Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:B1mbo and User:3BRBS reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Bicycle kick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B1mbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log); 3BRBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2] B1mbo changes "chalaca" to "chilena" and bicycle kick, for no good reason.
  • 2nd revert: [3] 3BRBS changes sourced information to support claim for "chilena".
  • 3rd revert: [4] 3BRBS changes sourced information again.
  • 4th revert: [5] B1mbo erases reliable source, changes sourced information, and adds citation to "Scissors kick" in introduction despite the body of the article already discusses the matter.

Both users are working together to disrupt the article with incorrect usage of English and awkward claims (in order to avoid the 3RR). I have asked them to discuss the matter on the talk page at various points, but only recently one of them accepted. For the most part they seem to be editing for a single purpose in the English wikipedia (Particularly 3BRBS).

The purpose of the information currently in the article is to leave a neutral point of view of the controversial subject in Spanish, but these two users seem to be focused on promoting their POV at the expense of Wikipedia.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] and [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] Additionally, I have attempted to discuss the matter with the involved users by making the following proposals (prior to them actually accepting):

  • "Reverted incorrect usage of sources by 3BRBS. Questions? Comment on Talk:Bicycle Kick"
  • "Please discuss changes to sourced material in talk page, Talk:Bicycle kick"
  • "If you contest info, please discuss edits on talk page and not article's history"

Comments:

First, it is very rude to denounce "edit warring" after he asks for an explanation in the talk page and it is given, and suggesting a complot by two users to avoid Wikipedia policies. I've been willing to cooperate and reach a consensus and I have explained the changes, while MarshalN20 has been acusing of "Original Research", "Disruptive edits" and "Removing sourced information".
I have explained the changes in the talk page. I have removed an unsourced statement about the use of the word in different languages (including English) by a Spanish-speaking newspaper while I kept the link for the explanation of the Spanish differences. I have included the different uses of the word "tijera", present in the same thesis MarshalN20 is using to support his claims (you can see the difference in Spanish Wikipedia: es:chilena (fútbol) and es:tijera (fútbol)). On the other hand, MarshalN20 has removed the source to FIFA where the name "chilena" is used officialy and the same source of El Mercurio explains that "chilena" and "chalaca" are the most used names in Spanish. --B1mbo (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:George (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (This article is under a 1RR restriction)
User being reported: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]

  • 1st revert: 03:11, January 18, 2011 - Editor re-inserted the "too long" tag at the top, which GHCool had removed a day earlier.
  • 2nd revert: 00:06, January 19, 2011 - Editor again re-inserts the "too long" tag, about 20 hours after GHCool had removed it. They also changed "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from 5 days prior.
  • 3rd revert: 12:57, January 20, 2011 - Editor again changes "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance", reverting my change from the day before.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor self-reverted 12 hours prior to their last revert, citing a clear understanding that the article was under 1RR, only to return after 12 hours to revert again.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion; I also posted a question on the sourcing for my edit at RSN.

Comments:

This article is under 1RR restriction. The editor clearly violated that 24 hour 1RR window between their first two reverts. Regarding the second two reverts, they reverted once at January 19, reverted again 22 hours later, self-reverted three minutes later (citing 1RR, showing that they understood the article was under 1RR), only to return with the same revert 15 hours later. While the first two were a clear 1RR violation, the second two indicate that the editor was gaming the system to continue their edit warring. ← George talk 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

please see edit history, i duly REVERTED MY OWN EDIT per 24 hours and then added AFTER 24 hours. woops, SELF reverted per WP:3RR "Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")." although this was not a revert (Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC));
Lihaas did indeed self-revert following notification of this case. I'll leave it up to admins if any action should be taken regarding the 1RR violation between the first two edits or the attempts to game 1RR. ← George talk 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
attempts to game? WP:AGF...as guideline suggested i followed ;) Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Gaming means that you violate the spirit of the law without violating the rule of the law. Let me ask you this: You self-reverted, noting that your edit would violate 1RR, only to return 15 hours later to make similar edits along the same lines. Did you gain consensus for your edits during that 15 hours? Or were you only concerned with making your changes, regardless of consensus, without violating 1RR? ← George talk 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Two additional questions: Are you aware that the first two diffs I linked above (where you inserted the "too long" template) violated 1RR as well? And did you see my note on the article talk page asking you to self-revert before I create this case, or did you wait until after I notified you of this case to self revert? ← George talk 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
also note i mae WP:BOLD edits and reverted that oo.
templates are not to be removed without consensus especially when UNDERGOING and deceptively removed citing "no discussion" when there was and is a discussion on going. That is not exactly in the spirit of the lawLihaas (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) oo.
Maybe you misunderstood the question. Did you gain consensus for the change from "Hezbollah... leads the March 8 alliance" to "Hezbollah... is a part of the March 8 alliance" in the 15 hours between your self revert and your next revert? I wasn't asking about the template you re-inserted a day earlier. Regarding that template, myself and another editor had agreed on talk to remove it 7 days prior to your re-insertion of it. During that 7 days, you made no comments in that discussion, nor did you join that discussion after re-inserting it. ← George talk 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Nobody cited "no discussion" as far as I can tell, and I have no idea where you're pulling that quote from. ← George talk 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Respondent self-reverted. Nothing actionable at this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Carlaude (Result: Editors advised)[edit]

Page: Template talk:Jesus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) See Template talk:Jesus history
User being reported: SlimVirgin (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: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13] -- These comments to address the dispute on article talk page were also then removed, but might still be there since my reinsertion of them.

Comments:
This is a case (also) or changing someones else edits on a talk page. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Carlaude - I think SV felt your talk page comments were disruptive b/c they were v. long and injected into the middle of an RfC. It is occasionally ok to edit others' comments on talk pages (see WP:TPO). Regardless, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for your complaint. Consider going to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard or better Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Best, NickCT (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Carlaude reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )[edit]

  • Version reverted to: 3:42 January 20. In the threaded discussion section of this RfC, Carlaude removed a number of references and converted them to a series of cquotes illustrating his opinion.
Comments

I was in the process of writing this 3RR report, when I saw Carlaude had posted one above, and then reverted himself anyway. So I'm posting the report I was compiling by way of response, and for the record should the reverting begin again.

Going back several months, Carlaude has been removing from the Jesus template a link to Jesus myth theory. I recently posted an RfC, which is underway. Carlaude has been a little disruptive there, challenging each support, and recently added to the RfC a long string of cquotes to support his position, reverting against two editors who either removed the quotes, or moved them into their own section.

After his 4th revert today, I posted at 20:45 on his talk page that he had violated 3RR and asked him to revert himself. [14] His response at 20:53 was to tell me to stop edit warring, [15] and at 20:55 he reported me for 3RR (see above, though I had moved his comments only twice), and then finally at 21:04 he reverted himself, [16] making the whole thing moot. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Editors are advised to follow WP:TPG and WP:REFACTOR, as well as WP:3RR which applies to talk pages as well as articles. Refactoring of a talk page needs consensus, even when it is well-intentioned: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". I noticed Jeffro77 and SlimVirgin reformatting or moving around comments by Carlaude, and I noticed Carlaude temporarily going over 3RR trying to impose his preferred format on his own comments. He then self-reverted. If people think that the material in the RfC is not optimally formatted for the use of the closer of the RfC, reach consensus on how to do that, instead of proceeding unilaterally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ed, Carlaude's edits were disruptive of the RfC, adding 12 prominent cquotes to one of his posts several days after others had replied to it, in an effort to dominate (indeed, overwhelm) the thread. Moving the new quotes into their chronological position was the correct response. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Page: Speed of gravity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antichristos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Was warned before under similar circumstances: [23] and [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Speed_of_gravity resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only.
Talk:Speed_of_gravity#so_what_is_the_speed_of_gravity.3F resulting in no response—reverts only
User talk:Antichristos resulting in no meaniningful response—sideways only

Comments:
User has been adding same content on 5 different articles: "In relativistic quantum theory, a system cannot be localized..."

Seems unstoppable. DVdm (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

There is a problem with the obsessive original SYN of User:Antichristos. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Quite lenient given that this is their second block in ten days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't be so bad if Antichristos' physics was any good. However, it's completely crackpot. SBHarris 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Antichristos now seems to be bypassing the block by editing anonymously. For example on Nonlocality, see [25] and discussion [26] Rafaelgr (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 reported by Sushisurprise (talk) (Result: good faith reverting of apparent sock/meat puppetry)[edit]

Page: Censorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 07:53, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted. It's an inaccurate claim. The poster doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia procedures. Maybe Discuss it on the Talk page and it will help understanding.")
  2. 08:21, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted. Please stop being silly about this. I've posted on both my Talk page (like you did) and yours. Let's discuss it in one of those places.")
  3. 08:50, 21 January 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 193.105.134.151 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by HiLo48. (TW)")
  • Diff of warning: [User talk:HiLo48 here]

Sushisurprise (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • 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]

Comments:
Sushisurpise is most likely a sock- or meatpuppet of User:68.168.131.198 and User:193.105.134.151 who have been editwarring for their POV-agenda on Censorship. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a good faith approach earlier and attempted to have a conversation, on both my Talk page and his. The only response was vandalism of my own Talk page. This person is beyond rational behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Good faith accepted, though you should probably have reported the case to ANI or SPI. The page has been semi-protected for a day. If anyone wishes to add the contested claim of Wikipedia censorship, they should bring it to the article talk page and provide proper sourcing. Favonian (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
There has since been more vandalism and threats on my User Talk page by 193.105.134.135 HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any posts from User:68.168.131.198 or User:193.105.134.151 did NOT emanate from me. I resent the accusation of sock/meatpuppetting from --Saddhiyama and offensive comments and an accusation of talkpage vandalism from HiLo48. Not much Good Faith being shown here, and it is to be regretted that WP admins permit this type of slander to appear on this noticeboard.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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


  • 1st edit (version reverted to): 23:39, January 19, 2011, an IP removed "Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna, and as her indictment is read aloud to her in court over a day and a half)."
  • 1st revert: 02:20, January 20, Roscelese removed a large amount of material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
  • 2nd revert: 01:54, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this (in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
  • 3rd revert: 04:58, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
  • 4th revert: 06:07, January 21, she removed the same material, including "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust. Even the title of the book plays on this; in German, the verb vorlesen applies only to reading aloud, as Michael does for Hanna."
  • Ist edit (version reverted to): 06:10, January 21, she added "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, also writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy."
  • She was advised she may have violated 3RR, so she reverted herself at 06:24, January 21, but continued editing, and reverted twice more involving different material:
  • 1st edit (version reverted to): 06:46, January 21, she added an OR tag to the top of the section she'd been removing.
  • 6th revert: 20:44, January 21, she added a citation needed tag after one of the sentences she'd removed four times, although the source is already at the end of the paragraph:
  • "In addition to complicating Michael's (and our own) estimation of Hanna's culpability, her illiteracy becomes a metaphor for modern understanding of the Holocaust."
  • Source: Franklin 2010, pp. 201–202, which is Ruth Franklin's A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction. Oxford University Press, 2010. See p. 201, where Franklin is clear that the illiteracy is a metaphor.
  • She also restored material she had added before at 06:10, January 21, including "Nicholas Wroe, in the Guardian, likewise writes of the relationship between Hanna's illiteracy and the Third Reich's "moral illiteracy" ...
Comments

Four reverts (2 to 5 above) within five hours, and a fifth (6 above) 14 hours later. Some wholesale reverting, some of it complex and partial.

Roscalese arrived at this article for the first time yesterday, after apparently having followed me from another page I was working on, and began reverting against three editors. She could see that I was looking for sources, and she was being asked on various talk pages to stop reverting. Her responses were somewhat snarky, verging on personal attacks. See Talk:The Reader#Reverting, User talk:Roscelese#Warning, and User talk:Roscelese#3RR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment. As I noted at the article, absent any reason why the Wroe comment (and other critics' comments) shouldn't be in the article, I'm willing to take the heat for adding legitimate sourced information, particularly in the presence of so much illegitimate unsourced information. I also explained repeatedly at the article that Franklin says that the illiteracy is a metaphor, but absolutely not for modern understanding of the Holocaust; SV has repeatedly added this text back after I've noted that it's both unsourced and contradicted by the cited source. (The comment about vorlesen supporting that position is also falsely sourced to Franklin.)
It troubles me that SV has reached administrator status without learning that it's not okay to add original analysis to articles. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to help people publish book reports. Analysis needs to be sourced, and when you threaten a block because I removed original research (and then left it in the article but tagged it as such), I question whether your goal here is the same as mine.
SV, since you only suggested this at the other page rather than making an outright accusation, I let it slide, but here I'm going to respectfully ask that you retract your accusation that I followed you. It's so plainly false that bringing it up here only makes your position look worse.
In conclusion? Don't make things up. Not about me, not about The Reader.
-- Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I've written about Holocaust literature before for Wikipedia, and when I saw the condition of this yesterday I decided to start improving it. Instead I've taken it off my watchlist for now, so you're free to do as you please.
The point of the 3RR policy is that you must not revert more than three times in 24 hours (and preferably not even up to 3RR), no matter how right you believe you are, unless the issue is a BLP violation or clear-cut vandalism. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
And you seem to have a hard time believing that anyone else's motives could be as pure as yours. It is actually possible, you know, for someone to edit an article that you have edited without them doing it because you have edited it. It's not all about you.
I recommend that in your future Holocaust-literature endeavors, you make sure you have a citation for something before adding it and re-adding it, especially when it contradicts a lot of other sources. That's what I'm trying to do with the article right now - dredging up citations for these swathes of original research you kept adding. Of course, some of the citations directly contradict what you wrote, but that's life. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 24 hours. If we consider only the edits made on 21 January, Roscelese is over 3RR, based on edits #2, 3, 5 and 6 as tabulated above by SlimVirgin. R. gets no credit at all for diplomacy in her comments above. This editor was blocked eight days ago for personal attacks. Surely people can be polite even when they disagree on the details. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Unite Against Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Snowded has been reverting on the left wing issue at the article for months. There has been a slew of noticeboards brought into it in an attempt to find consensus. If the term can be applied as a label, if the term has sources, if the term can be described, and so on are all valid issues. I understand Snowded's reasoning for not wanting to use the label but that does not excuse gaming (I can detail this at ANI if requested) and hitting the revert button are not acceptable. Edit warring was recently brought here in December and resulted in a lock: [27]

Diffs:

In regards to consensus, it might be shaping and the RfC leans towards removal. It took going to the RS noticeboard twice recently[46][47], 3rr (listed above), and the POV board[48] to come even that close.

Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-running dispute. Consensus, at least in raw numbers in the RfC, seems to favor omitting 'left-wing' from the lead of Unite Against Fascism. The RfC was not closed in an optimal manner, and a fair-minded closer might want to survey all the other discussions too, like those at RSN. If Cptnono wants to make a request at ANI for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC, that could be a way to settle this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If he would have made the change after an uninvolved admin closed it then I wouldn't have brought this up. The RfC is disputed due to its opening line not being inline with the rules. Anyways, he was still edit warring regardless of the RfC. This is the epitome of slow motion edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I right that you complained about how the RfC was closed? Do you want us to block a single individual, but not fix the RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I did since using improper procedure to make a revert is part of the issue. But that is only part of the edit warring. This report is not to settle content but to limit Snowded's disruption. I think the RfC was mishandled but that is a separate broader issue. This report is about Snowded and not the entirety of the dispute but that is something that still needs addressing somewhere else.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd welcome any uninvolved admin looking at the whole history here. "left wing" was inserted in early December without consensus and I reverted twice with a request to abide by WP:BRD. It went to the RS notice board where the original position was again supported and I and others attempted to put in a compromise proposal at that point. Then it went to NPOV same result. The RfC followed and the last comment was in December. Yesterday one of those who ignored WP:BRD in the first place added in another "left wing" again. At that point I put the article back to its early December (and long standing) position with a notification on the talk page. Another editor formally closed the RfC. This has been a long drawn out process with several editors (including Cptnono) attempting to get their position against the clear weight of reliable sources by wearing everyone else down, using a few naive right wing editors (Johnsy88) to do their edit warring for them. As I say a review of the whole history by some senior admins would be helpful.
PS If you go back over the history you will find other reverts of "left wing" by myself and other editors, the attempt to insert it by various IPs and some named editors having been going on for years. The application of the label is the formal position of extreme right wing political parties in the UK despite the fact that the organisation in question has all party support including the leader of the British Conservative Party. --Snowded TALK 06:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Your recent mention on the talk page of the article could be considered canvasing since your section header could influence people's perceptions and therefore the outcome. It looks like a request for assistance to me and I hope that people keep in mind that this is not the venue to settle content concerns. This report is about your edit warring which is plainly shown in the diffs. You can claim that I filibustered but you know I feel the same about you. That is not what this is about. You can mention sources (although no source even disputes the description) but that is also not what this is about. If you are blocked (which I hope you are) it is doubtful that any long lasting content change will be made since there will need to be even more discussion about how to handle the sourced information (a label appears out of the question) but encouragement to a swifter understanding of what you did wrong (which you failed to acknowledge) is needed. Your edit warring is disruptive. Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not canvassing to post on the talk page where everyone can see it and it makes sense for other involved editors to see your latest tactic. The simple fact remains that the label was put in place without any consensus, and was maintained there despite each forum the issue was taken to confirming the long standing stable position. I've tried to put that stable position back in place twice in the past but moved to the talk page when other editors refused to accept the consensus position. Personally I think your own conduct, including the use of this forum needs examination. But I leave that up to the community. As I said above I would welcome some independent senior admins going over this one. --Snowded TALK 09:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see some action taken to stop user:Snowded WP:ownership and slow edit warring of this article, the article would imo do better without his contributions for a while. his repeated reverts to his favored version and demands that a whole discussion has to be made to add something even if its cited is stifling the article and puts of other contributors, its not like its a fantastic article, its WP:unassesed - and in need of wider input. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not "my favored version" its the long standing stable version, a position that was supported at the RS & NPOV referrals, as well as the RfC and by many other experienced editors. Also a quick check of the edit history will show that I am only one of a number of editors who have been protecting this article from being hijacked to the political position of the BNP. Few of us have the patience to do this so I can see that our removal for a period would be the favored solution. I'm more than happy for either of the above editors to raise a full RfC on my conduct if they are prepared to have their conduct investigated at the same time. --Snowded TALK 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The data provided in this report are not enough to show long-term edit warring by Snowded, which was the complaint. There is still a dispute as to whether UAF should be called 'left-wing', and I am glad to see that some discussion is happening on the talk page. User:The Four Deuces is the one who closed the RfC, and by now he may be aware that the RfC would be more convincing if a proponent of the winning side were not the one to close it. He is invited to undo his close and ask for an uninvolved closer at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can a non-administrator close it? If so, I'll do the honours (as an un-involved editor). GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IP user reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.117.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: 10 January

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

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

Comments:

This is the same IP user who was wildly revert-warring on the same article already back in November (AN3 thread), leading to semi-protection. Probably a sock of some more experienced long-time user. Sterile revert-warring for obvious POV agenda reasons, removing a new chunk of high-quality text boldly inserted in good faith by a different user (who hasn't so far joined in any subsequent reverts.) In fairness, I must point out that the 4th revert was reverting a banned troll (a User:Wikinger sock, who normally attacks by reverting blindly against me but accidentally had reverted to my version this time), so it probably shouldn't count towards 3RR, technically; however, I still consider it part of the overall aggressive revert-warring pattern of editing of this anon. Fut.Perf. 10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin, Please note that Future-Pref and HxSeek generally work in tandem to revert/editorialize articles relating to the Ancient Macedonians in such a way as to not break the 3RR rule. HxSeek / FutPref have decided to add their inappropriate addition to the lead of the article, which is a hotly debated issue, without discussing it with other editors first, and, more importantly, citing fringe authors , and not following academic consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the 4th Revert was reverting a troll who reverted FP's revert ;) But I'm well aware that I did 3 revisions, its the fastest way to get this back into Arbitraion. Lets not kid ourselves, the article is heading there once again... I would however like the Admin to note that I immediately created a new section in Discussion to try and talk to FP /HxSeek about this right after my first revert, but they simply said 'No', and reverted back. I showed good faith by going straight to discussion, and suggested we give time for other authors to chime in, (rather then expect them to be part of the discussion at 5AM EST). I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia rules, but I know enough to know that pushing putting minority /POV views in the lead of any article is not allowed.

By the way FP, I hope you will consider my suggestion that we discuss creating a section in the article on the Greekness of the Macedonian culture, language, and ethnicity. We can then share the arguments put forth by the canon of literature in favor, vs the minority view that HxSeek and yourself in opposition. Even if we ignore for a moment the inappropriateness of HxSeek's addition to the lead, it should still be removed for no other reason then that it makes it way too long. (Nearly half the article!)

Update: Not sure how I overlooked this, but there is already a section regarding HxSeek's text in this article. Its called 'Modern Discussions'. HxSeek's text (though, would still need some changes) would be much more appropriate there. Though if he would like to discuss new authors and works, it should be an additive revision. He should not simply remove old text and dump his own unilaterally.

(unindent)The IP is already familiar with some basic policies of wikipedia like POV and ArbCom, so like FutureP said he may be a long-time user, although if he's a sock, the sockmaster's IP is probably stale.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What I find most troubling is that he confirms using revert-warring just below 3R with the express purpose of escalating a conflict towards Arbcom. Fut.Perf. 12:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm sure that he's not a new user, because when edit-warring with his old IP he left a message on my talkpage about twinkle and agf [50].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: WP:LAME)[edit]

Page: Template:2011 Asian Winter Games calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aleenf1 (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: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments: This is turning into an edit war again. The word "ceremomonies" on the calendar is centralized, and Aleenf1 continues to decntralize it without any reason. On all other wikipedia multi-sport articles the word "ceremomonies" is centralized for example [56] and [57]. However, Aleenf1 on my talk page has threatned to report me to the administrators [58], because I am using "rollback tools" when clearly I am right by leaving it as centralized. I am guessing he is bitter from the war we had recently on the 2011 Asian Winter Games article. I tried to reach out with an olive branch and say sorry, but he was bitter and refused [59]. Although this might be only 3 edits, what is stopping him from keep continuing, so I decided to report this before things get out of hand. I know 100% sure I am right, and Aleenf1 is instigating this war all over again. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, no, there is no "100% right" about this. First, he's right that you shouldn't be using rollback. Second, there may be obvious good reasons why somebody would want all entries left-aligned, so your position is not self-evidently and undoubtedly better. Third, the argument that other templates do it the same way doesn't mean it's the only legitimate way. Fourth, neither of you has yet broken 3RR (but you should obviously both stop.) Fifth, and most importantly: for Chrissake, what a goddamn trivial edit war this is. Have you guys got nothing more important to edit-war over? A piece of formatting in a template. I mean, come on, seriously. Fut.Perf. 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:TFighterPilot reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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


Hummus, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. See WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction for additional information.


Three days ago TFighterPilot was blocked for violating it: [60]

Right after his latest block he has now went back and violated the restriction one more time.

Previous version reverted to: Removes "Palestine"



Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Seriously? That's got to be the fastest repeat violation I've ever seen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:71.217.143.161 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Permaculture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.217.143.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 18:28, January 22, 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:19, January 23, 2011 signed 02:22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He's also received 3 {{uw-spam}} and {{huggle|spam}} warnings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may also have reverted 3 times. Miscounted. No other 3RR violations; I've reverted 3 times, Logan 3 times, Mindmatrix 1, and Wayne Slam 2 (so far) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "previous version" is also a revert; see 23:47, December 20, 2010 for a previous time the link was added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I'm ignoring all reverts by others because the reverts were of blatant spam. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:114.74.237.52 and User:114.74.243.54 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Government bond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported:

  1. 114.74.237.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 114.74.243.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (This one is complicated. Most of the reverts were, doing one or more of the following:

  1. Restoring the "Mechanism" section, without much change, from the revision of 06:39, January 22, 2011
  2. Restoring Sovereign Bonds and Fractional Reserve Banking to the See Also section, from, for example, the revision of 06:39, January 22, 2011
  3. Restoring parenthetical comments to the "Function" section (later, per 09:16, January 22, 2011 by the same IP
  4. Removing tags from the "Mechanism" and "Function" sections, reverting my edit of 15:21, January 22, 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 09:58, 22 January 2011
  2. 05:4549, 23 January 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:28, January 22, 2011 Attempted to explain the reasons for my edits.

Comments:

The first IP and 114.74.203.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) were adding the same nonsense (something like the last paragraph of the "method" section) to multiple locations on the talk page. Reverts 2 and 3 had edit summary "Repair Vandlism attack and set the truth free !". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I did a rangeblock to prevent further IP hopping, so it won't show up in their individual block logs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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


Previous version reverted to: [63]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], [72]

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

Comments:

WP:SPA that has been adding links to an article it wrote, Ervin bobadilla, that has been speedy-deleted twice. Apparent WP:COI with the subject of the article. edit-warred in both Super Twins and Calla Lily (TV series) when editors noticed and reverted unsourced additions to those articles. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User: 72.42.146.36 reported by User:Jonathanwallace (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Religious toleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.42.146.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80] [81] Comments: IP user has a history of vandalism to articles such as Atheism and blanking of well sourced relevant sections, often religion-related, in other articles. Consensus on [[WP:EAR}} was material belongs in article; IP seems to be removing it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Warrenonlive reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Braid (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Warrenonlive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 06:52, January 23, 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:09, January 23, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; there was also some discussion between the editor and another on Warrenonlive's and Masem's talk pages.

Comments: Basically we've got the same editor adding a link that doesn't belong. Warrenonlive has been adding a link to the Onlive service, which clearly poses a conflict of interest as well. Technically the fourth and fifth reverts aren't by the user himself, but by an IP - 64.134.153.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Still, I think we can safely assume it's Warrenonlive logged out, as the IP has no other edits aside from these two, which were to continue the edit war. Three editors now have undone the edits with explanations in the summaries. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Indef'd for advertising, COI and username. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There may be more meat puppets. See this thread that is clearly connected to these edits. [82] --MASEM (t) 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:6k7de3x4v reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Shenzhen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 6k7de3x4v (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [83]

  • 1st revert: 04:43 24 Jan 2011 [84]
  • 2nd revert: 04:33 24 Jan 2011 [85]

The reversions on the 24th followed these:

  • 3rd revert: 00:01 18 Jan 2011 [86]
  • 4th revert: 00:14 18 Jan 2011 [87]
  • 5th revert: 01:12 18 Jan 2011 [88]
  • 6th revert: 01:26 18 Jan 2011 [89]

I am not listing the six reversions the user made before 00:00


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

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

Comments:
Two reverts on the 24th following eight reversions over the 17th and 18th. This user has been involved in discussions on the article's talk page as well as their user talk. They have resumed insisting on their version despite being informed by several editors that their edits are in conflict with the manual of style. I have no confidence that this individual will change their behavior. Tiderolls 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User: 14.139.128.14 reported by User: UplinkAnsh (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Accession Day (Jammu and Kashmir) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.139.128.14 (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: [98]

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

Comments:

There seems to be serious edit warring going on Accession Day (Jammu and Kashmir) article. I was away form serious editing of wikipedia for a couple of weeks so I personally did not warn the IP. From the edits however it seems that the IP is edit warring to remove sources. He has been warned by other editors but has reverted edits of 3 editors. Multiple editors have engaged the IP into a discussion but the IP continues to remove sources. UplinkAnsh (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If they keep it up and refuse to discuss, maybe we can think about blocking, but I don't think this is actionable right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:83.12.91.242 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Tuvia Bielski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.12.91.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [99]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User has been aggressively adding highly POV-charged content to Tuvia Bielski over the past few days. Any reversions are viewed, in WP:TE fashion, as "vandalism" by the user, who has been previously blocked for edit warring.
~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Fifteen501 reported by User:Bws2cool (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: List of Pokémon (599–649) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fifteen501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Fifteen501#List of Pokemon

Comments:
The user is edit warring in two areas. First, they are changing a Japanese name to be formated as an official English name. This has not been officially revealed, and they have failed to show a good source for it. Second, they are calling a Pokemon "the grossest", which is not a neutral point of view, but they continue to add it back because "I didn't notice it before".

On the articles List of Pokémon (494–545), List of Pokémon (546–598), and List of Pokémon (599–649), the user has been inserting unsourced material, and removing sourced material for months, disrupting the article. Editors have tried to reason with them, but they continue to make confusing edits.

I realize that I may be also edit waring, but I am only trying to uphold guidelines, and they are failing to explain themselves. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong has taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. This discussion may no longer be needed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 72 hours for long-term edit warring. Previous attempts to get this editor to wait for consensus have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: White Argentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (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: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments: Dear Noticeboard members: I am filing his notice in response to an adamant decision by one user, Andy the Grump, to delete the infobox and, according to his own admission, an entire article, itself. He alleges that White Argentines (30 million + people) are an "invalid ethnic group", and will not cease. Based on past experience, users this adamant about denying self-evident facts are only playing devil's advocate, and doing so on our time. Please help. Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: A second user, GiovBag, is now deleting the infobox without reason or consensus. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) -

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 3 days by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kalsermar reported by User:Whaledad (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Jewish Defense League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kalsermar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [110]

Kalsermar is a Wiki friend of SwedishSven alias Istochleukzonnaam, who was blocked in Commons, Meta, SV, Simple, En, Nl for his cross-wiki vandalism removal of the JDL picture and/or sock puppetry: [111], [112] Kalsermar, himself not a stranger to being blocked (which also includes sock puppetery) has now apparently taken it upon himself to redo SwedishSven's cross-wiki vandalism in removing the same JDL picture: [113]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114] Now removed by user [115], accusing me of cross-wiki vandalism in his edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaledad (talkcontribs) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments:

Note that this has also been discussed extensively on NL-Wiki. Kalsermar is currently blocked in NL-Wiki for PAs and ArbCom violations as a result of his behavior in those discussions.

Whaledad (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't often edit on en:wp so I'm not sure if I can post comments here or not but here goes anyways :-)
User Whaledad has been putting up a certain picture on articles about the JDL, a picture that, as far as I can tell, has been removed on most if not all language versions of Wikipedia. Whaledad is also on a vendetta against me for some reason. there are some lies in this report from my colleague that I do need to address.
1)I am not, nor have I ever been, a friend of SwedishSven or his sockpuppets. In fact, I have tried, on the nl:wp, to stop a spree of mutual blockrequests between SwedishSven on the pone hand and Whaledad, Paul kuiper and Eddy Landzaad (all users on nl:wp that are also active, more or less, here). I have urged admins on nl:wp to clamp down on these childish request to have the other side blocked but unfortunately it hasn't stopped.
2)Listing where SwedishSven has been blocked is clearly an attempt at influencing since it has nothing to do with me.
3)I have never been blocked for sockpuppetry because if I nhad been it would have been a permanent block according to nl:wp rules. I have never and will never use sockpuppets. They are not worth the trouble since a high profile editor (who edits controversial topics) will be found out anyways before the day is out. This libellous claim by Whaledad alone should result in some action by an admin here against him.
4)Whaledad's claim that I am continuing someones vandalism is also something he should at the very least recieve a warning about since I simply removed a picture from an article that in my opinion has no business being there. The consensus seems to be on my side there as evidenced from the discussions about the picture on this and other Wikipedias.
5)I do hope there are admins here that can read Dutch and go over to nl:WP to unmask another one of Whaledad's outrageous claims. I am indeed blocked right now on nl:wp because I used the phrase "The crowd of Whaledad, kuiper and Landzaad" to refer to those three editors on nl:wp who are constantly editwarring with SwedishSven and that is unfortunately a violation of a arbcom ruling forbidding Paul kuiper and myself to personally attack each other.
In short, I am completely perplexed by this action of Whaledad's on this page and can only see it as an extension of his and other's efforts to have anyone that disagrees with them blocked for spurious reasons. I hope and trust that the admins here will deal with this quickly and forcefully.
Kind regards,
--Kalsermar (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Some responses from me:
I placed the pic in dispute on both NL and EN, as I frequent both (I'm Dutch and live in the US). The pic was actually auto-suggested on the NL-JDL talk page: [117]. That pic was at that time already used in numerous versions of Wiki around the world in both JDL and Racism articles.
SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam instantly removed that pic on both NL and EN (which he does not frequent, proving that he's stalking me) claiming to know the graffiti was not written by JDL, while the subscript just said it was signed JDL. I reverted those removals, and on a hunch checked another language, finding that SwedishSven/Istochleukzonnaam had removed the pic around, as far away as Japan. In some cases S/I had started edit warring with the local users and had removed the pic up to 5 times. At that time he was already blocked in Sweden. Where locals hadn't yet reverted his removal, I did. Where locals (in discussion) locally agreed on removal (e.g. NO) I left it removed. To date the pic is still in use in Simple, ES, HIF, JA, and SV.
While it is true that Kalsermar himself was not blocked his Palliser sock puppet was: [118]
There was no consensus the the EN-JDL talk page for removal of the Pic. Kalsermar's aqct to remove this pic on EN-Wiki (which he admits himself he doesn't frequent) is also a case of stalking.
Kalsermar's translation of "meute" in "crowd" is very liberal. "Meute" when used for people is a derogatory term, comparable to "pack" (as in "a pack of wolves").
Hope this helps, Whaledad (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This will be my last comment in this matter but more lies demand a rebuttal. The section by Whaledad regarding SwedishSven is absolutely irrelevant here and just serves to imply guilt by association or some such thing. Very transparent really. User Palliser was blocked on nl:wp but he/they was/were blocked because an account is strictly personal and Palliser (not my sockpuppet but I do, or rather did, know them) was a group of three users editting under one account name. Again, under nl:wp policy, if it had been my sockpuppet it would have resulted in a perm block for both. I also may not frequently edit here on en"wp, I have a long history of doing so. Last but not least, note the cherrypicking here (well, for anyone who knows Dutch and wishes to look on nl:wp. I used the word "meute" once and "menigte" twice, indicating a crowd as I was referring to three users who are almost acting in tandem (can a tandem be used for three?) with each other. There was nothing derogatory about it, that's for sure. Either way, it is all rather irrelevant. The real issue here is the attempt by Whaledad to silence anyone who opposes him and that is very unfortunate and "unwiki".--Kalsermar (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Status update I won't bother to address the claims in Kalsermar's last response: Another user has changed the caption for the picture, better illustrating relevance AND providing 2 references to support that relevance. Kalsermar seems to support the pic with the new caption. If he promises to leave the pic alone from now, I withdraw my complaint. Whaledad (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"If I promise blah blah blah you withdraw????" Who died and made you God, no offense? I will not promise you anything, let alone to alter my editorial choices that I think are in the best interest of the encyclopaedia because Whaledad disapproves.--Kalsermar (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation A single revert does not edit warring make. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I'm not involved in this, but there is an edit war going on between about four editors at Three-dimensional chess. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is Three-dimensional chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Keeping an eye on it. T. Canens (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Winston786 reported by User:Sodabottle (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winston786 (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: [123]

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

Comments:
This editor has been engaging in edit wars with multiple other editors in multiple articles over the past few weeks. He doesnt discuss in talk page or in user talk pages and insists his POV is always right. Currently he as violated 3rr after being warned by User:SpacemanSpiff. He disguised the fourth revert, but adding more content and using a deceptive edit summary.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Longer than usual since it's right off the previous block for edit warring and due to the decee_League&diff=409821994&oldid=40heus Canens|T. Canens]] (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 reported by User:Jorfer (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Health care reform in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.174.128.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·