Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive121

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Result - Warned inexperienced editor. From now on he is expected to participate on the article Talk page if he is tempted to revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Richard Goldstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=337966630&oldid=337964342
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338085334&oldid=338063324
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goldstone&action=historysubmit&diff=338337966&oldid=338331017
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, I could have sworn that the talkpages for each of the links above were empty when I clicked on them. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Page: Martha Coakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tracer9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history

January 17, 17:48 - 21:05

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Coakley&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/User_talk:Tracer9999#please_read_edit_comments_in_future

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

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

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

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

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours Both editors feel as though they're correct, but consistently using undo to revert edits that are not blatant vandalism is disruptive. Next time use dispute resolution or request page protection when disputes get out of hand. NJA (t/c) 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Marco Polo (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Grichard56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

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

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

• Three-revert rule violation on

Media Matters for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */")
2. 21:57, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338429615 by Loonymonkey (talk)Other refs are opinion pieces--see #18 (Alternet)")
3. 23:12, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Funding sources */ Fix reference to opinion piece per WP:RS")
4. 23:40, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338454759 by Gamaliel (talk)Doesn't state as fact: "according to..." just as WP:RS allows")
5. 23:53, 17 January 2010 (edit summary: "With reference to book by Jeff Gerth")
6. 02:21, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338477544 by Croctotheface) That discussion has one person saying that group needs to describe itself;another person mentions sources")
7. 02:34, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338480213 by Gamaliel (talk)Unexplained revert")

Comments:

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

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

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

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As noted just days ago here, the user was given a final warning. Dispute the warning they still don't understand that when in dispute to utilise the dispute resolution process or to request protection rather than misuse the undo tool. NJA (t/c) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

User began by placing annoying templates on the article while it was on the main page this morning. He has accused me of being paid to write the article on my user page even though I disclosed at the AFD he started that I wrote the article in exchange for a free registration. The annoying thing about the edits is that they remove important content from the article while it is under a WP:AFD review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

We have been arguing on each other's talk pages and now at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

TonyTheTiger admitted to being paid to write the article. He is the only editor who has contributed to the article. The article reads like advertising and spam and I am attempting to improve it. In my view it is unethical of him to be reverting my good faith edits to the article to improve it enough not to be deleted as spam. DegenFarang (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not admit to being paid. I was given a free edition of the software. It is not the same thing. You can not remove content that is essential to understanding why you need it while it is under WP:AFD review. I have tried to ask him to leave essential content in while the article is under review. No one will understand why you need the software without it. The content at issue is not advert spam.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So there is a difference between getting $99 software for free and getting paid? Ok well each time I said paid substitute the word 'compensated' if it makes you feel better. Same thing to me. It looks like several other editors agree with me and are voting for deletion of the article as well as making their own drastic changes to the article. It read like spam man, don't know what else to tell you. Next time don't write articles that way. Be neutral. DegenFarang (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Protected. In my opinion, both parties are edit-warring. It is hard to see DegenFarang's militance as a good route to a consensus decision on this article, and TonyTheTiger's work raises questions about conflict of interest. WP:COI should advise him to edit with great care, something I am not seeing here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Steve_Badger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have made multiple efforts to change only specific pieces of the article to be careful not to remove anything that is properly sourced. User 2005 comes in each time and simply reverts everything back to the way it previously was. Google Groups cannot be used as a source. Poker-Babes.com cannot be used as an external link on poker player profiles it has been deemed as spam on multiple occasions. Nothing about his ownership of the website or his being a professional poker player is sourced. 2005 will not engage in discussion or allow anything to be removed from the article. It is likely a self published autobiographical article by User 2005 or a biography of someone who User 2005 knows very well - thus making the revisions, or any edits to the article, unethical and against the spirit of Wikipedia.:

I ask that User 2005 be blocked or warned and not permitted to make sweeping reverts to all of my edits on this article (or any other) but to analyze each of them on their merits, as I am addressing different issues with each edit. DegenFarang (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I did not violate 3RR. In addition to violating the 3RR rule as reported by TonyTheTiger above, user DegenFarang has also done three reversions of the Steve Badger article including wildly inapproiate edits including this diff. He has been reverted by three editors today on that article, including me doing so my allowed three times. His statements above are falsehoods, plus for a second time he tries to WP:OUTING me, this time as a different person! User:DegenFarang needs to be permanetly blocked from editing. 2005 (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The other editors did what you should be doing: They addressed specifics edits I made. You are just going in and undoing ALL of my edits. Quite unreasonable when I took the time to make so many of them, in an attempt to improve the article, and to make it easy for you to address each edit on its merits. And your bringing up my '3rr violation' is quite funny. Did you even look at the article? He was paid to write it. And if you are not Steve Badger than you clearly know him very well. You have the same bias TonyTheTiger had. I should be blocked, why, because I have the courage and patience to stand up to biased editors like you and TonyTheTiger? DegenFarang (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

