Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:27, 18 January 2010 view sourceSkier Dude (talk \| contribs)315,466 edits →User:Grichard56 reported by User:Fences and windows (Result: ): no violation← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:46, 18 January 2010 view source NJA (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators30,514 edits →User:NimbusWeb reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: ): 31hNext edit →
Line 727:		Line 727:
	::'''Result''' - No action. Both those projects have talk pages. Jasepi has already discussed the matter at ]. I suggest that IP present his arguments there as well. Blocks may follow if editors aren't accepting a consensus reached on the appropriate WikiProject. ] (]) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)		::'''Result''' - No action. Both those projects have talk pages. Jasepi has already discussed the matter at ]. I suggest that IP present his arguments there as well. Blocks may follow if editors aren't accepting a consensus reached on the appropriate WikiProject. ] (]) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) ==

	'''Page:''' {{article\|Biosequestration}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{article\|Biosequestration}} <br />
Line 757:		Line 757:

	Please see ] in all its gory details. This is a train wreck. --] 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)		Please see ] in all its gory details. This is a train wreck. --] 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 10:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked, 31 hours) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked, 31 hours) ==

Revision as of 10:46, 18 January 2010

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

1st revert: 20:01, 29 December 2009
2nd revert: 18:16, 30 December 2009, note promise to edit war on this.
3rd revert: 19:16, 31 December 2009
4th revert: 20:30, 31 December 2009
5th revert: 22:36, 31 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Littleolive_oil reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Reverts happened too fast to give a warning until after user got to 4. Fladrif (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the user has warned others about 3RR, it may be assumed that she is aware of the policy. Will Beback talk 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of edit warriors, Fladrif has often been warned, whereas Olive doesn't usually revert more than once. Fladrif himself exceeded 3RR a little over a month ago, but I didn't report it. Of course, Fladrif was right in there edit warring with Olive today, reaching 3RR. TimidGuy (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Without attempting to condone my editing in a situation when I should have walked away, (I have a1RR rule for myself and try never to go to 2RR), my understanding is that I was at 3RR rather than 4RR since my first edit was not a revert to an earlier edit but was a rewritten version of the content I was dealing with. I then reverted Fladrif's deletions of my edit

Original content:

Pared down content here and my edit added to create what I saw as context and neutrality here

1st revert to this edit following Fladrif's undo

2nd revert

3rd revert

(olive (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) Result

No violation Whilst there may be some edit warring, there wasn't a technical breach of 3RR (ie 4 reverts). For an edit war, there needs to be more than one party. Thus both parties advised to get serious about talk page consensus rather than pressing undo. NJA (t/c) 08:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Osgatharp reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

In addition, recent reverts by 67.142.130.17, 67.142.130.32, and 67.142.130.33 are also very similar to those made by User:Mark Osgatharp over the past few days. See the article history. The history indicates that anon editors from 67.142.130.XX and User:Mark Osgatharp have been making similar disruptive edits in spurts for several weeks.

Comments:
The talk page gives a sense of the acrimony. And the user has been warned several times over the last several years on his talk page.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I could round up some people to put warnings on your talk page and then you would have warnings on your talk page. But I don't play that way, I just deal in facts.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All but admitting that he has no intention of heeding multiple warning from multiple users, User:Mark Osgatharp posted this on my talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned Any further editing warring on the page, whether 3RR violations or not, should be reported here with reference to this note. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simpleterms reported by User:Tbsdy lives (Result: Two editors blocked per the SPI case)

Page: David Tweed
User being reported: User:Simpleterms and User:Unsecretspy (suspected to be same editor).

