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 21:19, 8 February 2010 editSulmues (talk \| contribs)22,787 edits →athenean reported by sulmues (Result: )← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:21, 8 February 2010 edit undoSulmues (talk \| contribs)22,787 edits →athenean reported by sulmues (Result: )Next edit →
Line 788:		Line 788:
	:::::Moreschi and Ioeth both completely ignored your post (maybe because I'm right?). That should have told you something, and you should have taken the hint. But no, you ''had'' to re-add all 73 of those sources, and in fact you made the first revert (and you also have two reverts). Now go read WP:UNDUE and stop this circus. ] (]) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)		:::::Moreschi and Ioeth both completely ignored your post (maybe because I'm right?). That should have told you something, and you should have taken the hint. But no, you ''had'' to re-add all 73 of those sources, and in fact you made the first revert (and you also have two reverts). Now go read WP:UNDUE and stop this circus. ] (]) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

	::::::Ioeth has been idle (]), whereas Moreschi has had very few edits (]), but he has had some time to make this edit () where he warns you to remember ]. He was trying to give his vote to delete ] in which you were so egregiously involved with your edits ( and )(and by the way, ] above (see , , , , and as well). An edit warring noticeboard is not a circus, and you should take it very seriously.] (])--Sulmues 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)		::::::Ioeth has been idle (]), whereas Moreschi has had very few edits (]), but he has had some time to make this edit () where he warns you to remember ]. He was trying to give his vote to delete ] in which you were so egregiously involved with your edits ( and ) so that the article be kept (and by the way, ] above as well was working on that article to improve it and to keep it (see , , , , and as well). An edit warring noticeboard is not a circus, and you should take it very seriously. ] (])--Sulmues 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 8 February 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 and 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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
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:Vertebralcompressionfractures reported by User:CrunchyChewy (Result: Both editors blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 02:39, 3 February 2010
2nd revert: 03:33, 3 February 2010
3rd revert: 04:44, 3 February 2010
4th revert: 03:22, 4 February 2010 - Note that user Vertebralcompressionfractures forgets to log on so his IP 76.238.142.2 shows up. This IP is connected to http://www.dfineinc.com/. This company sells medical instruments used for the described procedure!!
5th revert: 06:25, 4 February 2010
6th revert: 16:10, 4 February 2010 User Wordstir is an obvious sock puppet of Vertebralcompressionfractures. Check out the lame explanation in the discussion page
7th revert: 23:17, 4 February 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Almost every undo I've done has contained a repeated explanation about why he must not change the article.

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

Comments: User:Vertebralcompressionfractures represents a medical devices company and thus he has an EXTREMELY strong motive to deceive people into thinking these devices work. He is incorrigible and has already used a sock puppet. This article desperately needs to be locked. Even when eventually unlocked constant vigilance will be required.
CrunchyChewy (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LUUSAP reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Reported user blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

09:47, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ Someone there got caught looking at the wrong stuff on the air.")
20:00, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No, this is legit. Watch the video in the link. Someone was caught surfing racy images on the air of a 7 news broadcast.")
02:41, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Didn't I tell you to watch the video in the link? This event really happened!")
19:48, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Someone was caught looking at skimpy model images while on the air. I put it up for discussion on the talk page to see if anyone would agree or disagree with adding it. Nobody responded, so here it is")
20:57, 4 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ tweak")
08:13, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Hugh, why? Why don't we discuss it on the talk page? I opened up the topic for us there.")

Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are back under an IP (129.130.32.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) but this time readded (and some more) the content to the Macquarie Group article which is a clear breach of the block. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:119.160.18.209 reported by User:Omirocksthisworld (Result:24h block )

1st revert: 21:17, February 4, 2010 Note the fact that IP's edit summary is misleading, as they are actually making the redirects. (edit summary:Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks)
2nd revert: Revision as of 23:00, February 4, 2010
3rd revert: 23:12, February 4, 2010 Note again the misleading edit summary.
4th revert: 23:19, February 4, 2010 edit summary: Please discuss this matter on talk page instead of re-directing again. Thanks

The user is constantly redirecting this page to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, although this disambiguation already includes a link to said article. Although the User has not commented on Talk:RAGS International, though they have been encouraged, User: Falconkhe has been making the same edits and has commented there. From their comments, it seems like they are constantly reverting because they think the disambiguation page is somehow being used for advertisement.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, though it seems that the IP could be user Falconkhe, who made the exact same edits previously and who has a history of edit warring

Comments:

The user has also been making disruptive edits and edit warring on the following pages, and there seems to be a trend:

Messiah Foundation International, which was unprotected yesterday after being fully protected for a week due to similar edit warring
The disambiguation page Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi
Younus AlGohar- The edits done by this editor are exactly the same as the edits of User: 116.71.15.61 who was previously blocked from editing.
The Representative of Gohar Shahi please note the misleading edit summaries once again.

Please also see editor's efforts to reason with the IP here, and here, where the IP has seemingly edited my message on the talk page. The IP seems to be focused on articles relating to Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, and Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (See user contributions). Also, after I stopped reverting their edits on all the above pages, they resorted to vandalizing my own talk page with edit warring templates with strange edit summaries such as "I think you don't know that things can't be deleted on wikipedia". see here. -Omi(☺) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the IP is at 3RR on Messiah Foundation International. —Jeremy 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for exceeeding 3RR and edit warring on other articles, personal attacks, tendentious copying of this report as though it was a report against Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -Omi(☺) 10:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Can I touch it? reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

00:12, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "John Locke is said below to be a major contributors to classical liberalisms "formulation," along with Adam Smith. Therefore he certainly ought to be noted in this sentence.")
03:37, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Putting Adam Smith here. He's even more discussed in this article. His picture is even in it. So naturally his named should be mentioned.")
03:56, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 342033168 by The Four Deuces (talk) What you mean? Adam Smith not being discussed on talk page.")
20:35, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "putting Hobbes in the list. Source said he had a "major impact" on classical liberalism. And he's talked about in the article, so his name should be here.")
21:23, 5 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History */ Locke's private property philosophy is essential")

Diff of warning: here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

—The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is even worthy of a response. Obviously there is only one revert there on my part, which was the name "Adam Smith." No sign of edit warring either, as I explained my edits in the edit summaries unlike those who deleted my edits who didn't specify why. Note the addition of sources by me as well. Clearly no original research going on either. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks like they have reverted each others edits at least once and made other edits in pursuit of possibly controversial ends as you can see from their discussion on the article talk page -- it appears that there are more disagreements going on than simply adding the name "Adam Smith" once. It seems that the source of the disagreemnt is whether it was indeed a return to actual classical liberalism or merely a return to classical liberalist ideals and who sparked any particular subset of that and how much influence one particular person may or may not have had in a return to either a given set of ideals or a particular ideal. Banaticus (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you imagine someone deleting Adam Smith's name being mentioned as being a contributor to classical liberalism? His picture is even in the article! These reversions against my edits are really making no sense at all. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This was edit warring, and you did break the three-revert rule by reverting 4 times on the same article within 24 hours. Just because you feel particular edits are right, that does not excuse you from reverting, unless the edits were blatantly bad-faith, vandalism, or violations of BLP. As your reverts fall into none of these categories, you should not be reverting but discussing. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated edits made by one person which are then changed/reverted by another person is sort of the definition of edit warring. One of you (or both of you, or neither of you) should probably take a break from editing the article for a while. Or, if you both really want to continue, then discuss things on the talk page until some sort of consensus is reached. Or, if consensus cannot be reached, then perhaps take it to Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion and ask for a third opinion to build consensus on either side of these really minor disagreements. Banaticus (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Iaaasi reported by Nmate (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk pages:

Comments:

The user discussed her/his edit on the talk pages , however, it seems that s/he doesn't want to follow the 3RR rule. There are several edits outside the reported ones but these fall within 24 hours.--Nmate (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As this user has been blocked before for the same reason, I've extended the standard block time. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Eekerz reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: – Eekerz adds Cosby death hoax with supposed screenshot of CNN
2nd revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
3rd revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit
4th revert: – Eekerz re-inserts same bit but adds a blog link about a different topic altogether

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Eekerz has not yet responded to discussion at Talk:Bill Cosby#Internet hoax of death. Binksternet (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing)

Page: Multiple articles
User being reported: Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1st revert: – Caden reverts at Center channel
2nd revert: – Caden reverts at Center channel
3rd revert: – Caden reverts at Victor Talking Machine Company
4th revert: – Caden reverts at Attenuation
5th revert: – Caden reverts at Victor Talking Machine Company
6th revert: – Caden reverts at Electrical connector
7th revert: – Caden reverts at Decibel
8th revert: – Caden reverts at Gemini Sound Products

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

User:Caden has apparently decided that any image made by User:Daniel Christensen should not be deleted from any article. Yesterday, User:Fastilysock began a large-scale deletion of many of Daniel's images, and has been questioned regarding this action at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 February 5, but some of the images truly were not helpful to the articles in which they appeared. Caden reverted Fastilysock's editing work with the edit summary of "Revert vandalism" in 11 cases. I studied the situation carefully and found eight of the images not worthy of appearing, and I removed them with ample edit summaries. Each of these was reverted by Caden with no summary, no discussion. An attempt to engage Caden at his talk page was removed by him. With no edit summaries to determine reasoning, and no discussion, I cannot accept the reversions in good faith. Taken as a whole, this behavior constitutes edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Disruptive editing. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

European Research Council (Result: Warned)

Sorry for this wrong format - but I am not familiar with this template that looks rather complicated - there is an ongoing edit war in the article about the ERC - someone tries to establish a long personal version, first as user "technologist9" than as IP. Severarl reverts over the last four weeks Plehn (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned Next time take note of the link to a 3RR helper tool if filling out the form is too tedious. NJA (t/c) 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Criztu (Result: Stale/No 3RR at time)

Previous version reverted to: 18:38, 13 November 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:13, 6 February 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:28, 6 February 2010

Comments:

In the talk page of the article I have provided my reasons for removing literary sources that do not document the Romanians, and for grouping sources by century and removing what i consider POV sections in the article, the replies i have received from Borsoka i consider being incivil. I have explained him/her that in the article talk page, and provided him link to Misplaced Pages:Civility, on which he replied "Dear Criztu, sorry but I do not understand your above remarks.". Further more, after i have noticed him about the 3RR on his TalkPage, he accuses me of "faking content of sources" and "obvious vandalism", which i consider continuous Incivility. user:Borsoka reply on my talk page Criztu (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Same report re-opened by reporting user by re-signing their signature at 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New comments
Not 3RR: the first "revert": Revision as of 12:39, 2010 February 5 and Revision as of 09:29, 2010 February 6 and (25 intermediate revisions not shown). the second revert is also not a revert and so on...--B@xter 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Closed again as it's the same report, simply re-signed. As noted here, please stop. NJA (t/c) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl reported by User:Dimitree (Result: Page protected)

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:

Seriously? You both seem to be engaging in tit-for-tat edit warring, and all the while, the article's talk page hasn't been edited since November. Work this out in talk. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've protected the page. Work this out. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What complete garbage. As has been explained to the poor "victim" on more than one occasion, additions of new destinations MUST include a valid source and, if required, an appropriate valid summary. This is a basic editing requirement across Misplaced Pages and also for the Aviation project. It is not a movable line either. And NO, "Aeroflot's planning department told me"

you defigurate my words, as usually. I said Aeroflot NETWORK planning Department. Be a man, who can face the truth. --Dimitree (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

is NOT a valid source. Jasepl (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The complaining "victim" also seems to be blissfully unaware of basic concepts, such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL, preferring instead to go all comrade this and Kondoleeza (whatever that is!) that. Misplaced Pages's basic requirements are very simple: if a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong the editor/victim is. Jasepl (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I thank you for protecting this page (that I created). Second, few fords about THIS Jasepl. He (or it - I can't read this nickname) simply violates the rules. He (it?) demands others to offer a VALID source, but he (it?) doesn't give such a VALID source for any other date/flight/aircompany. When he (it?) is kindly corrected (with all necessary sources), he (it?) just starts his favourite game - reverting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10, 20 times a day. Nothing personal. Just trying to be objective. --Dimitree (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask your attention again: Jasepl has deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot (indicated on its web-site - link available), without any VALID source. I've kindly asked him (here and here ) to explain why he has done it. --Dimitree (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is because Aeroflot do not codeshare with those airlines. Only the reverse is true, as is evident from the very same link. If you bothered to familarise yourself with the WP:Aviation guidelines, instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that there is a difference between the two.
And I demand nothing; Misplaced Pages does. If you bothered to familarise yourself with Misplaced Pages's basic editing guidelines (such as WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:NOTCRYSTAL to name but a few), instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that too.
All this has been explained to you dozens of times. But oh no, you'd rather scream Comrade this and Kondoleeza that. Not to forget how the entire English-speaking world is on some collective Russia-bashing mission and how you're being singled out for targeting. It's not true, so get over it.
Lastly, and pay attention, because this is important: If a reliable and valid source for reference is not provided - in accordance with the three tenets cited above - edits will be reverted, no matter how right or wrong you may be. Compris? Jasepl (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Paralympiakos reported by User:Caio Morone (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: His version My version

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: His talk page My talk page

Comments: He's trying to make a revolution in Mixed Martial Arts Project, we always edit whit same way, and he try to do this different.

--Caio Morone (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? You're both well over the 3RR. And, once again, the article's talk page hasn't been edited for months. I should really block both of you, but I'm going to protect the page and let you both work it out. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Vexorg reported by User:Plot Spoiler and User:Sceptre reported by User:Vexorg (Result:Vexorg blocked, Sceptre strongly urged to talk more and revert less)

1st revert: 02:30, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ political NPOV edit undo")
2nd revert: 18:04, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ ADL isn't just about Israel")
3rd revert: 00:37, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* Censorship */ restporing properly sourced material - please stop edit warring")
4th revert: 00:41, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 342392362 by Sceptre (talk) please stop taking an axe to this articel just becuase you want it deleted")

He's continuing to do it, with a bunch of bare-faced lies. Sceptre 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note if anyone's thinking of blocking both parties (i.e., me as well): seeing as Vexorg was reinserting poorly sourced/unsourced material about living people (most notably, the Venezuela corruption charges; the source given is dead), then the reversions to remove the material are exempt from 3RR. Sceptre 04:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler I'm amazed you are reporting me for edit warring when I am simply restoring sourced material removed by Sceptre becuase he wants to further an argument for deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube and since getting a response that is pretty much 99% Keep as been taking an axe to the article in a manner which is akin to vandalism and is certainly not editing in good faith. I have requested the article in question for full protection here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and simply wanted to restore the article to it's proper state before it was protected. If anything you should be reporting Sceptre for edit warring who has removed much properly sourced material. Vexorg (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The removals are actually an improvement, so that if the unwise act of this article being kept happens, we at least have an article of some quality instead of the tripe we had before. I mean, half the sources were dead, half the content was unsourced, and we were sourcing a couple of far-right blogs as proof of "censorship"! Sceptre 05:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact I report Sceptre for 3RR as well ... User being reported: Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1st revert: 14:09, 6 February 2010 (edit summary: "undo; these days, "Zionist" is too charged a word to be simply allowed to be used without context for the term - which, in a article about YouTube, would be off-topic")
2nd revert: 00:19, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: " rm poorly sourced material, and the ADL tripe. The quality of the sources is not good enough for the ADL thing: it's like saying "Several writers have criticised Barack Obama for being black" and sourcing that to Stormfront")
3rd revert: 04:14, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "remove; seriously, are you even checking the sources? Most of them are dead or non-existent")
4th revert: 04:24, 7 February 2010 (edit summary: "I'll stop edit warring when you stop reinserting unsourced material")

How about instead you two both stop reverting, and start discussing instead? Wouldn't that be easier? Prodego 05:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss about the reversions. Vexorg is reinserting BLP-violating material, and such, I am reverting his violations of BLP. Sceptre 05:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If its not vandalism, then you have to be willing to discuss your reversions. I don't think anyone is saying that was vandalism, so its a standard content dispute. BLP is a bad justification for doing just about anything, an action should be able to stand on its own merits. Prodego 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre has attacked this article with an axe as a retaliation against the overwhelming consensus of keep against his request for article deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_YouTube - I have stopped reverting but my resotring of properly sourced material is niot a violation of 3RR. Vexorg (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And notice I actualy asked for this page to be protected from Sceptre's axings while the deletion debate was going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Criticism_of_YouTube_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Vexorg (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Probably best to discuss the inclusion of the sections where it will matter, at Talk:Criticism of YouTube. Prodego 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire section about the Honduras corruption scandal is entirely unsourced, as the sources given are all dead. As there is no substantiation for government figures being accused of corruption, BLP mandates its removal. I don't care if they have been, it's not my job to source that. Sceptre 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What about all the other properly sourced material you have been rampantly removing for a POV agenda to help your case at the article deletion request? Vexorg (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it's harming my deletion request. If you count dead links, far-right racist blogs, fact tags, and swathes of unsourced material as "properly sourced", then I weep for the state of Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 05:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, FFS, the article has a talk page. Use it. Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about. Vexorg's reversions reinserted information about living people that was poorly sourced. No amount of talk paging is going to change that fact. Sceptre 06:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, you could have avoided a lot of the problem by using the talk page. Sure, if you say "BLP vio", the onus is on the party re-adding the material. But does s/he know that? If you clearly explained the nature of the problem, you might (a) convince the person to stop re-adding the material, or (b) make the violation much more clear cut. This sort of behaviour muddies the water, badly. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: reverted to redirect as before this edit

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

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding a merge. So far Drork has argued for it with one other user saying "support per Drork". Two users (myself included) have argued against it, yet Drork claims there is now a consensus to merge the article and has edit-warred to support this supposed consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the talk page, only section there is on the merge.

Comments:

nableezy - 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) User:Nableezy supported the forking of the article Palestinian territories based on the claim that this term has different meaning than the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". He has been explained that the difference does not exist, and there was no reason for forking. He argued, but eventually accepted the explanation. He kept arguing that the name "Occupied Palestinian Territory" was better, and therefore the "Palestinian territories" article should be merged into it. He was explained why this was a bad idea, and this claim was received with objections. The "Occupied" article did not include any significant new information about the subject of the Palestinian territories, so I simply turned it into a redirection once the discussion came to an end. User:Nableezy reverted the change over and over again, leaving me no other option but to re-revert him. DrorK (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is obviously a controversial subject, but neither of you should be reverting changes "over and over again" or "re-reverting" each other, because you both can be blocked for that kind of stuff. You should keep working on the talk page on this... Doc9871 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Not going to close this one myself, but calling the first action a revert is a bit of a stretch. You're claiming he reverted back to a version from May. That's too long back to be considered a genuine revert. Obviously, there's edit-warring going on, but it takes two to tango, and I can understand why Drork might have thought consensus was reached for merging on the talk page (it's clearly more than two editors in support of merging the articles). This notice seems poorly-evidenced. -- tariqabjotu 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The version from May is not mine, but it proves that there used to be a consensus about the matter, until someone decided to turn the redirection into an article. To my best judgment, the talk page showed that such consensus was rebuilt upon merger request. I don't know how long such a discussion should last. Obviously not all editors on WP want to express their opinion about the issue, and those who were willing to comment used every conceivable argument pro and against. Since those opposing the merger admitted themselves that there was no difference between the terms-in-question, and resorted to the claim that there should be a merger but to the other direction, I saw no point in continuing the discussion. DrorK (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protected In general, people who initiate or comment on controversial merger requests may not be sufficiently impartial to determine consensus. I've protected the page for three days. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have a real problem with Malik Shabazz's move. First of all, he's just given a prize to the person who initiated the war edit, just because he was first to complain, and because he has friends who were able to revert my legitimate edit, without causing him to break the 3rev rule. Secondly Malik Shabazz was one of the contributor to this article. Even though his contributions were fair and productive, his involvement in the article's editing may cause his reluctance to merge it, even unaware. Third, how long should a merger discussion go on, and who is supposed to close it? POV forking is explicitly forbidden for very good reasons. The editors who initiated the article gave only one reasoning to this forking, which was refuted on the article's talk page. People are afraid to take the next step, because they know it might lead to an edit-war, and they will be scolded. The issue of articles dealing with the Palestine Question is very delicate, and therefore attempts to POvize articles or POV forking should not be accredited, otherwise en-wp's credibility would be compromised. DrorK (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited Occupied Palestinian Territory or its Talk page. Of course I protected The Wrong Version. I recommended at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory that you and the other editors involved in the dispute ask an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss content. Finally, the alternative to protecting the article would be to block you for edit-warring; would you have preferred that outcome? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your remark on the article's talk page. I don't like the patronizing tone of your last remark. This is not a game of power, this is about how en-wp is going to be more credible. With all due respect, your last move didn't make it more credible, whether it is accompanied by a block or a "pardon". DrorK (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about making Misplaced Pages more credible, it's about stopping an editor from from further disrupting the project. I had two choices, protect the article or block the editor. I'd like to think I made the right choice, but you're starting to make me wonder. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, you should know that it's not them that got you on this page. And viewing this as a humble independent observer, there's clearly no conflict of interest that I can see regarding Malik's "move" (nor of his giving out of any prizes; I know I didn't get one ;<). Why are you still arguing on this page after being advised not to? Doc9871 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will criticize a decision made by an admin if I thing it is very wrong. Suggesting that I am disrupting a project is a very poor judgment on behalf of an admin, and the fact that I chose to criticize his decision does not make him entitled to question my motives. His decision not to block me is not a favor for me. It is his obligation to exercise discernment. Unfortunately he went half way in doing so, and I gave a detailed explanation why it is so. DrorK (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The climate change users group - again! reported by gemtpm (Result: reporting user warned)

Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MuffledThud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Climate_Skepticism

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climate_Skepticism

I have a neutral view on Climate Change. Having read the WP coverage, it is impossible to get the sceptical perspective. Not that is the 'correct' view, but that perspective. Hence, we need this page. But a group of users is deleting any such materail. This is not how WP can survive as a 'reference' work. (Do we want it to, though?) Gemtpm (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned. Gemtpm, please seek collaborative discussion with your fellow volunteers - simply reverting to get your way is not productive. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept the right to reach a consensus. In the meantime, pages should not be 'redirected' which is in effect a deletion of the content. I can be blocked, but this will provide a fairly clear example of the failure fo Misplaced Pages to even pretend to be able to be a neutral 'reference' resource. There is a gross bias towards the 'climate change lobby' here, the skeptiks point of view has been deliberately supressed for several years, and now that events in teh public domain have made the former a 'minority' positon and latter a matter of great public interest, WP needs to remedy its past bias - and fast! I welcome a proper debate, so far there has been no attempt to have one. Gemtpm (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of 'redirects' is a problem here. I do not consdier this to be 'editing' - it is a form of deletion without going through any process. This 'edit war' indicates a systemic problem with Misplaced Pages, as does the routine banning or threatening to ban users such as myself who object to this tactic being used. Gemtpm (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really where you should be discussing policy, Gemtpm? This is not the place for the "proper debate" you seek, I assure you... Doc9871 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:jstanierm (Result: Blocks)

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:

The first one was unsourced. This report is the user getting back at me for actual 3RR CTJF83 chat 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The first may have been unsourced but when you were reverted a citation was added (which you didn't bother to look into); you just began edit warring to push your POV. Apparently you have been at it for a while; I just noticed your recent reverts.21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs)

First link is unrelated too. CTJF83 chat 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours to Ctjf83 and OscarMilde for 3RR violation. Jstanierm has only two clear reverts this time around, but he is continuing an edit war on the same article for which he was reported here on 4 February, so he is blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:86.179.224.112 reported by User:Atlan (Result: Semi)

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:

A request for checkuser is filed to link this IP to blocked User:Keithmc2. The account and multiple IP's have been edit warring and block evading at Kent School (and reverting my edits wholesale on other articles). A discussion is going on and is about to be wrapped up at the article's talk page, where the IP does not participate.--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - Kent School has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:GSP-Rush reported by User:Bubba73 (Result: 24h)

User user:GSP-Rush is still causing problems on Samuel Sevian. He was warned about 3RR on his talk page last month. He violated that today. His edits also violate Consensus, Crystal Ball, and Original Research. he has reverted four times today:

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

Was warned about 3RR and edit warring a month ago: . (And he remooved it here.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - see article talk page.

Comments:
Yet again bubba73 put me a warning that unfounded, he tries to take off things whit out justifying himself and say he has reach a consensus but doesn't give me any link to any consensus. I would like to know, for any administrator out ther, how can i report bubba73 for making claim that are unfounded and trying to repeatably get me block went his at fault. This is taking up my time, forcing me to take my time and come here and defend myself. I think this is unacceptable, if he would prove to me or give me a valid reason i wouldn't of undone it but he just impulsively took it off. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also to justifies the passed warning, first off the warning was issued by, who other then bubba73. And also i was warned, not because i undid thing, but because i had just started editting and i told him to fuck off, because i was unexperienced and he was harassing me. And since then i have learn to deal whit people on wikipedia, making agreements and staying polite, although a few days ago bubba73 told me to and i quote STFU . And for the most part his anger wasn't justified because his the one who harass me. Bringing up passed conflict whiteout explain wat happen is incredibly unethical. GSP-Rush (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was on his own talk page but he removed it here (the comment by EdJohnston, between the first 3RR warning and the Civility warning). Also, the consensus is on the Samuel Sevian talk page and in the history of the article itself - he is the only one putting it in and there are several removing it. He also made the unsourced claim that the person is a Candidate Master (see the Samuel Sevian talk page) and I told him to supply a reference or STFU (and I literally said ] and didn't use the words, see

My page is my page and i can remove wat i want form it. Also ther no consensus on my page all ther is 2 people, you and Edjohnson ( witch you warned him of me so he took your side at that time ). Also the consensus on the Sevian talk page like you call it isn't conclusive at all. Some people made statements about removing it but never replied back after i wrote argument or went they did replied they talk about other subjects. And for the unsourced claims i actually step back ( even tho he is a candidate master) because i couldn't prove it whit reliable sources. But like i stated once fide release it on the Internet i will re put it.

Also i would like this to be the last time i half to justifies my self for undoing thing he undid whiteout having a valid reason. It unreasonable to ask me to defend this all the time. Or at the very least ther has to be a way of sanctioning him for falsely reporting me all the time.GSP-Rush (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't keep claiming that you didn't know there was a consensus because it was right there on your talk page (before you removed it along with the two warnings). And from wp:Removing warnings "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Bubba73 , 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours for edit warring. GSP-Rush has been persistently re-adding his favorite material after getting a number of warnings to work for consensus, and has been incivil on the article Talk to people who were trying to explain Misplaced Pages policy. Both parties should avoid using 'STFU' in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Sumbuddi reported by User:2005 (Result: Declined)

User user:Sumbuddi made his fourth removal (all in a few hours) of a Dmoz link that has been on the Online bingo article for many months if not years. His justification is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He was warned after his third revert but then made a fourth revert anyway.

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

Was warned about 3RR: . Likewise also removed a perfectly acceptable Dmoz link that has been there for years here

I pointed the User to WP:EL which states Dmoz links are valid links, in this case especially because it is a high spam subject with hundreds of possible external links. I suggested he go to WP:EL if he had a problem with the Dmoz guidance there, and on my third revert I warned him about 3RR. (I admit since this should be about the least controversial external link in the encyclopedia, and is plainly appropriate, I do not understand this editor's actions.) 2005 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Clearly a dispute, thus please consider dispute resolution guidance for tips on resolving. No clear WP:3RR vio, though if reverts continue without discussion then someone (or both) likely to end up blocked for edit warring generally. NJA (t/c) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Criztu reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Declined)

Permanent modification of a well-sourced article without using reliable sources, or by abusing reliable sources. Modification of the text of sentences based on reliable sources in a way that the new text does not represent the writers' view any more. Ignoring any proposal for cooperation. The details can be found on the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined Warned: Note that both of you are in a dispute, thus you should be actively using discussion and if needed consult the dispute resolution guidance. NJA (t/c) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: (added publishers and changed + to =)
2nd revert: (added sentence and footnote about $15 million grant)
3rd revert: (corrected class size and added footnote)
4th revert: (added footnote on year of founding law school)
5th revert: (added two footnotes about Pearson becoming President}

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: ,

Comments:

This is not a result of edit warring as I just explained on User talk:Daedalus969 and ANI.

I copied the article to prevent User:Ryulong from changing = symbols to + symbols. My copy does not have the unnecessary quote marks around the ref names. User Ryulong now agreed that we can work on the article without using the quote marks and reset the article to that state. diff For some strange reason user Daedalus969 has added them back in and is playing strange games in an effort to prevent me from adding more footnotes to the article. These changes make absolutely no difference to the displayed article. Racepacket (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He never agreed to anything. He self-reverted out of frustration. That isn't agreeing.

However, content is irrelevant. You edit warred, and that is all that matters.— Dæ dαlus 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the attempts where Daedalus969 tried to resolve this dispute? You are using Rylong's harassing messages as evidence that *you* tried to work this out. Ryulong and I have worked this out. We are not even trying to alter any visible content. I am just trying to add content without having to check each time that Ryulong has not snuck in and replaced a = with a +. I have not reverted anything, I am adding footnotes. Why are you trying to engineer an edit war when none exists? I don't see what changes you are trying to make and I don't want to take the time to make sure that you haven't accidentally picked up some of Ryulong's stray + symbols. If you can't guarantee the integrity of the edits that you are making, please don't make them. Please explain why you are making the changes that you are making, because I don't understand your WP:POINT. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I tried to solve anything. The text I have presented has not said such. It simply provided a link to a diff that attempts were made to solve the dispute. Lastly, there is no point that I am making. You edit warred. If you don't like our rules here, go somewhere else.— Dæ dαlus 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, I don't think that adding new, undisputed footnotes is edit warring. Assuming that I edit warred, would it not follow that you and Ryulong edit warred as well since you are adding in the invisible quote marks to make the article imperceptively different from the version that I was working from? I don't want to edit war and respect the rules. If I understood what change you were trying to make to the article, I would be sure that it remained undisturbed. As far as I can see, I am accused of reverting a change that does not exist, while you deleted and immediately added back in the footnote in question just to make a WP:POINT. It is 4:30 a.m,, why have you wasted another hour of both of our lives on top of the two hours that User:Ryulong wasted with his silly, invisible quotation marks? Racepacket (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think that all you want, doesn't make it true. You reverted, he reverted. You both edit warred. If he gets blocked as well, oh well, but you still edit warred.

Secondly, you do not know my motivations for reverting or adding in any edit, so don't you dare accuse me of disrupting to make a point. You reverted, and edited, at the same time. I reverted your revert, and added back in the edit. Talk about a WP:AGF violation.

If it is so late, then go to bed. Look at it this way. If you are in the right, you won't be blocked.

Lastly, I have wasted no-ones time. It is your fault that you didn't take it to the talk page, and chose to edit war instead of discuss. Learn to take some responsibility for your actions. I am doing nothing to prevent you from going to bed.

And stop it with the personal attacks of disrupting to make a point.— Dæ dαlus 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so the record is clear: Here are Daedalus' diffs (which could be viewed as edit warring for edit warring sake ~~although they lacked any visable effect on the article~~):

Here is Ryulong's diffs:

This is the first time in history where a person (Daedalus) deliberately started an edit war over invisible content with someone who was not aware that he was changing that person's invisible content just to make a WP:POINT and to bring the artificial edit war here, instead of working it out on the talk page (which I am willing to do.) Racepacket (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus. H. Christ. Would you stop bringing up the =/+ shit? You keep acting as if I meant to fuck up the page. Also the first two diffs you link to are identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

- Thank you. I fixed the second diff. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I think that Daedalus has the chronology mixed up. I made the 3:32 edit without realizing that Daedalus had made the 3:23 edit. He then left a warning message on my talk page at 3:43 and I responded on his talk page at 3:53. By then he had already filed this complaint at 3:47. So, Daedalus' claim that I should have worked it out on his talk page does not match the chronology. This is like the old Jimmy Stewart movie about Harvey the invisible rabbit. I am being accused of edit warring over changes that nobody, including me, can see. Racepacket (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds justone back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It was suggested that I take a look at this thread by an admin who knows I've got a particular opinion on the formatting of references. To help clarify the issue of quotes and such, I think it would be easier for me to simply re-post a comment that I left on a fellow editor's talk page:
You are absolutely correct when you say quotation marks are not required on the value of attributes in HTML, unless the values have spaces in them; however, being a web designer, I have noted that the MediaWiki software employed by Misplaced Pages tries valiantly to be written in the "transitional" flavor of XHTML 1.0, rather than HTML. Being fanatical about web standards, I am aware that true XHTML 1.0 Transitional must adhere to the standards of XML well-formedness so that it can be easily scraped by an XML parser. This happens with various applications that "read" Misplaced Pages and reuse the data, but when such applications encounter documents that aren't well-formed they either fail completely, or have to employ various algorithms to handle the tag soup. In this particular case, one of the rules of well-formedness is that the values of all attributes must be quoted. The space before the element-closing forward slash is not required, but it is put there to assist somewhat older web browsers that have compatibility issues. Now it can be argued that most of Misplaced Pages ignores these rules (largely because 99.9% of editors will be unfamiliar with the concept of well-formed XHTML), but I like to think the little universe that is my Watchlist can be a shining beacon of perfection!

I hope you have found this perspective useful and interesting. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. However, we are not discussing anything that will be sent to the users as HTML or XHTML. MediaWiki delivers XHTML code as output, not as input. The cite extension parses the content of the <ref> tag in the course of generating the article page. See: Cite extension documentation, the arbitrary names given to particular references, with or without quotes, never sees the light of day nor affects the user experience. I am sure that Ryulong could find a million different ways of making invisible edits to a page (for example adding |foo=bar to templates that don't have a foo parameter), but why encourage useless, harrassing behavior? Racepacket (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rav chandni reported by User:jmh649 (Result: )

Text added: 1st: 2nd: 3rd:

Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: )

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:

Hi, I hope I've done this right. I've listed 3 reverts counting the fourth as the original addition of material. The user has removed references and contradicted the original statement. The counter reversions were made by 3 different editors (including me), 2 of which had edit summaries requesting discussion on the talk page. No discussion was forthcoming however when I warned on their talk page they refered me to a debate on Chilean people: and ethnic composition: What a pathetic joke. There are also existing warnings on the users talk page regarding the article Chile. Does this warrant action?
Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern over Michael Cherney

Hi all, this isn't a report as such, but over at Michael Cherney, a user has twice removed a link to the Interpol website with a listing of the guy as 'wanted' for money laundering, saying that the article is being 'vandalized by Cherney's political enemies' (e.g. and ). In addition, the level 3 header 'Wanted for money laundering and organized crime' has been replaced by 'Harassed by political enemies with false charges of money laundering and organized crime'. I just wanted to confirm that reverting this removal of content is the right thing to do! Arctic Night 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Reality Maker reported by User:Guettarda (Result:72 hr )

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 14:23, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
2nd revert: 16:28, 8 February 2010 (Same content on "imminent cancellation, but with the addition of refs)
3rd revert: 16:42, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
4th revert: 16:49, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo)
5th revert: 17:00, 8 February 2010 (marked as an undo; done after being warned that s/he was over the 3rr)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (prior block for edit-warring, over a year ago)

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

Comments:

While Soxwon is also involved in this edit war, there are real BLP concerns here, and his removal of these additions seems appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

] reported by ] (Result: )

Page: ] (] | ] | ] | ] | ] | | | logs | views)
User being reported: ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Daniel_Tammet&action=edit&oldid=342683907

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:

<86.193.84.62 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)>

athenean reported by sulmues (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit-warring. He has NOT broken the 3rr rule, but his behavior of deleting 72 valid references is very much uncalled for. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far I see User:Athenean, did not removed a single letter from the main text. Actually the insertion of 72 sources, in a part that's already sourced, in such a disturbing way, has absolutely nothing to add in the article and is completely superfluous ].Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous, blatant bad-faith report. What Sulmues claims is my first "revert" is not in fact a revert, because I did not revert to the version he is claiming I did , as that his HIS version. So I only have two reverts in the entire history of the article. This is a highly aggressive Albanian nationalist user who has been topic banned from Kosovo for six months and is on 3 month civility supervision for extreme aggression . Rather than scream insults this time, he is gaming the system by filing this bad faith report to get back at me, even though we have asked for a third opinion and are discussing things on the talkpage. His filing of a blatantly bad-faith report where he lies about the number of reverts I have made is WP:HARASSMENT and a breach of his revert parole. Athenean (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was me calling for the Third Opinion, and not you, but you wouldn't stop from deleting references. Calling me a "liar", mentioning three times that my report is "bad-faithed", throwing accusations, and describing my "bad" character for which you have already reported me and for which I already have been blocked several times, won't help your cause with an impartial admin. As for the reverts, they speak for themselves, I don't need to explain them again: there is no sophism that will make an admin believe that you did not delete the references three times. Those references are coming from three centuries of scholars that have strongly argued that the Albanian language descends from the Illyrian language, and this was started by a polymath, like Gottfried Leibnitz. Saying that we don't need these references and consistently deleting them makes Misplaced Pages a poorer place. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Including *73* refs to prove a single, disputed theory is an attempt to manipulate and deceive our readers. It is the very definition of WP:TEND and WP:UNDUE. I stand by my replacement (not removal) of those 73 sources (incl. some from 1705) by a single high-caliber source. And contrary to what you might like to think, my first replacement of the sources, which occured on Feb.3, was NOT a revert. But you've been editing this encyclopedia long enough to know that already, don't you? So you are just filing this report in bad faith, to get back at me, which is a blockable breach of your revert parole. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not include the references, they were already there, hence I did not make any attempt to manipulate or deceive, so please don't accuse improperly. However even if I had included the references, the theory that the Albanian language stems from the Illyrian language has extremely strong supporters, so I wouldn't have been manipulating anybody. I will recall that we are talking about Leibniz, Thunman, Kopitar, Hahn, Bopp, Camarda, Miklosich, Meyer, Pedersen, Kretschmer, Thumb, Sandfeld, Cimochowski, Lambertz, Gjinari, Mayer, Tagliavini, Mihaescu, Mihaescu, Mann, Çabej, Desnickaja, Pisani, Ajeti, Ölberg, Domi, Katicic, Riza, De Simone, Banfi, Huld, Buchholz, Pellegrini, Demiraj (in other words all the scholars still appearing in my last not reverted version , but which you deleted and left but Kretschmer). The references had been there for a long time and I didn't include anything: I just rearranged the references. You saw my work and you went ahead in removing the references for the first time on the 3rd february. I reported the matter at user:moreschi () and ioeth (). Then you removed the references twice more on the 8th of february. Now I am in civility supervision and I take that very seriously. I also notify people in my talk page about it (see my talk page in signature), but that doesn't mean that you may throw empty accusations at me. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreschi and Ioeth both completely ignored your post (maybe because I'm right?). That should have told you something, and you should have taken the hint. But no, you had to re-add all 73 of those sources, and in fact you made the first revert (and you also have two reverts). Now go read WP:UNDUE and stop this circus. Athenean (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ioeth has been idle (ioeth's contributions), whereas Moreschi has had very few edits (Moreschi's contributions), but he has had some time to make this edit () where he warns you to remember WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. He was trying to give his vote to delete Albanian Pederasty in which you were so egregiously involved with your edits ( and ) so that the article be kept (and by the way, Alexikoua above as well was working on that article to improve it and to keep it (see , , , , and as well). An edit warring noticeboard is not a circus, and you should take it very seriously. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories: