) as follows.
    • Okay, so here's what I think: This article had already established day-before-month as its date format, both in the body and in the citations. There was no consensus reached to change it on the talk page; indeed, I would hesitate to characterize this discussion as even approaching the concept of "consensus building." I hate to bring up WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this discussion seems to be heading that way. Unless and until a clear consensus is formed here, the article, and its references, should continue to use day-before-month.
  3. Persistence in edit warring: Even after having received the aforementioned third opinion, Gyrobo continued to revert article in his own favor by leveraging the following two personal opinion from User:Macwhiz and User:Waldir and asserting that the majority are in favor of YYYY-MM-DD. He ignored WP:NOTVOTE. (Perhaps if he hadn't done so, I had been successfully persuaded.)
    • That said, I personally do think that ISO 8601 makes more sense in citations, and I would encourage Fleet Command [~sic~] to consider agreeing to using it in the citations. — Macwhiz
    • I too think that YDM/ISO is a reasonable choice for the references, for they are lists indeed, and would thus benefit of the very advantages for lists the MoS refers to (conciseness). — Waldir
  4. One complication: During the course of discussion, I inadvertently committed a misconduct (although in good faith) that when I realized it, I tried to compensate. Here is the details:
    1. On 7 October 2010, Gyrobo said in Talk page: "Not only are the admins who attend EW cases fools, they're dancing fools." I mistakenly took this sentence literally and thought it to be an obscene indiscriminate insult to 215 (am I correct about the number?) administrators of Wikipedia who attend Administrators' Noticeboard. Subsequently, my tone became inadvertently less civil. I never offended him directly but the assumed bad faith in him, the effect of which is apparent in my subsequent writings. I admit that it is very difficult to remain polite with person who insults a whole community. On 10 October 2010, Gyrobo told me that dancing fool is not an insult, but I did not believe him until he later edited his post and supplied a dictionary definition.
    2. On 13 October 2010, I tried to compensate by apologizing, refraining from promptly reporting him to noticeboard and by offering him a shortcut to resolve the dispute quickly: I recommended Gyrobo to seek the opinion of User:ESkog a very respected Wikipedia Administrator; if ESkog's opinion was in favor of YYYY-MM-DD, I (Fleet Command) would stand down the discussion unconditionally; but if the ESkog's opinion was not in favor of YYYY-MM-DD, Gyrobo could ignore it at will freely continue the chain of dispute resolution. My only condition was: Don't revert the article anymore!. Unfortunately, on 13 October 2010, Gyrobo disregarded this offer and reverted the article one again for the fifth time in his own favor.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things I would like to point out here:
  1. FleetCommand issued his edit warring notice at the same time that he posted here.
  2. My four contentious edits were done over a period of two weeks, not 24 hours. Other editors involved in the dispute on Talk:WebP#Date format have stated that they would not characterize my actions as edit warring. FleetCommand has accused me of edit warring in the past for making a single edit. I urge all admin involved in this case to read the full text of Talk:WebP#Date format.
  3. Later on in the discussion, Macwhiz changed his opinion to support YMD dates within the references. I pointed this out to FleetCommand several times.
  4. I did not edit my post to provide a dictionary definition, I added that definition in a new reply, and referred to that reply when FleetCommand continued to insist that I had insulted other editors. He has also refused to refute points brought up by other editors, dismissing them as personal opinion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
First, the notice you are talking about is ANI-case notice not edit warring notice; You received your edit warring notice once in your talk page and times and again in article talk page. You did not cease. You kept reverting on pretext of "reverting in good faith is not edit warring" (which is wrong) and "we have a consensus" (which is wrong again).
Second, 24 hours limits is only for 3RR. You are charged with edit warring not 3RR.
Third, Macwhiz never changed his opinion. His personal opinion and his 'interpretation of the policy was always separate. From the very beginning, he said:
  • "Are ISO 8601 dates allowable in references? Yes, generally."
  • "I personally do think that ISO 8601 makes more sense in citations"
  • "the article, and its references, should continue to use day-before-month"
He said all of these in the same post. But all of these said, none of these sanction syour constant reversal of the article in your own favor.
Fourth, don't play with words: Maybe I am in error and the dictionary definition has always been there (though I don't think so); the important point is that I realized my error, appologized for my it and offered you a win-without-lose way of ending the discussion in your favor without edit warring. You disregarded and edit warred one last time.
Fifth, don't bring the talk page here: We're not here to see whether I'm wrong or you are right; we are here because you kept reverting the article in your own favor – even though you may have been completely right.
Fleet Command (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • User Gyrobo accurately characterizes my opinion; user FleetCommand does not. Yes, at first I agreed with retaining MDY dates, but upon further investigation I found that ISO format dates had been used first in citations, and that therefore under WP:CITE#HOW and WP:DATERET, that style should be retained. None of the cases that would warrant a format change are applicable. Having been involved in the situation as a third party, I feel Gyrobo has not edit-warred here; I think he was making good-faith edits based upon Wikipedia guidelines and talk-page consensus. Fleet, however, has shown a pattern of misrepresenting the statements of others, using ad hominem attacks, and general tendentiousness. I think this AN3 report is a case of WP:DEADHORSE as a result of WP:JDLI and WP:IDHT, frankly. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Certainly no 3RR violation, and as far as edit-warring generally, there are ongoing reversions from both sides. Please continue to work on the talk page to resolve the dispute and engage in other dispute resolution mechanisms if need be (some of which have already been suggested on the talk page). Mkativerata (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Piriczki (Result:No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [77]

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

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

Comments: Although Radiopathy has not yet exceeded 3RR on the article in question, he shows a pattern of similar disruptive edits here and here. I have repeatedly attempted to explain my edits but my explanations are summarily dismissed or ignored without the user providing any cogent opposing argument or sources to support his position. It should be noted that this user makes no attempt to "correct" any other plural verbs throughout any of these articles, but only changes one word in the first sentence and appears to only target certain articles which is why I view this as purposeful disruption, not to mention his history of edit warring and disruption. User:Radiopathy has been blocked 8 times in less than 15 months. Piriczki (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy also reverted my constructive edits here and here where I had undone unexplained and inaccurate changes to long stable articles. I suspect he had no regard for the accuracy of the articles or bothered to check his facts, and only intended to disrupt and antagonize. Piriczki (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Reversions by both parties across multiple articles, none of which come close to 3RR breaches. Please try to resolve your dispute on talk pages (seeking a third opinion would be a good step) without further reversions. Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 72h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

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

Comments: I am not personally involved in this edit war to date. Other editors in their change comments have stated that the content in question is inappropriate (non-awards being added) [84][85] and moreover no references are being provided [86].

For what it's worth, the user/IP has also been previously blocked for content removal in August 2010 [87] has received warnings for their October 14 section blanking on Yi Jianlian and Jeremy Lin

Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Vicky Ng (Result: warned, reporter blocked)[edit]

Page: Meir Kahane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

I suspect that this user is User:Atubeileh's sockpuppet and already requested investigation. Atubeileh's edits should be taken into consideration as well if suspitions turn out positive. In addition, the same editor has been warned regarding personal attacks ([95]), deletion of sourced material and unfounded accusation of vandalism ([96]) and failed to engage in discussion. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Editor was never properly warned. If the SPI turns up positive, as currently appears likely, editor will be blocked. However, I've also given a 24 hour block the reporter (a la WP:BOOMERANG), who violated 3RR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: no vio, so far)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [97]

This is complex. Basically, Chesdovi is insisitng on inserting an unsourced and rather odd claim (that "damascus has been descrbied as one of the four holy cities of Islam") and refusing to discuss this on the Damascus talk page. It's a spillover from Hebron however. Two days ago he removed a reference from the article that Hebron is "holy to Muslims."[102]. On the talk page he briefly explained the removal by saing the only sources he could find on Muslim views of Hebron were in "travel books."[103]. I restored the info on the "holyness" of Hebron to Muslims (which is not controversial anyways -- it's the burial place of Abraham who is refered as a prophet by Muslims only behind Mohammed (1.) and Moses (2.) in importance and included the fact (with source) that in early Islam, the associatione with Abraham made Hebron "one of hte four holy cities." He sought to water this down to "considered by some" with an assertion in the edit summary that this is "contested with Damascus." [104]. He then headed off to Damascus article to make his unsourced change, apparently to bolster his case. This editor recently created an article on "Judaism and Bus stops" (deletion discussion here [105]) and freely admitted in that process that he was making edits to that article as an attempt to set precedents for other articles. He seems to be doing the same thing again.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106] [107] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]


Pictogram voting comment.svg Note I can't see how the "1st revert" is a revert. Could you show what it is reverting? In any case I have left an unequivocal warning on the editor's talk page that any any further reversion without discussion will result in a block, regardless of whether it is a legal 3RR violation. Please feel free to contact me directly if it is necessary to follow up on this. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation, but feel free to re-report if reverting continues. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Eman007 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: declined/stale)[edit]

Page: San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eman007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

  • 1st revert: [110] – 07:30, October 14, 2010
  • 2nd revert: [111] – 22:25, October 14, 2010
  • 3rd revert: [112] – 02:26, October 15, 2010
  • 4th revert: [113] – 06:02, October 15, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]


The image File:FinancialNorth.jpg is the crux of this edit war. User:Eman007 has removed it four times in 24 hours. Two or three other editors oppose this removal. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note The warning did not come until hours after the 4th revert. If the editor reverts again, please update this report and leave a note. In the meantime, as far as I can see it is not actionable. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined/Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale No revert since warning. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result: 2 weeks/1RR 6 months)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [116], also see below

  • 1st revert: [117]
  • 2nd revert: [118] (changes wording slightly, but still same source and still in the same spirit as previous revert)
  • 3rd revert: [119] (reverts to above version)
  • 4th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121], his response [122]. Also [123].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments: After adding the material in the first diff of this report, Sulmues restores it after I removed it (1st revert). Another user removes it, so he re-adds it in slightly different form (2nd revert). Though he has changed the wording somewhat, he has restored the source and the spirit is the same. When another user removes the material again, Sulmues restores it again (3rd revert), and then again (4th revert). With the last revert, Sulmues has clearly crossed deep into WP:EDITWAR territory, as he is edit-warring against multiple users against consensus. Even worse, he leaves hostiles templates on the talkpage of the last user who reverted him, accusing him of "vandalism" and threatening to report him [125] [126] [127] (even though he has been warned in the strongest possible terms from calling users who merely disagree with him "vandals" [128]). Even though he discusses on the talkpage, he discusses and reverts, making a mockery of the discussion process, and is also hostile and trolling ([129] "I would expect you to jump with joy at 'wild-looking Albanians'"), calling my single revert "usual" [130].

I should note that this is an experienced user (20k+ contribs), who is careful enough to game 3RR without actually breaking it, about which I have warned him: [131]. Yesterday he was at it at Kastoria [132] (an rv back to this version [133] [134] [135] (which are reverts to this version [136]), and today this [137] (rv back to this version [138], a partial rv, as he restored "Albanian" after I had changed it to "Muslim" in accordance with the source [139]). Technically no violation but that's 4 reverts (to different versions) in 25 hours. And just a few days ago he was gaming 3RR at Theodore Kavalliotis [140] [141] [142].

Again, this is an experienced user, but with a history of disruption (edit-warring and incivility, see WP:ARBMAC sanctions log [143] and block log), and was until recently on 1R revert parole which expired at the end of June. In the last month or so, he has greatly increased the frequency with which he reverts. He really ought to know better by now. Some form of ARBMAC sanction may well be appropriate. Athenean (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • With the agreement of the closing admin, and under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I'm reimposing Stifle's restriction, as follows: Sulmues (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period on all articles relating to Balkans subjects, broadly construed, for six months, effective upon the expiration or lifting of the current 2-week block. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Diannaa (Result:48 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [144]