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Tweed&oldid=337485161

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Simpleterms&oldid=337547686

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has created a new account I feel to solely whitewash the David Tweed article. Happy to discuss changes, but they don't appear to want to go to the talk page. I also suspect that they are editing as Unsecretspy, I have asked them to discuss their edits as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've raised a few concerns on the talk page of the likely (stale) sockmaster. I've placed a note with a link to these concerns on the currently active puppet's talk page. NJA (t/c) 09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, you might also want to look into the editing of SmoothWallsSam as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's two socks, thus I think this is appropriate. NJA (t/c) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Simpeterms and Unsecretspy have been blocked by Juliancolton per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unsecretspy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Unitanode reported by User:RyanGFilm (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Talk:Saoirse_Ronan (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warring is taking place on the article talk page located here

Comments:

User:Unitanode started a new section (Educating RyanGFilm on Policy) under a section we were having a debate on (the RfC section). We then continued the debate under the new section. I had to file a report to the Mediation Cabal for assistance since the user would not discuss the issue at hand except to only say "You're wrong." I informed him of the request for mediation to which he replied that he would not go along with any mediation. I had earlier informed him of the edit war policy to which he told me that he didn't care because admins don't have any more power than regular editors do.

Anyway - I moved Unitanode's "Education RyanGFilm on Policy" below the main discussion and moved the debate in the "Edu. RyanGFilm Policy" back into the RfC section so that any user/mediator who wanted to comment would not be confused, thinking that they were two seperate discussions. I explained this to Unitanode. This is when the edit warring began. He would revert my edits and say "You can't do this" and made personal attacks against my judgement. I informed him that I would be happy to oblige to what he wanted if there was a policy stating that moving user comments in this situation was against policy. He simply replied, "No. You can't do this." This is why I finally decided to get an admin involved. My only concern is that it won't do much good since he has several different Misplaced Pages user names. RyanGFilm (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Submitter warned. Moving talk comments around is a form of refactoring, and WP:REFACTOR provides that "..if another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Regarding the issue being disputed in the RfC (the nationality of the actress, Irish or American), one way to settle the matter would be to ask at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GreekStar12 reported by User:Greekboy (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User is taking out inline templates. I initially added some of these (not all) because some statements needed clarifications. I admit I too have taken part in edit waring, but the user seems reluctant to any change in the article as you can see from the pages edit history. She is constantly reverting most changes from different editors citing that either things are sourced (with some questionable/potentially unreliable and POV sources, but that is a whole other story), a previous peer review did not pick up on those problems, or that other articles take a similar approach. I have not tried to resolve this dispute on the article talk page, but I have talked to the user via private correspondence about various issues with the article. The outcome was not the best as is clear by the edit history. Greekboy (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned Greekstar12, who broke WP:3RR on 15 January, but has not continued since then. Further reverting of tags by either party may produce sanctions, especially if they won't discuss their concerns on Talk. It might be less trouble to look up some references than continue this fight about whether there are enough references. If editors won't cooperate, full protection could be the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Perry mason reported by User:Rd232 (Result: No action)

On 13/14 Jan, Perry mason reverted 4 times in 10 hours:

;
;

I asked him to revert himself; he declined. All of this in a generally uncivil tone, and in the context of a discussion on the article talk page where myself and another user had agreed several days previously that the edits were unjustified, but Perry mason hadn't bothered to participate.

I let that go (partly because in the midst of that 4RR, on a message to his user talk page I accidentally pointed him at Talk:Guardian, where he posted in error), and reverted again today, and we now seem to be back to the same edit warring pattern (article history), though this time since I reverted first, he won't be breaching 3RR unless someone else gets involved. Leave alone the uncivil tenor of the talk page discussion, and the severe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he seems to think that by default the content should stay, until it is demonstrated to his satisfaction that he is wrong: consensus be damned. Rd232 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. User:Perry mason was pushing the limits of proper editor behavior back on 13-15 January, both on the article and on the talk page, but has not edited since. If he continues warring, sanctions may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Zodiacww reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: Warned)

1st revert: as of 13:41, January 15, 2010
2nd revert: as of 14:20, January 15, 2010
3rd revert: as of 14:40, January 15, 2010
4th revert: as of 16:21, January 15, 2010
5th revert: as of 16:46, January 15, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as of 19:15, January 15, 2010

Problem began when contributor's added their opinions as well as statements that were not supported by the original reference in the introduction. Tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page: Other editors have also removed opinions and the personal interpretations presented as facts. CZmarlin (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Zodiacww seems to want to continue to battle by stating on the talk page that "I will file some sort of grievence against you for partisainship and mischarachterising the truth, and vandleism if you ban me." (as of 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) CZmarlin (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: user warned. The user is a new contributor, and the 3RR warning post-dates the edit warring. Rd232 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

rd232, Thank you for your observation. However, apparently you have ignored the reverts by several others of the edits -- and tangential detail inappropriate for BLP lead that is not supported by the references provided -- that have been introduced by one contributor: Zodiacww. On addition to mine, these include the following: (1) Revision as of 14:36, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (2) Revision as of 15:58, January 15, 2010 by Fat&Happy, (3) Revision as of 19:05, January 15, 2010 by Abrazame, (4) Revision as of 05:50, January 17, 2010 by Brothejr. Please also examine Zodiacww's contentious edits on the talk page. Moreover, Zodiacww has violated the 3RR. I think you need to reconsider to whom you should direct your warning. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Volcanopele reported by User:Noren (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: initial change made on Jan 10, prior to period of edit war

Each of the above edits changed the discovery date in the infobox to January 7.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a somewhat stale report, but I was surprised to find that this had not already been reported. This edit war was on the page that was currently Today's Featured Article, one of the most visible pages of that day. Both involved editors are experienced. This edit shows that User:Volcanopele was aware of the rules but he hypocritically proceeded to break 3RR immediately and then two more times in the following hours. The dispute seems to now be resolved, but given the location and timing of this edit war I think an official response would be in order. --Noren (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned, due to staleness of report. Rd232 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Katydidit reported by User:Noren (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: change made on Jan 10, prior to period of edit war

Each of the above edits changed the discovery date in the infobox to January 13.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is a somewhat stale report, but I was surprised to find that this had not already been reported. This edit war was on the page that was currently Today's Featured Article, one of the most visible pages of that day. Both involved editors are experienced. The dispute seems to now be resolved, but given the location and timing of this edit war I think an official response would be in order. --Noren (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned, due to staleness of report. Rd232 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:UrbanisTO reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

22:34, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338075219 by Scjessey (talk)under Cdn law Rachel Maddow is a Canadian citizen through her Canadian mother")
22:45, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338080477 by Threeafterthree (talk)How? see paragraph 6")
23:34, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "removing synthesis - reference does not state Maddow is American")
00:01, 16 January 2010 (edit summary: "previous edit description false - does not describe HER as American")

Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Not strictly a technical violation of 3RR, but definitely edit warring to prove a point in violation of WP:BLP. The user in question has also edited as 204.40.1.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not been previously involved in this dispute, but after seeing this report and looking at the details, I support Scjessey's report (I have just left a comment to that effect at the article's talk page). It is pretty clear that User:UrbanisTO is engaged in a combination of edit-warring, WP:OR and POV pushing and a block for disruption is definitely justified. Nsk92 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Warned. The extreme biteyness of reverting a user talk message as vandalism makes a warning appropriate. Rd232 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:UrbanisTO (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to:

   * (cur) (prev)  00:19, 16 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (Undid revision 338092286 by UrbanisTO (talk) - BLP revert of false information) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 00:01, 16 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,067 bytes) (previous edit description false - does not describe HER as American) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 23:39, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by UrbanisTO; Rv removal of cited information. Sources in the BODY of the article cite her as "American". using TW) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 23:34, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,067 bytes) (removing synthesis - reference does not state Maddow is American) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:49, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (Undid revision 338080758 by UrbanisTO (talk) - citation irrelevant in this case) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:45, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,151 bytes) (Undid revision 338080477 by Threeafterthree (talk)How? see paragraph 6) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:44, 15 January 2010 Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) (22,077 bytes) (that citation does not prove/verify her Canadian citizenship. There are many ways listed on that cite that would NOT make her a Canadian citizen....) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:34, 15 January 2010 UrbanisTO (talk | contribs) (22,151 bytes) (Undid revision 338075219 by Scjessey (talk)under Cdn law Rachel Maddow is a Canadian citizen through her Canadian mother) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:13, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 204.40.1.129; Rv "canadian" huh? Born in California.. using TW) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:12, 15 January 2010 204.40.1.129 (talk) (22,086 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:35, 15 January 2010 Scjessey (talk | contribs) m (22,077 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 98.17.131.48 identified as vandalism to last revision by Ln8r. using TW) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Pasted it on his page, but he subsequently deleted it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I'm not an expert here, and not super-familiar with code and technical terminology to describe problems, so I apologize if the above is a bit messy. (for example, I don't know what a diff is). Essentially, I've been attempting to engage this gentleman in a discussion of where to draw the line on what counts as synthesis, and whether a source I cited in support of an edit actually supported it in substance. Before and rather than attempting in good faith to engage with my arguments on point, he's been baldly reverting my edits, and my proposed compromises, again and again. When I took a break and tried to have a more private discussion with him on his talk page, he aggressively insisted that I never post on his page again. He's been (threatening?) me with various sanctions etc., when all I've been doing is trying to leave the edit "out there" long enough for several independant third parties to chime in. I'm not honestly not trying to fight, or to impose my view by mere weight of obsession. I made my edit, frankly, in passing, and was simply taken aback by the rude response. If this type of aggressive behavior is allowed to go unchecked, then Misplaced Pages will be left with only the most aggressive (perhaps even obsessive) people as editors. I submit that would undermine the whole model of Misplaced Pages.

Result: declined. Scjessey can reasonably draw on the WP:BLP exemption from WP:3RR here. Such issues should be settled on talk, and not left "out there" in the article. If the matter can't be settled on the talk page alone, there is dispute resolution. Rd232 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:24.186.76.184 reported by NeilN (Result: Redundant)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

01:13, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "")
07:05, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "")
21:55, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "")
23:16, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "revert to Ajjradatz")
01:11, 16 January 2010 (edit summary: "(Revert to last MrOllie)")

Diff of warning: here

Started edit warring soon after block expired —NeilN 04:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: redundant: user:Fastily blocked the IP for 3 months for repeated vandalism.

User:Sdiver68 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Result: 24 hours. Rd232 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:81.187.71.75 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been reverted by multiple editors and ignored a neutral outside opinion. Editor is also a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City for details. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: blocked 24 hours by User:JamieS93. Rd232 11:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cloonmore reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected 3 days)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 4:22
3rd revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 17:23
2nd revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 22:38
4th revert: Cloonmore, January 16, 23:16

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , Talk:Feminists for Life#Anthony quote "Sweeter even"

Comments:

Cloonmore and I have been going round and round about this article, and the conflict came to a head regarding one particular quote of Susan B. Anthony which Cloonmore wishes to include in the article without comment and which I wish to take out of the article unless the quote is given context relative to Feminists for Life (FFL). Here is the lovely quote by Anthony:

"Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them."

Cloonmore's stance is that FFL uses the quote prominently and so should the article. My stance is that the quote is offered on this FFL webpage without comment by FFL, so we cannot know how their organization interprets the quote. Furthermore, my stance and that of mainstream Anthony scholars and also that of FFL scholar Mary Krane Derr is that the quote is about a hoary old inheritance law that Anthony and her compatriots were able to overturn. As such, it is my stance that the quote has no relevance to modern times nor to the article about or the mission of FFL. We two editors have talked this over quite a bit on the article page as well on my talk page, but no settlement is in sight: User_talk:Binksternet#FFL_-_your_comments. I would appreciate some content support here, so I will also be heading over to WP:Content noticeboard. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Page protected for 3 days. You're both equally guilty of edit warring, and since you're the only participants in this dispute (and the only editors of the article in the last week) blocking would be unhelpful. Use dispute resolution as you suggest, and remember that the 3RR rule does not care if you're right or wrong. Rd232 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:71.77.20.26 reported by User:Dr.enh (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:71.77.20.26&diff=338135623&oldid=335409920

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I did not make more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, Dr.enh (talk · contribs) has reverted as much as I have. If there is any edit warring, I believe we are both equally guilty. His 3RR report here is simply his way to try to stir up problems for me because of his content dispute with me. And please note how Dr.enh (talk · contribs) selectively links only his "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"; he conveniently omitted my replies. And please note that Dr.enh (talk · contribs) has been warned several times on his talk page about previous edit warring. If an admin decides that edit warring has occurred here, I'll accept my warning or block without argument, but I ask that Dr.enh (talk · contribs)'s edit history in this matter also be examined carefully. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Result: declined. No breach of 3RR (and note that a link to user's contribs page instead of diffs is not helpful, and doing it multiple times as if the links were diffs even less so). Also an RFC on the content issue is now in progress. Note: the disputed content should be left out until RFC consensus becomes clear. Rd232 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker and Omarcheeseboro reported by sdiver68 (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to:

See history page, too numerous to link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bernie_Miklasz&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Miklasz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Miklasz

Comments:

Apparently, these users do not understand that original content from Bernie himself are reliable sources when discussing Bernie. I suspect these 2 see themselves either as Wiki police or are Bernie Supporters trying to paint the best possible picture of a man of many controversies. I've offered to let them rewrite and edit the content as long as they do not remove the pertinent information altogether, but instead what I've gotten is a series of undos. Sdiver68 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I had already begun filing a report on Sdiver68|Sdiver68 below, I'll let that stand for the other side of this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Declined. You were edit warring against consensus; they were trying to stick to the WP:3RR rule, and did so (and if they hadn't, WP:BLP exemption would have applied). Use dispute resolution if necessary. Rd232 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sdiver68 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Duplicate report)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: (editing as an IP, edit claimed here with this comment )
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Editor is well aware of the policy, as he has threatened other editors with being reported if they revert his edits.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Discussion on talk page began, but reversions continued.)

Comments:
This editor is deadset on adding a section on controversies to this article, even though the material he is adding is a) poorly sourced, and b) not very controversial. I explained my edits on the talk page, but the user continues to revert and ignore the points made by myself (and other editors). Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker's done an excellent job in trying to explain to Sdiver68 why the content should be removed. I've tried as well to explain Misplaced Pages's guidelines on wp:rs and self published sources on the article talk page and my talk page, but to no avail. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Duplicate report; user already reported for same edit war (albeit this report notes further reverts). User already blocked 24 hours for this edit war. Rd232 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Gantlet and User:Dewatchdog reported by User:Samaleks (Result: 60 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Today 1st revert:
Today 2nd revert:
Today 3rd revert:

The edits are ongoing, so couldnt count.

Today nth revert:

Older reverts:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

... and the reverts goes on and on and on....

The same is the case with User:Dewatchdog

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Both the users are aware about the 3RR policy. Infact one of the user (Dewatchdog) placed the warning for the other (Gantlet). Later the warning was removed by User:Gantlet :

Also, both of their userpage seems to possess many baseless claims such as Novato and Ultimate Editor badges. :)

The users are blocked earlier for edit warring the same article. : User_talk:Gantlet and User_talk:Dewatchdog Still the reverts are ongoing since weeks.. !!!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Please block the users and semi-protect the article. --Samaleks (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of sixty hours I'm not sure why you think the article should be semi-protected though. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:174.7.14.105 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 22:01, 16 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 22:38, 16 January 2010

4th revert: 04:22, 17 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 04:44, 17 January 2010

5th revert: 07:09, 17 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 02:56, 8 December 2009

6th revert: 21:41-21:43, 17 January 2010

Previous version reverted to: 01:58, 17 January 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page:

Comments:
This is an odd case, as the anon user initiated an edit war, against all warning not to do so, and breached 3RR in the process, but then nearly completely reverted all his edits, anyway. Technically, one cancels one's reverts out by self-reverting, but this user's actions were still highly disruptive to the article. This is pattern behavior on this individual's part; he has been warned numerous times, by bots and living users alike, not to make edit tests or disrupt articles in this fashion ( ), and has been blocked more than once for it, yet the revision history of Prime Minister of Canada clearly shows he's choosing to continue the same behavior. Some of his comments in edit summaries ( ), on talk pages ( ), and on user talk pages () also demonstrate an unwillingness to abide by policy and guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's returned and has begun reverting again at Prime Minister of Canada and edit warring at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Patients is a virtue & my virtue is being tried. IP continues to be cobative with reverts at Prime Minister of United Kingdom article. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block has been applied for now. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Realitylogger72 reported by User:Horkana (Result: )