These are four reverts of this article, in addition to his initial changes to the article... which he then put up for AFD. Apparently unsatisfied with how the Keep comments started coming in he has blantantly violated three revert... reverting three different editors. He should ahve already been blocked for violating 3RR for SitN Go Wizard above. He has an extensive history of violating polcies like here, here and . He has recieved numerous "final warnings" for his editing. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am making specific changes to the article (like removing un sourced information and peacock terms) and 2005 is reverting everything I am doing back without regard for my specific edits. You can see my detailed thoughts above. I accept any disciplinary action but I ask anybody who takes it to have a close look at the article in question, 2005's history with it, and 2005's history on Wikipedia. There is clearly some self-interested editing going on here, at the least. DegenFarang (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours to DegenFarang. I'm aware that this editor argues that he is removing spam, but spam removal is not included among the exceptions to WP:3RR. The definition of particular content as spam needs consensus, and WP:BRD is a good rule to follow when you see something you think should be removed. DF has made about six reverts here in 24 hours, and it's hard to see that as a good-faith effort to clean up the article, in a way that respects the opinions of the other editors. His gutting of the article while an AfD is running surely doesn't win any prizes for helpful behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Page: Donmeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 81.213.106.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.228.233.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 85.110.0.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 78.166.14.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.228.235.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.230.97.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 88.230.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Information is repeatedly being removed from the article about the Donmeh by a POV-pusher who is attempting to de-emphasize the Donmeh's ties to Judaism. These IP addresses have also POV-pushed in other articles--according to one post at Talk:Donmeh, "Since December , there's been a series of similar edits from a range of IP addresses at History of the Jews in Greece, History of the Jews of Thessaloniki, History of the Jews in Turkey and Henry Morgenthau, Sr." On Talk:Donmeh, several other editors have complained about this behavior, and there is consensus that administrator action is needed. The IP addresses seem to be coming from similar locations in Turkey, and are likely to be a single user.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It is difficult to warn this User or users because the changes are coming from so many IP addresses.

The IP addresses in question do not seem to be participating in the discussion. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments: The problem does not seem to be limited to a single IP address, or to the Donmeh article.

• Declined More suited to a request for protection, though looking at the article the recent level of disruption is low and thus it'd likely be unwarranted. NJA (t/c) 09:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert (removal of a newly placed OR tag):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Mark Osgatharp was formally warned by an admininstrator to stop edit warring just the other day. Here is that warning. The Baptist article page history indicates that he continues to edit war. Unfortuantely, he also continiues to make inappropriate comments on my talk page. In light of the fact that this editor has only edited two articles to any significant degree and those edits have largely been disruptive, I think this editor should not be blocked.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Aside from completely ignoring my prior warnings (1, 2, 3) and continuing to misuse undo by edit warring, the editor has also started to dabble in pure disruptive editing by making comments such as this and this. Further, the edits made at the talk page are generally passive aggressive and would make consensus building difficult at best. The reporting editor would be best advised to read over WP:DR to learn how to deal best with difficult editors, and they should get help from others to assist them, eg use a relevant noticeboard, seek third party help, etc. Good luck. NJA (t/c) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Same-sex marriage in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PeshawarPat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 03:27, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")
2. 04:19, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")
3. 04:20, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* See also */")
4. 04:22, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338690166 by McSly (talk)")
5. 04:40, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */ It was the law at the time of the licenses, I don't there is anything apparent that he broke the law. Voters ban gay weddings anyway, so the laws have been changed")
6. 05:24, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338694136 by 98.248.32.44Are you saying he didn't violate the state law?")
7. 05:31, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338698557 by 98.248.32.44 (talk)")
8. 06:22, 19 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 338705140 by Ctjf83 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

•  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 ^talk 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I was looking at (which was the subject of another report since removed by the reporter). Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. My intention is to write a good article about Dimitrije Tucović on English Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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.<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref> 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).<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref>

--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)

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)

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 ^Talk 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)

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)