Misplaced Pages

•  Administrator note It would appear that he self reverted after receiving his warning. I am thinking we should hold off on taking any action unless he continues to revert war. Tiptoety 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I was looking at (which was the subject of another report since removed by the reporter). Tiptoety 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Tiptoety 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Mladifilozof (Result: Protection)

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

As you can check, I am the author of featured article about Dimitrije Tucović on Serbo-croat Misplaced Pages. My intention is to write a good article about Dimitrije Tucović on English Misplaced Pages. As soon as I started to write, one user constantly removing certain aspect of Tucović's work from the article.

He did it 3 times in last 24 hours:

• 1st time: 19:41, 18 January 2010
• 2nd time: 05:29, 19 January 2010
• 3rd time: 06:06, 19 January 2010

And there is more in the history of article.

This user didn't wrote a single word in the article, he just stubbornly deleting content. When I asked him to discuss his changes, he answered me: "Please, report me." (see: Talk:Dimitrije Tucović).

I do not want to be engaged in the edit war. I just want him to follow common procedures and not to removing content without prior discussion.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Gantlet and User:Dewatchdog and User:Trock95 reported by User:Samaleks (Result: )

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

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)

--

I asked to semi-protect the article because of the below reasons: The reverts are still going on, even though the editors are blocked. See the reverts after the block:

• 1st :
• 2nd :
• 3rd :

--

• 1st :
• 2nd :
• 3rd :

-- More reverts are going on.

Trock95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of User:Gantlet. Infact, User:Gantlet used this account to award a barnstar himself : Also, he admits in the article talk page that he created another account (Trock95) to award barnstar to himself : "I've added barnstars created another profile & placed posts in my profile."

Thank you, --Samaleks (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Post disruptive sock reports at WP:SPI please. Thank you. NJA (t/c) 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why admins are not looking into this !! --Samaleks (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:94.193.135.142 reported by User:Rapido (Result: 24h)

Page: BBC Persian Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.193.135.142 (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: - IP editor copied and pasted the whole of my talk page to the article's talk page.

Comments: IP editor has also assumed bad faith, asked Are u the Misplaced Pages version of Stalin? and SHOUTING in edit summaries. Rapido (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are back reverting and assuming bad faith again. Rapido (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd revert: Rapido (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was never banned. Please check Article history as Rapido is lying and is the one engaging in an edit war by not providing reasonings for his reverts, nor replying or discussing in the discussion page despite my numerous invitations and concerns raised placed next to my reverts. He has a prejudist attitude against I.P. editors, as he himself has demonstrated through out his history of editing, and calls me, 1 person, "they", and seem to think there is an mob involved. Unless Rapido can reply to my objections in the discussion page, I will take that as a sign of his incompetence to follow wikiepdia guidelines, and commence with reverting and propose a 3RR ban for him. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - I have fully protected BBC Persian Television. I believe that both Rapido and the IP are edit-warring. They are well-advised to see if they can find compromise language for the two sentences that they keep reverting back and forth. The BBC claims that its signal has been jammed, and that they believe the interference comes from Iran. We can report that they believe those things with no fear of contradiction. Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't need to parachute in themselves to look for the jamming transmitters. Rapido's word "confirmed" is a bit strong unless he can provide a source that comes from outside the BBC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor, WAS banned for 24 hours, however they probably didn't try to go to Misplaced Pages during that period, and were not aware of the ban . EdJohnston, if you checked the source, you would see that Radio Netherlands reports that Eutelsat confirmed the jamming comes from Iran. Nothing to do with the BBC! The above IP editor is continuing assuming bad faith, and personal attacks against me, rather than discussing the edits on the article in question. Rapido (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

I see you have looked into issue fairly,

Please look at my reverts, followed by invitations and requests by Rapido (who in my view started an edit war) to engage in my discussion before continuing his reverts. He continued reverting, whilst refusing to discuss or answer my criticisms, in order to systematically ban me via the 3RR which at the time I wasn't aware of. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The page history clearly shows most reverts by Rapido to be non-annotated despite reverting my annotated reverts calling for an discussion. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also note, Rapido is using Blogs as citations, despite my numerous requests in the discussion page for him to use the original sources. We cannot ban someone for arrogance, however, Rapido has shown a non-compliance attitude and talk pages, logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user and I also suspect he is using multiple accounts. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the reverts by Rapido were unjustified, tagged as "minor edits", despite my call for discussion clearly showing systematic bullying by some editors of the BBC Persian Television article. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, on Rapido's discussion page, despite him clearing it regularly, within this month, another user, Jeff300 accussed him of an edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Rapido&diff=338579046&oldid=337889489

This user, Rapido, seems to have a long history of edit wars, and I suggest a look at his history should be made and wikipedia logs, and past criticisms should be taken into account. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I gave explanations of the reverts in the edit summaries and on the article talk page. The "blog" is actually part of Radio Netherlands, and as such the writers are professionals working for a news organisation. Just because the website is in "blog" format, does not make it an unreliable source. As for logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others... originally they said Rapido, Ash and others before they corrected themselves, and had a scathing attack on User:Ash (including accusing Ash of lying). Now I would love to see this evidence implicating Ash... who has absolutely nothing to do with this BBC Persian Television matter, and who I do not know and have never heard of. Once again, if you look above, and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, more assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are broadcast by the IP user about me. Rapido (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ash situation was an mistake as I assumed to bottom report here was continuance of ours. We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, more personal attacks from the above IP editor. Rapido (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where? I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations. Don't try to steer this from an edit war into a personal war. Stick to the topic, something which i think will your future editing. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Avidius reported by User:Ptolion (Result: 24h)

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

• 1st revert: 14:24, 19 January 2010
• 2nd revert: 15:10, 19 January 2010
• 3rd revert: 15:34, 19 January 2010
• 4th revert: 15:56, 19 January 2010
• 5th revert: 16:19, 19 January 2010
• 6th revert: 18:16, 19 January 2010
• 7th revert: 18:31, 19 January 2010
• 8th revert: 18:43, 19 January 2010
• 9th revert: 19:05, 19 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptolion (talk • contribs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:13, 3 September 2009

Comments: User is warring with the WP:UNDO function.--Ptolion (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and 31h for another editor with prior EW block history. NJA (t/c) 08:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:C.Kent87 and User:Dropmeoff reported by User:Ccrazymann (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Mestizo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: C.Kent87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dropmeoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: These users are in a dangerous edit war , including personal attacks and incivility eloquent. . Ccrazymann (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties broke WP:3RR, but they stopped reverting after being warned by User:Fastily. If either one continues to revert without waiting for a Talk page consensus, they are likely to be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Factuarius reported by User:Kostja (Result: 31h)

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

• 1st revert: (Several edits leading to the same version)
• 2nd revert: (Same as above)
• 3rd revert: (Same as above)
• 4th revert: (Practically the same version)
• 5th revert: (Full revert)
• 6th revert: (Almost the same)
• 7th revert: (Full revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Factuarius has displayed a very aggressive attitude in the dispute (including shouting in edit summaries), often resorting to personal attacks and unfounded accusations.

Kostja (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Avidius is just as guilty of edit-warring on that article, if not more, and while Factuarius has cased edit-warring and joined the discussion, Avidius is still edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Avidius' actions do not excuse the reverts of Factuarius and Factuarius also started before him, provoking him to an extent.

Kostja (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: I have shown the differences between two edits of the user (showing his complete or nearly complete revert) instead of the difference between his and the edits of another user. Kostja (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation because each revert is to a different version and to different parts of the article. However, in the interest of the general peace I will refrain from further reverts from now on and I will focus even more on the discussion. --Factuarius (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually every one of these edits has completely or almost completely removed the contribution of another editor, on the same page, within 24 hours. See the definition for a 3RVT rule here. Kostja (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kostja:You know very well that actually is the opposite: you, User:Avidius, User:Gligan and User:Laveol reverted everything I did these days but you managed only Avidius to break the 3RR (7rv). Every one can see that in the edit log. I always refrained from breaking 3RR which is the reason the article this very moment is in the condition you wanted three days now. You were four I was alone and at the end of each day it was your version in the article. Everyone can see that. --Factuarius (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Today Gligan didn't edit the page at all and Laveol had only two edits. So stop imagining some kind of cabal acting against you because it doesn't exist. Kostja (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is the possible reason Avidius did today a total of 13 reverts while yesterday and the day before had a limited participation in reverts. --Factuarius (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because so many people have been revert warring on this article (Avindus above...), perhaps the article should be protected instead of blocking people so as to allow discussions.--Ptolion (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have made a request for full page protection. Kostja (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Below is the text I post in the morning to the talk page of the article that describe the situation the 4 Bulgarian editors created the last two days:

There is a problem with an ongoing tag-teaming edit war here: Specifically, four very well known for their extreme pro Bulgarian activity in the past users User:Laveol, User:Gligan User:Kostja and User:Avidius by using either falsified references or just “don't like it policies” and edit warring in a series of articles trying to impose a clearly pro-Bulgarian POV or just to remove any to the contrary edits there. For most of the other editors, this was just a usual problem and they were trying to live with it, but recently they created an unbearable climate here, using massive edit war, false accusations and common policies in order to remove anything they don't like from the article. I believe someone must take action here before the situation goes out of hand. Below are their last actions and a detailed explanation of my position that I as the only editor not compromising with their activity became a target of their attacks and malicious treatment. These are their last actions:

User Gligan falsely accused me both in the talk page and in his edit summary for being hypocritical because according to him I removed the sentence of an author named Hall about “the significance of the Thracian front for that war”. Accordingly, he reverted the deletion of those two sentences with their refs. But as his edit was a blatant revert of my 2:42 edit he must surely have noticed that I didn't remove them, I only transferred them from the end of the chapter to the very start of that chapter, using the original expression of the source, and as the original author also had them (the first one in the page 45 as the first sentence in his "Western theatre" chapter and the second one in page 22 as the first sentence in his "Thracian" chapter) since both of those sentences are more of generalities about those fronts and thus their position is more appropriate in the lede of the chapter. Accordingly, since he surely knew from my edit summary that I didn't remove them, it is obvious that he purposely lied about the removing just to rv and thus edit warred just to edit warring without any other logical reason.

User Gligan, also, purposely lied about the number of the Bulgarian population in the Ottoman held Macedonia, in being a majority both in talk and in his edit summary. In the talk page he linked Erickson's page book 41 starting a talk chapter with the title “...and Hypocrisy”. According to him, the table of the populations in that page clearly indicates that the Bulgarian population was a majority in Macedonia. But he clearly lied because this very table was actually saying exactly the opposite, indicating that the Bulgarians were not a majority both in the total population figures as well as in every single province of the Macedonia area. Despite that, he reverted my 15:11 edit wherein I had mentioned that “the Bulgarian population was not a majority in Macedonia” by writing in his edit summary “back to NPOV version; you don't OWN the article”. Since it was he himself who introduced the table in the discussion it is sure that he had noticed that what the table said actually was the opposite of what he claimed, but he chose to lie just as an excuse to revert my edit, by falsifying the reference.

User Kostja reverted my edit about the number of the Serbian army that participated in the siege of Adrianople, saying in his edit summary that “The number of troops is important”. Since his edit was a blatant revert of my edit of 14:32 he was aware that the reason of my edit was that the number of those troops was already mentioned just some lines before, as I had explained in my edit summary, and thus it was just an unnecessary repetition. Accordingly, he purposely chose to ignore the obvious logic that we cannot repeat a number in every line here and there and thus his edit was an edit warring just for edit warring without any other logical reason. User Kostja also helped Laveol and Gligan to escape breaking the 3RR in their POV-pushing effort in falsifying Erickson's data table about the Bulgarian population in Ottoman-held Macedonia by reverting two times the article's sentence saying the opposite although by being active in the discussion (where the link of that table had been added) he had obviously noticed that the Gligan's claims were just a falsification of the mentioned table. He also helped User:Avidius in removing the sentence "to win for Bulgaria territory the acquisition of which had never been foresee by their mutual treaty" although all the paragraph was fully referenced and although the need of the addition of this sentence had been fully explained to my edit summary after Avidius' revert.

User Avidius reverted twice a sentence although it was fully referenced, and proceeded to Kostja revert in the totally unnecessary repeating about the Serbian forces that took part in the Adrianople siege although it was mentioned some lines before and thus he also reverted my edits just for reverting, without any logical reason and without any word of explanation in his summary (13:35). He also reverted other material although fully referenced, with brief summaries like “not true” or “far from a fact” while he gave no explanations about these reverts in the talk page.

User Laveol put a POV flag in the article without opening any discussion in the talk page before, and impressively enough, after that, made a series of 9 edits with the last of them starting in his summary with the words “I don't like..” which is evident of his general attitude. User Laveol has a long standing mania in putting flags without any discussion in articles where their contents are not enough pro-Bulgarian (sometimes as much as five) causing problems in many articles in the past. He removed a map from the article using as a justification the date of the map, (1877) although just days before he participated with User Kostja, User Gligan and User Todor Bozhinov in an intensive edit war in the Eastern Rumelia article for removing that same map despite the fact that in that case, this map was barely one year old at the time that state was created. Consequently I found his reasoning for the removal of the map in the current article not honest and obviously hypocritical and his general activity obviously disruptive.

From the above it is clear that all four Bulgarian editors worked in common trying to harass any possibility of editing the article with material contrary to their POV, by lying, falsifying references, removing referenced material and using hypocritical excuses, or no excuses at all and maliciously using a series of reverts to technically avoid breaking the 3RR in order to push their POV. Accordingly it is also necessary to examine the case of their last massive edits as a possible tag-teaming activity. --Factuarius (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the article is a general battleground, I would agree with Ptolion that perhaps page-protection is the best way to go. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article requires an order and cohesion in the words and deeds, this badly written, and references harmonizes not what the text means or seeks to explain. Ccrazymann (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ptolion, Athenean & Kostja. Better to protect as a push for more discussion, mainly upon the sources. Although I am afraid that the discussion will also die. But even that is better than the current situation, it will help in relaxing the spirits. --Factuarius (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Clearly edit warred, regardless of the reasoning it's unacceptable disruption. For someone with a past block for edit warring they should have been quick to stop and turn to the talk pages and the guidance at WP:DR rather than misuse undo. NJA (t/c) 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As for protection, It'd be best if you all could use the colloborative editing shown above on the article's talk page to sort out your disputes before making live edits to the article. That would negate the need for lockdown, and make for a healthier editing relationship generally. I'd be willing to unblock both editors if they both agree on their talk page to use talk page for discussion rather than edit war. NJA (t/c) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by User:J.R. Hercules (Result: Stale)

Page: United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Jerzeykydd was made aware that removing a dispute template is a violation, but did so anyway.

• Stale Disruption by editor has seemed to cease since the report. NJA (t/c) 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Shannon Rose reported by User:112.203.97.53 (Result: Stale)

Page: Daniel S. Razón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shannon Rose (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:

Comments:

Shannon Rose has a history of blocks for edit warring, which he is repeating here in the Razon article. He is also resorting to personal attacks by implying I'm a sock and have involvement with a cult, and canvassing admins and other users from the AfD with a very biased message, as shown here. 112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also of note: Shannon refuses to assume good faith with the other editors, amid efforts to provide good faith to him as seen in the requested move discussion in the article's talk page. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this cannot be 3RR. The second edit is not a reversion to the first edit and the purpose of the edits is to prevent two editors from dumping questionable statements and sources on a controversial article and encourage a discussion before any major change takes place. You see, all articles linked to the Members Church of God International sect (including Eli Soriano, Daniel S. Razón, Ang Dating Daan, etc.) had a long history of socks and meat puppets who regularly come here and mess things up with all sorts of unsourced edits and disruptions with the sole aim of obliterating duly-sourced negative information. This is a very notorious cult in the Philippines with it's same-sex rapist leader presently hiding in another country to escape the law. This reputation is mirrored by the actions of its members here in WP. As of date, there has been no one who edited in favor of the sect who did not turn out to be a puppeteer and became perma-blocked in the end. Please consider the following evidences: 1, 2, and 3. Given these repeated experiences, it has now become impossible to assume good faith on anyone, especially an anon, who only comes here to edit and whitewash a single article. This is not as simple as the anon editor wants you to believe. This article is, after all, about a leader of an extremely fanatical religious group, whose followers have a long history of very bad behaviour in WP. – Shannon Rose 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR report has been closed, but I suggest that Shannon Rose file at WP:SPI for any socking issues. Reverting people who you believe are probably socks is not one of the exceptions listed in the WP:3RR policy. Your harsh negative comments about other editors may cause people to be less sympathetic to your position than they otherwise would be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that I made the above edits because I believe that they are probably socks. Howard, for one, is most definitely not a sock. He got involved in the article as a spill of his pro-keep position at the AfD. The only trouble is that the anon, who is most definitely a follower of the subject, took advantage of the heat of the situation and found an ally in Howard (but I don't know how long it will last as this Howard is a brilliant guy and would surely see thru the anon's real agenda sooner or later). Howard is, just like myself, a very passionate editor. He also wants to see his own people (Filipinos) represented in the articles. I have already instigated a number of WP:SPIs, if you would only check the links I gave above. All checkusers turned-out to be positive and were eventually perma-blocked. In my experience, linking 112.203.97.53 by way of checkuser is a very bad idea, due to the fact that the previously perma-blocked users, all of them, made their last edits many months ago. Such a check is most likely to come out stale. Thank you for your suggestions. Well noted! – 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Rose (talk • contribs)

User:Nefariousski reported by User:ArnoldReinhold (Result: Protected)

Page: Creation according to Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nefariousski (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:

Comments:

Several other editors are involved in this edit war, I warned them earlier but User:Nefariousski then went over 3 reverts by my count. I made one content comment on the talk page (no recent edits to the article), otherwise I might have acted myself on this.--agr (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my edits were merely trying to keep the article in tact in it's current state while a discussion which lead to an RFC came about regarding whether to change the term Creation Myth or not. Maintaining the intregity of an article in its current state while such a debate is going on is critical to reaching concensus amid controversy. Two of those edits listed were against an IP editor who was subsequently blocked for 24 hours for disruptive edits. And I'd like to invite you to take a quick look at the comments by User:Til Eulenspiegel on talk page for the article that show clear intent to edit prior to reaching consensus and questionable civility.

The text of the 3RR warning clearly states "you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." My reverts and edits were solely aimed at preventing users from making changes until consensus was reached. Nefariousski (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would note that the edit warring has stopped, however I would like to see some sign that User:Nefariousski understands that his behavior is unacceptable under 3RR, which the above comment suggests he does not.--agr (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Xavexgoem has protected the article for three days. I am glad to note per a discussion on his Talk that Nefariousski has agreed not to revert the controversial part of this article until consensus is reached. The current current RfC on the article's Talk page seems like a good idea. All editors working on that article are urged to join that discussion and abide by the result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Drrll reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bill Moyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 11:52, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Criticism")
2. 14:58, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338958738 by Ratel (talk)Doesn't rely just on columnist--see refs;what BLP problems?")
3. 16:53, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338962255 by Ratel (talk)See talk")
4. 18:02, 20 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338982387 by Gamaliel (talk)See talk")

—Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Drrll was blocked for 48 hours two days ago for violating 3RR on a different article. His first edit on this article restored the text of a deleted section called "Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy" by splitting the same sentences between two new sections called "Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics" and "Profiting from Public Broadcasting". The rest are reverts of removal of this and other problematic material by User:Ravel and myself. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. As you well know, I didn't simply "split the same sentence between two new sections." I rewrote some of the material in the original edit, added additional material, and added a new reference to support it. Though you may not like it, I've included the original edit and the newer edit below. As you can see, it is not a revert:

Original edit:

===Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy===

Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate. Moyers receives a salary as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($200,000 as of 1999), receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs. Many of these programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company does.

More recent edit:

===Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics===

Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.

===Profiting from Public Broadcasting===

Moyers receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs (he also receives a salary as president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ). Many of these PBS programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company receives indirect taxpayer funding for its production of PBS programs (in the past it received direct taxpayer funding from CPB).

--Drrll (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You changed the sentence "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate" to "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy". Beyond that the text is identical. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can plainly see above, the text is not "identical".--Drrll (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that sourced somewhere? Otherwise it seems like a big ol' axe-to-grind dose of original research in either form. Dayewalker (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced. See the 3 references above.--Drrll (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 48 hours for 3RR violation. Drrll's 11:52 edit is also a revert since it restores the 'Hypocrisy' heading that was removed by others. ("..reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.") That makes four reverts altogether. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Coral Bay reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 4 days)

Page: List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Coral Bay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user has serious ownership issues, constantly reverting to their perferred version, usually claiming some variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale. Has started mislabeling others contributions as vandalism when others tried to correct them. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days NJA (t/c) 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:PeshawarPat reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Warned)

Page: Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PeshawarPat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (previous block)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, editor previously warned.

Comments:
This editor was just blocked for edit warring on the Same-sex marriage in California article for repeatedly adding a link to the Homosexual Agenda without consensus. Upon returning from his block tonight, he immediately returned to readd the link to the page, as well as several other pages. He's been reverted, and has reverted again. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: The user is also now at 3RR for the same link on Same-sex marriage in Vermont, Same-sex marriage, and 2RR on Same-sex marriage in the United States (where his first edit was to undo his prior reversion he made to try and avoid his previous 3RR block). He has finally begun to comment on talk pages, but hasn't stopped edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the first paragraph of Homosexual Agenda you will see same sex marriage is listed and is very relevant to the article. I feel that some editors have some kind of protectionism of the SSM pages, and do not welcome negative SSM aspects of the issue. TO label it vandalism is totally uncalled for. PeshawarPat (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated quite clearly that gay agenda, on the relevant page, is an anti-homosexual term that is used by others as derogatory. This is a POV term, and it is POV to place it on this article. Do not add it again.— Dædαlus 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It very well could be derogatory, but is commonly used and was coined for a reason. SSM is a major goal of the gay agenda, and the editors of all these SSM pages don't like the notion of it. In fact, I would argue that it is POV not to have it. It is no secret that there are many gays and sypathizers on these pages. PeshawarPat (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How would you like it if I went around adding Traditional agenda to marriage articles?— Dædαlus 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Like it or not, agenda is a POV term used to push a specific POV; in this case, it pushes the views that a group of people all have an axe to grind/agenda. Like it or not, the term is derogatory, and it has no place in the article as it clearly violates WP:NPOV.— Dædαlus 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, stop repeating yourself like I can't read.— Dædαlus 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The goal of this editor to insert this term into this article has spilled over into other articles. I wish someone would do something. They were blocked for this before, and right off the bat they continue where they left off. Methinks they need another block.— Dædαlus 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SO now you are denying the actual existance of the gay agenda? It would be like not including one of the "pillars of Islam" because someone decided they didn't like that particular pillar brought up. This is similar to how the whole discussion is called "same-sex" versus homosexual or gay, as it has a very vanilla resonance. If the term is so POV, why is there a decent sized article on it, directly referencing SSM on it? PeshawarPat (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your OPINION. There is no gay agenda.— Dædαlus 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the 60's, they just wanted to be able to have a bar to go to, and not be arrested. In the 70's, to dress up in drag. 80's/90's, civil unions and domestic partners. Now- "marriage". Tell me that is not an agenda? BTW, I support all those rights up to marriage. Also, for you to say there is not an agenda is POV. PeshawarPat (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And it is your opinion that it DOESN'T exist!!!! If it doesn't exist, why the article? You just don't like it as it shine a bad like on SSM- and just that a bad light- not derogatory, not POV. Just a bad light —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeshawarPat (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Peshawar. You are missing the point entirely. This is not the forum to debate whether or not your edits are valid. Your name is here because you are not discussing your edits to gain consensus and/or ignoring the obvious consensus among other editors that disagrees with you. This is against Misplaced Pages policy. You need to stop. And, for that matter, I wholly support another "break" consideration of an indefinite ban for this editor after this recent fiasco. I submitted him to 3RR maybe 2 days ago for the exact same issue and he apparently has learned nothing from this. Viewing his contributions, posts on talk pages, etc., it is clear this editor is here for no purpose but to push his POV without any regard for consensus. Perhaps this is overly harsh (I have a feeling someone may say it is) but the editor is nothing if not consistent. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not my opinion that it exists. It doesn't exist, period. The article? That's on the POV term used by opposition. Not the existence of any such agenda. Get your facts straight.— Dædαlus 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)