Realitylogger72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Troy Garity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Realitylogger72 has been making the same unconstructive edits over and over on the article Troy Garity. Other editors besides me have warned him. I'm not sure what the most appropriate action is, he may just be a beginner, his lack of any edit summary makes it hard to know anything about his intention or motives (I know it wouldn't guarantee meaningful edit summaries but I do wish there was an extra warning step asking user if they are sure they don't want to include a proper summary). If that account should maybe be blocked from editing that article for a while that might help. -- Horkana (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have some sort of an agenda. Some of his edits were pushing the description "failed actress" for Simone Bent (Mrs Garity). Her article was deleted and merged with the Troy Garity article, so I restored cited details explaining a bit about who she is (with sources), he continues to delete the extra specifics. Other edits force the point Jane Fonda meddling although backed by a citation is of pretty dubious tone and low merit. -- Horkana (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Realitylogger72 seems inexperienced. This still does not justify him getting into contentious editing on WP:BLP articles. I've asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to respond-Simone is a party planner-a Paper magazine article referenced it and she was the manager of Mercer Bar. My source for Jane Fonda picking out the diamond ring is legit and keeps getting erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitylogger72 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay so maybe you are a beginner and just have not been seeing any of the edit summaries that appear under the History tab. Your lack of discussion and failure to provide any edit summaries for your edits makes it very hard to know what your intentions are. There is a principle called the 3 revert rule WP:3RR whereby editors are expected to discuss edits and if they do not they may be blocked after 3 edits. After many more than 3 reverts I brought this to the attention of the administrators.

The Jane Fonda edit may have a source but her meddling is still not an especially notable incident, so the source may be legit but not be an especially high quality source or a source like the New York Times that would help show this was really a very notable high profile piece of information. It might be just barely appropriate in the Jane Fonda article but it is questionable if it is really appropriate to add it at all. Another edit removed it, and I would agree it is probably better if we leave it out. If you want to argue for keeping it you should add some comments on the talk page. (You should also take a look at the older edits because when you could have gone to history section and hit undo but instead you took two edits to add back the point and you did not format the link properly.)

You made an edit referring to Simone Bent as a "failed actress" which is not very appropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

I attempted to restore details about who she is and give a more detailed description of her background since the separate article for her had been merged with the Troy Garity article but you kept reverting those edits without any explanation. Those additions had citations and provided background information that her parents were of some social prominence.

This does seem to be a bit of a minor misunderstanding and a need for explanation. If you use edit summaries and explain on talk pages why you feel certain pieces of information need to be in the article then we can probably sort this out. -- Horkana (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:66.108.25.133 (Result: Semiprotected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARichard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338328730&oldid=337963640

Comments:

User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted encyclopedic value and relevant biographical material regarding articles from credible Guardian newspaper and Mandela.org website, relating to controversy between S. African president de Klerk and Goldstone on his campaigning to achieve high UN office. This episode is demonstrably relevant for the bio of a UN fact-finder, and arguably more so than most of the article, which is dedicated to an exhaustive list of lectures delivered or awards received.

Lotus violates neutrality and WP:Soapbox by seeking to delete any material that is not excessive praise of the subject, and to block a balanced view from emerging of the subject's significant episodes.

By contrast, the material User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted was relevant to the subject's notability, sourced to reliable secondary sources, and was presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

User Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to respond to discussion on talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARichard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338328730&oldid=337963640

Comment by LotLE×talk

I'm glad the anon reported this here, actually, I was about to file an edit warring report against the anon, which is the only way I stumbled across this report.

The anon is an SPA whose only edits with that account is to insert contentious WP:SOAPBOX material in the biography of Richard Goldstone. This material likely is a defamatory WP:BLP violation, but it skirts the line of outright BLP violation. In any case, the identical material inserted by the anon has been removed by four separate (long-term and named editors who have previously contributed to that article), and I am one of those.

As well, the lack of merit of these insertions has been discussed on the article talk page. The anon has claimed there that the addition has merit (which is a good effort), but no other editor has agreed whatsoever with that argument. A new editor may not understand WP:BRD, but this somehow doesn't feel like a genuinely "new" editor.

Below is just a cut-and-paste of the anon's entire contribution history on WP article namespace. I have not taken the effort to linkify all of these, but it is easy to view the anon's edit history, no filtering is needed to see the pattern. Edits by 66.108.25.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

11:31, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (Undid revision 338337966. See (talk). Lulu ignored questions on why deleted relevant UN-Guardian biogr. episode.)
04:23, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (→"Richard-Richard" Goldstone Controversy)
03:58, 2010 January 17 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored newsworthy, authoritative and encyclopedic-value information that was deleted without grounds by Lotus)
17:04, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (added citations to The Guardian)
05:48, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored deletion of relevant controversy between The Guardian, S. African President and Justice Goldstone; edited down quote as per Lotus suggestion)
04:41, 2010 January 15 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (restored citations to Mandela.org re dispute btwn Nobel Laureate FW de Klerk and Goldstone on "Richard-Richard" controversy; Goldstone's reference to The Guardian articles by David Beseford)
01:45, 2010 January 14 (hist | diff) Richard Goldstone ‎ (Not self-pub. Sean.hoyland misled (WP:ES). Deleted w/o disclosure Mandela.org citation to Goldstone quote, and obvious reproductions of 2 Guardian articles, referenced by Goldstone, copied in blog.)
05:20, 2006 September 2 (hist | diff) Albion College ‎ (→Campus Life)

As well, these many reversions seem to be by the same actual person as 64.134.242.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also only made SPA edits of exactly the same content.

All the best, LotLE×talk 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected - A variety of IPs, some perhaps the same person, have tried to insert the 'Richard-Richard' story into the article 8 times over the last few days. The material keeps being reverted by regular editors. If a Talk consensus is reached to insert this material, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:116.71.53.73 and User:Jasepl reported by User:ArcAngel (Result: No action, take it to WP:AIRLINES )

116.71.53.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NOTE:These two are apparently having a content dispute over "Southwest Asia now changed to Western Asia" on these articles - Pakistan International Airlines destinations, Philippine Airlines destinations‎‎. It was brought to my talk page by the IP, and so I am bringing it here, where it belongs. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some pseudo-editors are having objection to using Western Asia article name, which was changed from previous Southwest Asia mainly in airlines destinations lists, they are saying it should be listed as Southwest asia despite the article having been renamed as western asia, why this double standrad, these very editores are also asking China be listed with full name becaue PRC article carries country's full name, so then why not western asia.116.71.53.73 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is jaspel reply showing a dual standard for articles and threatening too.

"Once AGAIN: Consensus was reached in the Southwest Asia article. NOT in the aviation project (that governs the airline/airport articles). More than one established editor has reverted your edit. And you have been asked, more than once - and nicely too - to follow procedure. Do you really want to head down the path you're headed, and effectively act as an IP Vandal? Jasepl (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)"

The consensus reached at the Southwest Asia article refers to only the naming of the actual article itself. This should be taken to the WP:AIRPORTS and/or WP:AIRLINES talk pages. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If those projects only had talk pages, it could - but since this is a content dispute, there's nothing wrong with it being here. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. *Both* those projects have talk pages. Jasepi has already discussed the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airlines#How to list the region .22Southwest_Asia.22_and_.22Western_Asia.22_in_airline_destinations.3F. I suggest that IP present his arguments there as well. Blocks may follow if editors aren't accepting a consensus reached on the appropriate WikiProject. EdJohnston (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:NimbusWeb reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: (marked revert)
2nd revert: (reverts )
3rd revert: (same as 2)
4th revert: (marked as revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note: editor removes warning )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration_dispute_on_multiple_articles

Comments:

Article is under probation (editor has been warned of this) Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to report this, as well. It should be noted that both WMC and I have reverted NimbusWeb at this and other related articles, but that we are attempting to find a consensus for or against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To note another specific article where NimbusWeb is also close, if not over, 3RR, see the Carbon tax article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Biosequestration dispute in all its gory details. This is a train wreck. --TS 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 10:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AnneFan1 reported by User:Gigs (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to restore material that infringes copyright to Anne Murray, user has claimed that their edits are "approved" by Murray and are therefore not subject to consensus. The article is rife with close paraphrase plagiarism and blatant copyright infringement due to AnneFan's activities. Gigs (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Block was issued separately from this report for persistent copyright infringement and edit warring. User has also uploaded a number of images, claiming to hold rights to them, when copies on the web are available showing a clear all-rights-reserved license. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tracer9999 reported by User:Flatterworld (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history

January 17, 17:48 - 21:05

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tracer9999#please_read_edit_comments_in_future

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Martha_Coakley#Warning:_Removal_of_accurate_info.21.21

Comments:
Tracer9999 insists the YouTube video of the January 11 debate, on the official channel of the University of Massachusetts Boston (the host), is not a valid source and therefore insists on including incorrect quotes in the article, based on spin and quote-clipping. I looked very hard to find a transcript or official video to quote from, and Tracer9999 refuses to allow its reference. (S/he seems to confuse 'original source' with 'original research'.) The other full video, the Sean Hannity interview of John McCormick, is not available on his own website but only on YouTube. I am looking for a better source, but it does show the actual statements made and is clearly not 'doctored'. However, s/he continues to revert the corrected verbiage in the article back to false, misleading statements. That's simply incorrect and not encyclopedic. I don't care what any one of these people say, but I want them to be quoted accurately. As the election is in two days, this is important. Flatterworld (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not trying to edit war here.. this persons (flatterworld's) constant postings on my talk page is bordering harassment.. he is reverting valid well sourced by newspaper sources without attempting to gain concensus... and replacing them with media matters and youtube videos.. please help clear up this mess. I ask that you please check out the entire edit history as well as my diverse and substantial amount of editing on a wide variety of subjects.. thank you. Also, I hate to do this.. but I would also like to point out it is in fact this user making the complaint that was blocked just last month for editwarring..

23:51, 13 December 2009 Vsmith (talk | contribs) blocked Flatterworld (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Grichard56 reported by User:Fences and windows (Result:No Violation, but warned again)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

Grichard56 has only ever edited two other Misplaced Pages articles, so despite being an editor since September 2007 they are really a newbie. Most of their edits are to Marco Polo (game), which means that they feel ownership over it, especially as he has stated that his family invented the game in the 1960s:. I edited the article to remove unsourced material at the start of December, and rewrote it using sources, which he didn't like. He says that "Removed references that are non-factual. references earlier than 1975 needed", which is odd reasoning. I realise that 3RR has not been breached, but this is a low-grade edit war to remove sources and in which he is not communicating. Fences&Windows 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned again. Skier Dude (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

21:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */")
21:57, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338429615 by Loonymonkey (talk)Other refs are opinion pieces--see #18 (Alternet)")
23:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */ Fix reference to opinion piece per WP:RS")
23:40, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338454759 by Gamaliel (talk)Doesn't state as fact: "according to..." just as WP:RS allows")
23:53, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "With reference to book by Jeff Gerth")
02:21, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338477544 by Croctotheface) That discussion has one person saying that group needs to describe itself;another person mentions sources")
02:34, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338480213 by Gamaliel (talk)Unexplained revert")

Comments:

Was warned about a 3RR violation on January 13 (see above) —Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see by the edit history of the article in question on Jan 13, I fully complied with the warning. These 7 changes represent 3 separate sections of the article, not a single one. In addition, 3 of these edits were not simple reverts, but major revisions to my previous edits.--Drrll (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At least four of these are clearly plain reverts as they say "undid revision by so-and-so". Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: