Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive148

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Jim Sweeney reported by Brookesward (talk) (Result: 48h each)[edit]

Page: Special Air Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 11:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 09:40, 7 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 406363938 by Brookesward (talk)not supported by the reference used - as a GA article another ref is required")
  2. 10:44, 7 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Uniform distinctions */ change wording")

  • Diff of warning: [[1]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Special Air Service and [[2]]

Brookesward (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Marker10 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: William Hartnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marker10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6] (1st revert in a 24 hour period)
  • 4th revert: [7] "I don't need a talk page because it's right"
  • 5th revert: [8]
  • 6th revert: [9] (4th revert in a 24 hour period)

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

No evidence of discussion on the talk page. User:DonQuixote directed Marker10 to the article's talk page in this edit summary. Marker10's response was a reversion with the edit summary "I don't need a talk page because it's right".[11] DonQuixote again directed him to the talk page here.

After receiving a 3RR warning from User:U-Mos, Marker10 posted on the article's talk page, "Unless there is a valid reason why i should not edit what is right i will still revert it."[12] Four minutes later he made his sixth revert,[13] which was the fourth in the 24 hour period and 6th in the past two days. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mikearion reported by User:Mann_jess (Result:72 hour block )[edit]

Page: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:56, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Discovery Institute usage */")
  2. 06:31, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Discovery Institute usage */")
  3. 07:11, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */")
  4. 07:12, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */")
  5. 07:14, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */")
  6. 07:44, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */")
  7. 19:02, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */ credibility and authority of website is confirmed and is copyright © Discovery Institute 2008-2009")
  8. 20:09, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */")
  9. 22:35, 6 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */ disputed copyright notice removed. source link still included.")
  10. 20:33, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Statement */")
  11. 20:53, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 406554681 by Yobol (talk)")
  12. 20:54, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Requirement for Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document */ Undo vandalism to article.
  • 1st formal warning: here
  • 2nd Warning Yesterday: here
  • 3rd Warning Today: here

Comments: Edit warring over inclusion of section and tags to the section (the middle-few diffs). Please also check the talk page, here. Clear consensus has formed, and Mike has responded by being combative, throwing accusations, and saying that he isn't going to stop until the info is included. —Jesstalk|edits 23:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One additional revert of the article, 23:08, 7 January 2011, made after I warned the editor about edit warring, should also be attributed to User:Mikearion. Note that in this edit[14] he signs a comment by (talk · contribs). Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for edit warring, personal attacks and continuing edit war while logged out. Vsmith (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:spqlh reported by Scillystuff (talk) (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Locks Heath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 08:35, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404813647 by Osric Wuscfrea (talk)")
  2. 20:23, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405002825 by Osric Wuscfrea (talk)")
  3. 13:01, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405306128 by Osric Wuscfrea (talk)")
  4. 22:32, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405343722 by Osric Wuscfrea (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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


A number of IP editors and possible sock users (including the one in the report above) have been engaging in vandalism of the Locks Heath wikipedia page, in particular the post code section. Osric Wuscfrea has been reverting the vandalism and when it started earlier last year tried to explain his actions to the disruptive user(s). Unfortunately the vandalism has continued. Scillystuff (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected for a week by Diannaa for "Excessive vandalism: Removal of sourced content" Minimac (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IP reported by Rusted AutoParts (talk) (Result: no action)[edit]

In The Fugitive, the Transit Cop is portrayed by Neil Flynn. In a episode of Scrubs, the creators used this as a plot devise and made Flynn's Janitor character the actor. I added a mention to that on the film's cast section, but the IP won't stop removing the sniplet, resulting in him violating the 3RR rule and continued after i undid his 3rd removal. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:46 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User Rusted AutoParts has been told in the past by other editors that this is not relevant information to the The Fugitive article, yet he keeps inserting it. He has started the edit war and is vandalizing the article. (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Engaging Rusted AutoParts in discussion on the matter. I'd prefer to not block either editor rather than block both. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing as a no action. Parties seem amenable to discussing the situation at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DocOfSoc reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:51, 8 January 2011 (edit summary: "/*Restored lead which is a SUMmary! Life story is not for lead, it is redundant and repetitious. Smacks of POV. Please do not revert again!")
  2. 14:59, 7 January 2011(edit summary: "Undid revision 406494988 b There is an ongoing discussion re: this on talk page. Please participate before RV. Horrible is not appropriate here"
  3. 14:38, 7 January 2011(edit summary: "(Undid revision 406492435 YOu have been asked to discuss this on talk page. Please do not remove until discussed/and it would be violation of 3rr rule.,"
  4. 14:25, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 406489515 This says a lot about the man. Already moved to 2nd paragraph on lead. Please do not remove without discussion on talk page")
  5. 13:46, 7 January 2011 (edit summary: "statement reverted. says a lot about the man")
  • Diff of previous warning: here

Note: User has a very serious case of revert-itis, and was previously warned the day before at 15:07, 7 January 2011. User chose to ignore the warning, but continues to edit war on a page that is under scrutiny by many admins due to the recent block of User:Collect and the resulting incident report at Wikipedia:ANI#Block of User:Collect by User:2over0.

Disclosure: I made a series of eight consecutive edits from 06:56 - 07:12 on 8 January 2011 that restored previously removed information. This can be counted as one revert.[17] I have made no other edits to this article at this time.

Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am truly astounded at this report and also User:2over)'s comment, following this previous comment on both pages:

As seen above, I repeatedly requested discussions on talk page, all of which were ignored. Viriditas made his first eight edits to the article, adding redundant information already contained in the body of the article and not appropriate in the lead (Not the place for his life story that is repeated under personal info. ) Viriditas has posted the user box on his page that states "This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war," yet made No effort at discussion. The above reverts cited were concluded, I believe, amicably, with an implied apology on my part. " for me. Soxwon, I would rather have you with me than "agin" me :) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC) [19] I am at a loss to find any "edit warring" with Viriditas. I only find a duplicitous remark that makes no sense to me, considering the many requests for discussion and the posting from his own userbox regarding such discussion. The core group working on this article have been working well as a Wiki team effort. Namaste... DocOfSoc (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a word of what you have said makes any sense, and I will leave it to others to parse. The facts are beyond dispute: you edit warred, you were warned, and you decided to keep edit warring. I have no role to play in your actions, as you have reverted multiple editors without any regard for our policies. You know better, and you need to learn not to do this again. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I again apologize to anyone who perceives I am edit warring. To my associates at the Glenn Beck page, I will take a short Wikibreak. I also promise to my editor friend to remember not to edit in the middle of the night when I apparently can't count. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Perceives"? Then you deny that you were edit warring? That is not an apology nor an admission.. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result -- DocOfSoc is warned. I requested on his talk page that he agree to stop warring and take a break from this article, and he has done so. He clearly went past three reverts. This 3RR report was filed 12 hours after his last revert, which makes a block less logical. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Except, he has not admitted to edit warring, and he can't agree to stop doing it unless he admits it first, and he has not taken a break from the article, having just posted to the talk page. The delay in reporting is due to the time difference and RL work. Since DocOfSoc has not agreed to your conditions, something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not for nothing, but his her agreement was not to do any more edits to the article Glen Beck, taking a wikibreak from it. The edit in question, made 44 minutes after the agreement on his her talk page, has been preserved to the letter (she made a post to article discussion). Maybe she's trying to discuss edits instead of just making/edit-warring them in, which is to be considered a Good Thing. As well, Viriditas's insistence that she admit to edit-warring isn't part of any policy or guideline that I can find. That she agreed to stop edit-warring - and has done so - means that she is taking the process seriously. How about you cut the guy gal a little slack, Viriditas? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Note To All - I know DocOfSoc: and it's "she" not "he". DocOfSoc is a woman. Doc talk 06:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Oops. - I've altered the post to reflect the correct gender. Sorry, no offense was intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 08:15, 8 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "trout slap, stop it")
  2. 08:25, 8 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 406645489 by Xenophrenic (talk)maybe they will ban both of us?")
  3. 00:30, 9 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 406769733 by AzureCitizen (talk)no consensus on undue controversy section")
  • Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Magog the Ogre placed this article on probation 20 December, 2010. When one edits the article it says, "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism."[21] Darkstar1st reverted an edit three times in 24 hours and was informed that the 1RR restriction applied. TFD (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I would also add that Darkstar1st has been blocked twice in the past year for edit warring, and thus is aware that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
the same section on a tweet has been reinserted in the article 6 times by one editor in the past 4 days against objections on the talk page. my revert, and those of the other two editors who removed the same material, was in good faith Darkstar1st (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The content you boldly deleted has been in the article for at least 6 months, and your deletion has been reverted by multiple editors. Per WP:BRD, you should be Discussing the reasoning for your proposed edit, yet not once have you visited the article talk page. Instead, your edit summaries such as "(maybe they will ban both of us?)" indicate a preference to edit war instead of collaborate. Now that you've been made aware of the 1RR probation status of the article, how about contributing on the talk page instead of continuing the disruption? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - One article edit per 24-hour period? My goodness, that's a bit narrow. Is there an previous complaint, ArbCom decision or policy that governs that sort of probation? I'm not against it necessarily (considering the nature of the article), but I'd like to know the policy and guideline support and precedent for doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jack -- I'm assuming you meant to write "One edit per 24 hour period?" rather than "One article per 24 hour period?". If this is correct, then yes, there is a basis in policy for 1RR restrictions. See WP:3RR#Other revert rules. These types of restrictions are generally used for articles that are highly contentious (Israel-Palestine articles being a common case). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
D'Oh! Yes, I meant one edit/24 hours (I've changed my post to reflect it). Got the link. Thanks, Jrtayloriv. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I need my coffee too :). Take care. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war[edit]

I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war. The issue is insertion / removal of a section on a twitter comment by Sonny Thomas. Xenophrenic has been the champion warrior on this, their most recent re-insertions of this contested item were:

1/4 18:43

1/5 18:05

1/7 6:17

1/8 8:00

1/8 8:21

1/9 8:46

I didn't want to go running to get someone blocked, but I see that someone has done that to Darkster1st for a lesser transgression on the same item. I would rather see Darkster1st unblocked than Xenophrenic blocked, but we need some fairness & consistency here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with anyone in this situation. There's a reason I placed that article on probation (and for which I had ample consensus at ANI, save for User:Dylan Flaherty, who is now indef blocked): there is a ton of POV pushing here. My apologies if there is some collateral damage here, but D1 unquestionably knew what he was doing ("perhaps we'll both get blocked?" in his edit summary, paraphrased). If any editor acts innocently, he will not be blocked. But I can honestly see this going to arbcom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's more likely that the article will be an unstable mess forever (as is the Wikipedia way for articles where there are real world opponents on the topic) than going to arbcom. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Magog, you are correct. my edit summary and obstinance was an effort to expose the unfair bias in ani reports by some in wp. i was reported yet the other editor was not. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Stale ->page semiprotected )[edit]

Page: Brown noise (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: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]


Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale It's vandalism, regardless of 3RR issues, but they haven't edited in 7 hours, so I'm not comfortable blocking in case it's a shared or dynamic IP. Ping me if they come back and I'll have no qualms about blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've popped up on another IP (which has now made the very same reversion 4 times over the last few months). Would semi-protection of the page be appropriate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Page now semi-protected. Skier Dude (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Afterlife10 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24hrs )[edit]

Page: User talk:O Fenian (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Afterlife10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable

Looks like a case of WP:Harassment too. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sole purpose of the edits are to harass and annoy. --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although he seems to have moved on from that particular edit-war, his is still editing and the harassment warrants a block by itself. Rockpocket 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

editwarring on Money creation (result: stale)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Although the user did resume edit warring after they were unblocked, it looks like they've currently stopped. --slakrtalk / 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Codrinb (Result: protected )[edit]

Page: Talk:Dacian script (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and
User being reported: Dbachmann (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] User_talk:Dbachmann#Dacian_script User_talk:Dbachmann#Talkback_2 User_talk:Dbachmann#Edit war at Dacian script and Talk:Dacian script

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Dacian script#Why it was removed from WikiProject Dacia? Talk:Dacian script Talk:Dacian script#Removal of valid proposal to merge the article to Dacian language Talk:Dacian script#Removal of relevant categories


The edit war is on both Dacian script and Talk:Dacian script. User tries to impose his views, write his own content and decide to which projects and categories it belongs.

The list above is in a mess. It's out of sequence, two reverts are on a different page, several edits appear to be well more than 24 hours apart, and several belong to immediate sequences of edits and must be counted as one, but the way it's presented now this is hard to figure out. – That said, what we have here is a simple instance of several people engaged in rapid but overall constructive editing, with multiple bold-revert-discuss cycles accompanied by normal talk page discussion, with the only person who keeps dramatizing things and treating them as a battleground being Codrinb (who has been editing against a consensus of at least five editors, me included). Fut.Perf. 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So, what we really have on dab's part is the following:
  • one series of edits on 8 January, around 15:24 [38]
  • over 24hrs later, another quick series of three edits on 9 January, around 17:05 [39] (note: there's one minor edit by another contributor that happened to get inserted in between, but the events are so quick this still counts as a single sequence.)
  • two more edits at 17:18 and 19:06, thus staying clear of 3RR. [40] [41]. Given the fact that all edits were about different issues and part of normal, though quick, collaborative editing, this is not edit-warring. Fut.Perf. 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I am dissapointed that you create a coalition against me based on your personal views about that specific article and not looking the facts related to dab's editing. It should be obvious from the above, that he removed the article from relevant categories 3 or 4 times and from the very relevant WikiProject Dacia several times. And this despite the explanations on the talk page, that regardless of being a hoax or not, and without endorsing the validity of those so-called Dacian scrips, it belongs to those categories and especially to the project, because it clearly discusses or refers to that topic. I don't hold a grudge, and you can do whatever with that article, but please don't misrepresent and downplay this edit war, which is clearly obvious above. I know that you have more power and have more experience on this site, but this doesn't make you right. Not this time. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[42]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[43]

  • GHcool have previously re added the category "Islam and antisemitism" to the Hezbollah article: [44]

He has now reverted and re added this cat twice just within a couple of hours violating the 1rr: 1 rv, 2nd rv.

The user has been warned as the 1rr warning pops up when someone edits the article: [45] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention a COI with a pov to push. Lihaas (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I restate my original promise not to revert the article. I will not promise to not edit the article at all for seven days, but I do promise to tread more lightly than usual within the Hezbollah article. I will not deliberately rock the boat on the antisemitism/terrorism silliness, but when people request source verification and I have the means to provide them, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to honor the request. --GHcool (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Page: Top Ryde City (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: [46]

  • 1st revert: [47] 22:32, January 9, 2011
  • 2nd revert: [48] 10:30, January 10, 2011
  • 3rd revert: [49] 16:17, January 10, 2011
  • 4th revert: [50] 20:30, January 10, 2011

Diff of NPOV & reliable sources warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning & 2nd NPOV warning: [[51]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Top_Ryde_City#WP:NPOV_stuff_re:_Top_Ryde_City.23Workplace_Safety_and_Community_Concerns


I flagged the article as having issues with neutrality, reworded some of the content that the IP had inserted to put forward his/her concerns in a more neutral fashion, then began the discussion on the talk page as given above.

The IP returned, and has repeatedly insisted on inserting his content which uses very non-neutral language to put forward his/her case. One of his references is a letter to the editor [[52]], which I don't feel is reliable. The other is a newsletter from the Top Ryde Chamber of Commerce, to which he is attributing undue weight [[53]]. Basically the editor is not aligning with WP:NPOV by using hyperbole to enhance the drama of his content.

It is clear that this is IP is somewhat of an activist in regards to this issue and is not participating in the discussion (except to accuse me of being a "vandal"). -danjel (talk to me) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the IP made a section at Editor Assistance requests at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Top_Ryde_City. -danjel (talk to me) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement that - The Ryde Chamber of Commerce initiated monitoring of dangerous road saftey practices during construction that resulted in some contracts being terminated - with what seems a valid and reputable source should not be subject to repeated deletion by User Danjel. If I have inadvertently breached the rules, it has occurred while protecting what seems a valid edit. (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: 24 hours to the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Spalds (Result:User blocked; pages protected for three days)[edit]

Page: Jim Gibbons (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (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: [63] [64] [65]

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

Comments:See this for my earlier report. Since then, they (TRBIH and the IP [using multiple IPs]) have continued to edit war without attempting any type of constructive dialogue anywhere. I recommend at least a week of full protection on this page, and also on Brian Sandoval (history), and Jerry Brown (history). I also recommend blocks on all accounts involved (although I'm not an admin, so have no authority on such matters). This needs to stop. Regards, Spalds (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pages fully protected; user blocked for three days (some related ip blocked by another administrator); please keep a watch and come back after three days if required. A peer-review of the block has been opened by me at AN. Thanks Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Newmanthfc and reported by User:Soosim (Result: 48h, semi)[edit]

Page: David Newman (political geographer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NGO Monitor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Newmanthfc#Edits to David Newman and NGO Monitor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Soosim#NGO Monitor


There are two pages in dispute, David Newman (political_geographer) and NGO Monitor. Newmanthfc and now anonymous user have reverted info from the David Newman page without reason (3 times) and then a fourth time and added a reason ("the article about professor newman is a factual rticle about him. it is not an article to promote or criticise his viws on this or any other position. this is part of ongoing cyberterror which is being practiced by NGO monitor against anyone who has questioned their credentials and veracity.")

On the NGO Monitor page, he/they have added unsourced material, non-NPOV material.

i apologize if i haven't filled in this form correctly, but i tried... Soosim (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[Ed Johnston] wrote: "With this edit you seem to be restoring material to the article which is just adding an editorial opinion, in Wikipedia's voice. No references are provided in what you added. Can you clarify? This article is subject to the sanctions in WP:ARBPIA so we take its neutrality very seriously. Please respond at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"

hi ed - that was NOT my edit. that was the one i was trying to revert. it was put there by newmanthfc. thanks and let me know if you need any further info. Soosim (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Newmanthfc blocked 48 hours; article semiprotected due to possible socking. Since both of these articles talk are relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I am adding the {{ARBPIA}} banner to their talk pages, and they will be under a 1RR/day restriction from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:Lsorin (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]


The topic of Coanda-1910 is very complex, please see the talk page of the article and Andy together with other editors have WP:PA personally "attacked" my attempts to correct the WP:NPOV of the article according to the existing mainstream. Some of the personal attacks and accusations: [78], [79], [80][81]. As well, build up of any consensus, was just refused by the user, by to even trying to answer to basic questions like "What is the mainstream of Coanda-1910?". About the introduction to Coanda-1910, the problems with the current form of this article are not of technical nature. And regarding that I don't think there is not a single technical expert in the subject present, in any of the related discussions. The problem is the usage of two doubtful sources to impose a particular point of view which in this particular case, brings a very serious consequence of denigrating the memory of a reputed scientist calling him bluntly a liar. The doubtfulness of those two sources was already demonstrated in the discussions: first the very controversial([82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89]) aviation historian Gibbs-Smith with his full of technical mistakes and missing relevant sources, assessment on Coanda-1910 based mostly on evidence of absence. As per Frank H. Winter and Charles Gibbs-Smith did share the same offices and NASM office, which put the whole case even more under the red light of the WP:REDFLAG. Why to state that, is because the mainstream opinion (covered in both tertiary sources like five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft, [90], academic events, several encyclopedia and history books and primary sources like the leaflets, magazine,books news from around 1910,1911, witnesses, Coanda's patents, articles and TV interviews, his endorsing as honorable member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or Romanian academy, special medal give by the city of Paris of his work on jet propulsion starting from 1910, several museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA presenting unique artifacts related the first jet aircraft) about Coanda-1910, is against the doubtful assessments of this two historians. My stance is driven as well by the WP:NPOV statement of Jimmy Wales with regard, especially to the scientific and historical related subjects. --Lsorin (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: African people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99], [100], [101], plus discussion between Analyzer99 and Middayexpress (talk · contribs), who is at 3RR (I miscounted in the diff previously - he was at 2. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue revolves around the definition of "African people." Analyst99 was warned when he was at 4RR. Since I reverted one time, I'm recusing myself from action. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both parties. Middayexpress was just as involved in the edit war as Analyzer, even though Analyzer reverted one more time. 24 hours for both parties- this was neither's first edit warring block. Courcelles 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked (along with the other dude) --slakrtalk / 03:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Tumadoireacht (Result: Protected)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [102] This current version is largely without any of my inputs as they are mostly reverted.

  • 1st revert: [103]-9 january 22.26
  • 2nd revert: [104]-10 january 00.35
  • 3rd revert: [105] 10 january 07.33
  • 4th revert:[106]-10 january 12.55
  • 5th revert:[107] 10 january 13.17
  • 6th revert:[108] -11 january 8.14
  • 7th revert:[109] -11 january 8.15
  • 8th revert:[110] -11 january 8.27
  • 9th revert[111]-11 january 8.28

I posted a warning re this listing on Drmargi home talk page at 11:21, GMT 11 January 2011 and a link to this page at 11:43, GMT 11 January 2011 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [}


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:On bad advice from a warring editor I began a thread on the Notability Noticeboard about this dispute as it was wrongly suggested that notability was a content and not a subject selection issue and an instant justification for reverts with no further elucidation. Here is the link to that discussion. [114]

Both the discussion on the talk page and at the Notability Noticeboard seem to be stalled with no compromise in sight.There are also two ongoing discussions about it: one on the talk page of Drmargi as provided in the edit warring complaint notification above and one on that that of Debresser:


I feel strongly that i am being bullied through reverts by a veteran editor and am very unhappy about it. The speed of the reversions, their nature, their being made largely without discussion, their vindictive edit listing description, and the proferred rationale are notable. i am not sure that i filled out the form above correctly --Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is rich coming from an editor who seems to have no grasp of the concepts of good faith, WP:CIVILITY. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CONSENSUS and a laundry list more. Over the last couple days, Tumadoireacht has attempted to bully, insult, manipulate and generally abuse the editorial process in order to add a) a list of now-famous actors in inconsequential roles to the article on Hill Street Blues solely because they are now famous, despite the efforts of three editors to discuss the issues associated with such an addition and b) to add a link, then a section to the article designed to showcase an external website about the guns used on the show with which the editor seems enchanted, despite it being reverted as unhelpful by more than one editor. Two other editors involved and I have attempted to discuss the issue with him/her and to make him/her aware of policy issues that govern the edits he/she is pushing, and have been treated to a spade of manipulative and abusive responses, largely devoid of any meaningful attempts to discuss in earnest and with an eye toward improvement of the article. Moreover, I would submit this report is retaliation for my having suggested on the talk page of Debresser that an WP:ANI for this editor's incivility might be in order, a report I ultimately decided not to make. This is the kind of playground tactic used by a bully who's been caught and is attempting to blame others for his own acts

Depresser feels that an external site featuring 143 high quality still shots of scenes from the subject of the article is irrelevant and should not be mentioned. Drmargi feels the photos are "unreliable" and should not be mentioned. I have sought clarification of what they mean by these strange assertions and adjectives but have received no response but more reverts citing pages that have no bearing on the matter. i have written long rationales for inclusion-they remain unanswered as do direct questions for clarification and compromise.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly refused to discuss with an eye toward resolution of the issue at hand, has been repeatedly warned about his/her incivility on the article's talk page:,,; on the notability noticeboard, and on my own and others' talk pages, who has made a series of false and spurious allegations regarding my conduct and that of two editors (contained in the discussions linked above), and who has generally failed to operate in any sort of good faith.

I do not believe I have violated 3RR, having reverted any given edit no more than twice, always in an attempt to return the editor to the discussion process when he/she has attempted to use a comment by an editor to force a new set of edits. Each attempt has been met with an increasingly aggressive attempt on the part of this editor to force his/her edits, uncivil behavior and a general lack of willingness to find a resolution to the issue that is satisfactory to all concerned. I would suggest that Tumadoireacht has very likely violated WP:3RR him/herself and has unquestionably been an active edit warrior.

I will concede that I could have chosen to step back earlier, which I'm doing now, but felt that I was operating within policy, and was mindful of WP:3RR throughout. Drmargi (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am delighted to see a willingness to seek consensus and dialogue after a morning of 4 undiscussed reversions in one half hour period from Drmargi Pure WP:3RR . I note that Drmargi earned an edit warring 24 hour ban a week ago and wonder if a pattern is emerging. The thrice repeated assertion that my "petulant edits" and content suggestions could be ignored while the "real work" went on was particularly hurtful. I think that once some veteran editors get a critical mass of edits carried and reverts unchallenged that an ownership mindset sets in. The language used and actions taken reflect this. It is hard to interact with or to find compromise. --Tumadoireacht (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Said dispute resolution to be pursued elsewhere.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that it here then ? " No 24 hour bans ? Go seek a mediator ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Semi-protected 1 week)[edit]

Page: Hattori Hanzō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Two IPs have been going at each other for three days on this article. Hell if I know who is right, but it should be looked into and/or locked down.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


  • I've just filed a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP; seems like the best option (especially as there doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation). In the meantime maybe it's worth opening a discussion on the talk page and inviting both IP addresses to discuss the issues. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    And the article has been protected for one week. Hopefully that'll be enough time to persuade the IP editors to discuss. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Shakzor reported by User:Duffbeerforme (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shakzor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

First Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] Discussion followied involving multiple editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


After making my first change I have addressed my reasons, basing it on wikipedia guidelines on the articles talk page. I received support on wikipedia guidelines grounds. I have avoided responding to personal attacks, such as the further evidence backing Goodwin's Law. I requested help on where I should go to get help ((very understandedly on rereading but not intended (not trying to get help, just knowing where I should go)) read as canvasing and counseled, i erred badly in my wording there, sorry). This was read and responded to in support of my position (with the canvasing caveat). Further talk (on the talk page and my own) has not gone beyond personal attacks and non encyclopedia reasons (eg it's useful). I believe my position is supported by consensus. A new editor, Shakzor, has made 4 reverts in 26 Hours (technicly outside 24 hours but close enough IMO to be gaming the system by being just out) and has included in their diff comments an understanding of of what is happening "ongoing loosely policy-based edit war" [123], and an attack on my motives "Reverting attempted castration of article" [124]. I admit I have come close myself (31 hours) I have attempted to engage in talk, both on the talk page as stated above and later in diff comments [125], [126] [127] (as Shakzor appears to have been reading per their responses). Shakzor did finaly respond on the talk page with a (mild) personal attack and a threat to edit war [128] duffbeerforme (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted his edit and the page has been protected for 3 weeks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:51 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor states they will continue reverting after portection expiers [129]. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Now he's on the fast track for a block. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:49 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i have conferred with User:5 albert square about this, submitting the conversation on Shkazor's talk page. We'll see how it turns out. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:00 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, you all seem to be focusing on what I am doing, and not why I am doing it. And yes, I just recently created this account, though I have been contributing casually for a very long time as a guest user (see my user page for that previous IP). I made an account specifically so people would not think I am just some random user out to stir up trouble. And while stirring up trouble is not what I specifically intend to do, it is a very likely result of my methods at the moment. To those who would see me blocked, I hope you are satisfied with your bureaucracy. Good day to you all. Shakzor (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:slatersteven reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: The parties will avoid each other for seven days)[edit]

Page: Time travel urban legends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version

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

The first three are standard revets, the last two being disruptive edits to argue that if one usage of theory can be used, then it should be used in every instance throughout the article. As the other party in this matter, I am not blameless - I have reverted three times in the article, and growing somewhat disenchanted with the user in question as per their willingness to edit collaboratively with me. To whit, I've self-edited elsewhere (or sought to, but edit-conflicts precluded such), and have been using the discussion page more. I desire not so much that the user be blocked for 3RR but rather that they edit collaboratively.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135], followed by request to self-revert to avoid 3RR violation [136].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137] - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC) -->


After posting this the user not only does not inform me but actaualy asks for a truce [[138]]. In fact the user clearly disguses the warning as a comment about him not breaching 3RR. I would also poiont out the users own breach of the rule [[139]][[140]][[141]][[142]]. I would also point out the users admission that one of these reverts was not based on content but the user who made the edit [[143]] clear edit warring even without the other difs. Many of my 'reverts' are not in fact reverts at all but new material insertesd to adress a lcear POV bias (that person a's veiw is a theory but persons B view is a susgestion).Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm missing something, but I count two reverts (the second and third reverts listed by Jack Sebastian), and the rest are standard edits. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • My apologies - allow me to spell it out a bit more clearly. The Slatersteven has been marginalizing the noteworthiness aspects of the reported incident for nigh on three months now. The edits he reverts are almost exclusively mine, and mine alone. The first revert undid an edit of mine. the subsequent edits after the third are - as noted before - WP:POINT edits, akin to strawman edits. I thought you might have wanted to look a little bit deeper before responding to Slatersteven's email request for assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Slatersteven has not "emailed me for his assistance." You are also not correctly characterizing his edits or the locus of the dispute, which is you editing against consensus. The edits you cite are not "pointy" or "strawman" edits, but rather routine edits you don't like. Slatersteven appears to be correct that this report has no merit. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I am going to avoid a lot of the drama that accompanies this sort of discussion and cut to the chase. You were not listed in the 'what links here' portion of this page until after SS commented. That means that you were either stalking my edits, were requested to contribute via unknown method, or magically used your spidey-sense to know that this was being discussed. I don't really care which, but it bears pointing out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • You may want to think of other possibilities, as well as the actual content of WP:STALK, before you make baseless accusations of canvassing and stalking. Also I wanted to point out that Jack Sebastian's comment above that the "the first revert undid an edit of mine" is incorrect. It was not a reversion of anyone, but an edit changing four words. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a frivolus and contentious attmept to bully and inidimidate based either on ignornace or (as I bleive based upopn the dishonest way this has been conducted) deliberate ignoring of the rule.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How so? You were advised as to your third revert. You were advised subsequently to self-revert; you chose not to. What part of this is bullying, intimidation or dishonest? Perhaps you should explain how you are defending your reverts instead. Maybe you thought that you had to protect the article from me? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
When you provided a link to this you disguised it as a link to 3RR. Whilst at the same time saying that we shold lay down the gauntlet. That was dishiniest as you had lunched this prior to offering a reboot in our relashionship.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You were advised of your impending breach, followed by your breach and a suggestion that you self revert, to cure the breach. You chose to ignore it. I don't think I'm required to point out the obvious three times in a row. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Your indentating makes it difficult to follow youe posts please try to better indent. As to your warnings. The fact is you hid your informing me of this, in a way tht had to be deliberate. The fact is you saud you wanted to start afresh having in fact allready launched this (thus how could I resppond before this to your offer of a fresh start).Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to look at these false accustions of breaching 3RR and of canvasing (difs please). Should I take this issue to AnI?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an assumption; where there's smoke, there might not always be fire, but certainly something generating the smoke. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now 4 reverts on time travel urban legends [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] [[147]]. After reporting me the user now breaches the rule hi8mslef, and altering the text it a very POV way.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I think not. Is it your intent to submit any copyedit I submit as edit-warring, SS? Wow, that is going to have a chilling effect on any edits I happen to make in a Wikipedia article.
You might want to look at the second fourth edit again; it fixes problems with grammar, flow and readability. I did remove the supposition about WWN, as that appears to be a personal viewpoint. We don't allow that here in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A copy edit does not alter the meaning, your edits do (especialy the fourth edit which changes the text from fictioal to real), except for one of the reverts which is a reversion of is the very edit you claim of my is a reversion (anbd thus counts towards 3RR).Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, except that the reporting of the matter is real. We are not concerned whether the dude is lying through his teeth or whatnot. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We write non-evaluatively, leaving that task to the sources we reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC) as a source for statements of fact, hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Lol, that's what I thought. But the dude was arrested and promptly skipped bail. The digest (which apparently has editorial oversight and qualifies as a RS for its referenced stories) seems weird as heck, but they are the only ones aside from WWN reporting on the guy. What sorts of sources are you going to have about some nut who claims to be cheating because he's from the future? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not an RS for a derogatory fact about a living person. Good catch. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask this to be closed and that admins take a closer look at User:Jack Sebastian's activities here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would. As for me, I would be content with the user simply being advised by someone other than me to not edit-war and, when advised of impending 3RR violations, to stop and self-evaluate. It's their first time at bat here, so the aforementioned might do wonders as to SS's disposition and spirit of collaboration.
I agree that I need to try and work more with people with whom I fundamentally disagree with, and develop a thicker skin where they are concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You do understand what a revert is?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I perceive that both Slatersteven and Jack Sebastian have been behaving badly. One is being aggressive and the other has been making personal attacks here in the 3RR report. Each has reverted three times on Time travel urban legends and they are also reverting each other today at The Circus (film). I am open to a promise that they will avoid each other and any common articles for seven days to allow the problem to cool down. Otherwise, sanctions for edit warring should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I can live with that. What advice would you offer on how to progress after the week is up? The other user hasn't really demonstrated a willingness to collaborate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Would this include this mediation request(assuming it goes ahead which looks doubtful)Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-10/The Circus (film) and notice boards? I assume that from your wording it just applies to articles. Hut I thought it best to confirm. Which in this case is two. So if that is the case then OK.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can both participate in the mediation. You would just need to avoid editing the same articles or article talk pages until the seven days are up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result -- Per the above agreement, the parties will avoiding editing the same articles or article talk pages for seven days. They may still participate in the existing mediation. I encourage them to avoid complaints at noticeboards about one another for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Thorwald reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Both main editors involved blocked, 24 hours and 3 hours)[edit]

Page: History of supernova observation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thorwald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Link to edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Thorwald#Your edit to History of supernova observation

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History of supernova observation#Change in date format

Thorwald seems determined to force his preferred date format upon the article, despite being aware of the WP:Manual of style (dates and numbers) convention for deciding what date format to use in an article. Torwald has stated the convention is "rather silly". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)