Page:Tea Party movement (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Malke 2010 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Didn't warn because the user has a long block history and knows well about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk:Malke 2010#Talk page postUser talk:Malke 2010#Bottom line[6]

Comments:
Malke 2010 accused another editor, Dylan Flaherty, of 3RR and started a talk thread titled that. The other editor only reverted once and so wanted the title changed to make that clear. Then an edit war ensued regarding the title of the talk page section. At some point Dylan added numbering to the diffs Malke listed and then it was reverted, hence the fourth diff above and the final nail in the 3RR violation. This type of nonsense is just plain disruptive and geared to intimidate. A recent ANI regarding tendentious editing by Malke was previously considering a long block, but resulted in being given the mentor Moonriddengirl. To me this recent silly scuffle reflects that the mentoring isn't working. I'm bringing this here since this disruptive behavior is identical to past problems. I wouldn't normally report a user for such a technical violation, but this disruption isn't stopping and its scaring away good editors who don't want the aggravation of dealing with this user.Chhe (talk)22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless reports I have seen for a very long time; the specific matter is being dealt with on User talk:Malke 2010, and appears to be about to be concluded, when the reporter dropped a template onto the talkpage. A review of Malke 2010's contributions will note that she had already resolved the issue with a post to the disputed page, indicating that there had been no intention of accusation (as I understand it, Malke 2010 only posted diffs to a debate about 3RR and did not make or intend to infer any accusation herself). If Chhe has any issues in respect of the mentoring, then perhaps he would be so kind as to raise it with me or Moonriddengirl.LessHeard vanU (talk)22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not with the original 3RR violation accusation, which was simply a mistake. Rather, like Chhe, I am bothered by Malke's overreaction to my signing their unsigned post, changing the misleading/offensive subject or numbering their links so I could respond. Even though a few editors wanted to just remove the entire section from the talk page, as it was the wrong venue, Malke refused to do so and edit-warred over and over again to get their way. This sort of prickliness makes cooperative editing very difficult. I believe that Malke is very much in the wrong, but I am not convinced that a block is appropriate. Please consider giving no more than a token block, if any.Dylan Flaherty (talk)22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but never with you. To my knowledge you are a brand new mentor to Malke and in all do respect I don't see how you can succeed where Moonriddengirl has failed. Everybody wants to be a psychiatrist these days. One other point Moonriddengirl is Malke's third mentor. The user has had past mentors to no avail. You are now this users fourth. Its becoming tedious to everytime have talk with every new mentor that comes along who thinks they can cure this person.Chhe (talk)22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard has stated is entirely accurate. As the edits clearly show, I've not accused any editor of violating 3RR. The editor in question, Dylan Flaherty repeatedly refactored my posts to make them appear to be accusations. Chhe being here is curious to me since he's been following me since September 2009. Ever since then he appears at regular intervals whenever there's a content dispute or other issue and he reverts my edits, etc., drops warning templates onto my talk page, etc.

All of these actions are over edits on pages he never edits. Seems a bit of wikihounding going on here. Also, I'd like to add that this issue has largely been resolved on the article talk page and my talk page, as LessHeard has pointed out. Also, I've not had other mentors as Chhe claims. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk)22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, because this EW thread needs more. :) I am the first official mentor Malke has, and Malke has done very well. Anyone who has followed her behavior can see clear differences in the way she interacts with others. I askedLessHeard vanU in to assist me, and he kindly consented to do so. As he indicates above, the situation is already being resolved. I do not believe that a block here would serve any constructive purpose. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So the other two mentors were unofficial then?Chhe (talk)22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Malke does not consider that she's everhad prior mentors. There's no indication that I know of that she's ever had an official one. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems in agreement that there shouldn't be a block, tagging it as such.Secret^account23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The backstory aside...so, person "A" might have mistakenly accused person "B" of 3RR. Then person "B" mistakenly thinks that Person "C" (Malke) was the one who made the mistaken accusation, and so mistakenly accuses Malke of mistakenly accusing him/her of 3RR. Then (in this notice) person "D" says, that, in the ensuing exchange on this, the person (Malke) mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing "B" went over 3RR ON THE TALK PAGE when they relabeled the misnamed section where they were mistakenly accused of mistakenly accusing someone, but in the report discusses everything EXCEPT the "issue" that the complaint was about. Whew!North8000 (talk)23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot more backstory here than appears---but, all's well that ends well.Malke 2010 (talk)00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: No single revision; see below.

• 1st revert:[7]
• 2nd revert:[8]
• 3rd revert:[9]
• 4th revert:[10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (doesn't really apply, it's an ANI discussion and has been repeatedly closed)

Comments:
User has been repeatedly reverting the closure of a thread by multiple admins, and simply reverted my warning. They have also been warned by another user.(edit conflict) Addendum: Note that while they don't appear to have reverted after my warning that they broke the 3RR, the discussion up until this point has made it clear that they're well aware of 3RR and intend to make their point "by any means necessary", even if it means edit warring to keep the thread open.22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets see if he reverts my revert, he was warned after he broke 3rr. If he decides to revert, a block is in order. Giano comment's about edit warring aren't helping the situation.Secret^account23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to block for 24h, but he's already blocked for 48h. The intention in the first revert listed above is plain for all to see.Rodhullandemu23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) blocked for 48 hours. Anything more would be punitive not preventative. Agree with above that there was a clear intention to edit war and get blocked for it. So warnings are irrelevant. The community can consider whether further sanctions are warranted for disruptive conduct: this block is limited to preventing edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk)23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the thread is still open and editors are still discussing the issues two hours after Giano was blocked, the de facto consensus is that Giano was right when he judged the thread was not ready to be closed. Would you now be prepared to reconsider what the block is preventing? --RexxS (talk)01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My take here is that 3RR is a brightline policy applicable across all namespaces in Wikipedia. Giano is no stranger to Wikipedia policies, however much he may disagree with them; but until he succeeds in achieving consensus for changing them, he should consider himself bound by them. The thread in question has been reopened without his input, although I would have been prepared to make the 3RR block the minimum of 24 hours. Further discussion after his block does not vindicate his unblocking, as far as I'm concerned, because the discussion has proceeded in arguably more constructive terms of reference. However, overall, I am not convinced that the discussion is going to be as constructive as it might; but I am convinced that Giano's block was appropriate.Rodhullandemu01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia bullshit. Giano was foolish to keep reverting himself instead of letting others do it, but the admins here who were prematurely closing the discussion because they don't like what it says about someone are just as at fault.Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Being right, or having consensus with you (neither of which I see evidence of), is no excuse for edit-warring. I'll only be convinced that the block no longer serves a preventative purpose if it is demonstrated by the user concerned. I am more than open to unblocking; I have my doubts that this block will last the full 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk)01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Giano's block; it's the fact that everyone else got off scot-free for being disruptive (I'll say it again: closing that discussion wasdisruptive) that irks me.Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase; "Typical Wikipedia bullshit". In the absence of collusion, when three or more different admins or even editors make the same value judgement that a discussion is fruitless, that amounts to aconsensus and should not be overturned without discussion on the relevant Talk page. I see no such discussion. However, I see factionalism, divisions, and irrelevance, and these are things I do not expect to see in an encyclopedia. However, children, it's my bedtime, and I wish you sweet dreams of your perfect world; my experience is somewhat different. 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Tbilisi International Airport (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Jasepl (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[12]

• 1st revert:11:41, 2 November 2010(edit summary: "revert (yet more) nonsense from this IP")
• 2nd revert:15:23, 2 November 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by119.155.37.2 (talk); NOT a destination for PrivatAir. (TW)")
• 3rd revert:17:00, 3 November 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 394391636 by119.155.37.2 (talk)")
• 4th revert:03:42, 4 November 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 394663960 byInspector123 (talk) as before")
• 5th revert:09:09, 4 November 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit byInspector123 (talk) identified asvandalism to last revision by Jasepl. (TW)")

This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. This user keeps removing a Privatair flight with a tech stop in Tbilisi from the article. One might argue whether this is a sensible edit or not, but what is not acceptable is the slow edit-warring without any discussion on the article talk page or the involved editors talk pages. Problematic is also the labelling of edits as vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. Furthermore,[13] shows thatUser:Jasepl is familiar with the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[14]

Comments:
WarnedUser is warned and I will watch the page for further violations. Hopefully we can avoid a block.JodyB_talk14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This editor now canvasses other editors to do the reverts on his behalf, see[15].Stepopen (talk)07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepopen, there is a discussion going atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Tech stops as destinations. I suggest that you not continue to add technical stops to airport articles until you have a consensus of other editors. Our article onTbilisi International Airport is now locked due to this issue. It seems that your own preference is to put technical stops in the main destination list. I see nobody atWP:AIRPORT who supports this.EdJohnston (talk)17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:September 18 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Das Baz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[16]

• 1st revert:[17]
• 2nd revert:[18]
• 3rd revert:[19]
• 4th revert:[20]
• 5th revert:[21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

The above two fields are really irrelevant here; this editor has been warned in the past about edit warring and blocked for the same. Editors have tried to discuss it with them, but they have refused, they haven't even used any edit summaries. As they have seemingly learned nothing since last time they were blocked for edit warring, I would ask that this block be made longer, as they are doing exactly the same thing as the first time; slow edit-warring and refusing to talk about it.—Dædαlus^Contribs10:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Going back over the article history, I count about 19 attempts to add this in the last 14 months.Dougweller (talk)12:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified Das Baz of the discussion here, and invited him to participate. In my opinion the best option is a long block, which might be lifted if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. He hardly ever edits his own talk page except to remove warnings and comments by others. The problem may beWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that his cooperative response here will avert the need for a block.EdJohnston (talk)19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And what if they don't post here? What if they just decide to 'disappear' for awhile, then come back and resume edit warring after everything has 'calmed down'?—Dædαlus^Contribs12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

His last WP edit was 6 November. If he resumes editing Wikipedia but does not respond here, he will most likely be blocked. If he makes no edits before this report is archived, then I suggest a one-month block to be sure the matter gets his attention.EdJohnston (talk)16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the "Edit summary" thing. I suggest that if such a problem rises, you just have an administrator send me a message like this: "The opposition to your position on this (e.g., the date of the Catalonian Bullfight ban) comes from a majority of editors, not just from a single editor." Or words to that effect. If so, I will cease to assert my position and will not insist on it on the face of a majority opposition. Das Baz, aka Erudil20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. How about instead, when an editor reverts you, you don't edit war but take it to the talk page.—Dædαlus^Contribs20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Das Baz is an experienced editor, with 6,696 edits since 19 December 2005. That he still doesn't use edit summaries, despite the fact that for 6,696 edits the line just below the field in which he is typing says 'Edit summary', and despite the fact that I asked him to use them on October 5th, is worrying. The fact that he was blocked for edit warring over a similar edit at2012, that I mentioned this article in the ANI discussion that led to his block, and that he was reverted almost 20 times at this article and still didn't get it, is also worrying. And he hasn't agreed to stop making this entry atSeptember 18. We need a commitment that he will not attempt the entry again and that he will use edit summaries. As blocks are meant to be preventive, if he makes these two commitments there is no need now for a block. But I think he has to make them both. And, I guess, he may need to learn to read other editor's edit summaries.Dougweller (talk)21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked I'm closing this case as not blocked:Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (sorry Das Baz, please don't take it personally, but the essay applies in this case). However, if the edit warring starts up again, by all means report the editor again, and we can commence withmercilessly pounding the banhammer, er, uh, temporarily blocking the user for disruption. ;)Magog the Ogre (talk)21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:St. John's University (New York) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:66.108.204.65 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
97.77.103.82 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous block[22]
CAtruthwatcher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

User 66.108.204.65 has been on the st. john's university page making nasty comments to myself and other users. calling us sockpuppets and i believe the word is volitads. he then created a user name CAtruthwatcher. he continues to edit war and revert, finally is finally blocked 10:03, 6 November 2010 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) blocked CAtruthwatcher (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violation of the three-revert rule: St. John's University (New York)) . Immediately he uses his IP address and continues to revert war. Please, what should I do about this blatent block evasion?

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert:[23]
• 2nd revert:[24]
• 3rd revert:[25]
• 4th revert:[26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[27]

--—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.239.153.58 (talk •contribs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[28]

Comments:

Somewhat convoluted... I can't really see edit-warring... besides, username is already blocked.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ}00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected one week byUser:Tcncv.EdJohnston (talk)01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

username is blocked but he is also edit warring on education in new york. can anything be done about the ip address for 48 hours?24.239.153.58 (talk)04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any current edit war atEducation in New York City. AndCAtruthwatcher (talk ·contribs) is still blocked, as well as97.77.103.82 (talk ·contribs). --EdJohnston (talk)05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look here at st john's page you'll see that once catruthwatcher was blocked, 66 immediately came in and started reverting the article back to the version that Catruthwatcher wanted.[29]24.239.153.58 (talk)06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to the activity of IP socks, I think that semiprotection forSt. John's University (New York) might be considered when full protection expires on Nov. 14. No need to decide that now.EdJohnston (talk)16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

doesnt seem bad. just got to watch the above IP's.24.239.153.58 (talk)02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Sean Hannity (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Bluebadger1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[30]

• 1st revert:[31]
• 2nd revert:[32]
• 3rd revert:[33]
• 4th revert:[34]
• 5th revert:[35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[37]

Comments:
User responded to 3RR warning, so they have seen it. Since then, they have opened up a discussion on BLP template andnot responded to talkpage. responded with the same behaviors as mentioned below. User has been reverted by 4 seperate users and improperly marked edits contrary to what he/she wants as vandalism. User also insists that those who wish to keep contentious material out of BLP are the ones who need sourcing.Soxwon (talk)19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs as formatted by 3rr.php:

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

1. 02:41, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "WP:V Referenced water boarding/charity promises, offers, and lack of fulfilment by SH. Removed subjective comment " though there has been no public follow-up" and referenced reason/followup.")
2. 08:34, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "Manual restore due to Vandalism for Section Blanking. User:Niteshift36 states "that it happened is not in dispute". Then there is no undue weight issue, as these are facts and notable events.")
3. 09:12, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ removed "liberal" as CREW Wiki article states group is non partisan.")
4. 09:12, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Public Offer to Undergo Water-boarding for Charity */ corrections")
5. 10:05, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 395514884 - No references: If you chose to redo the change, please reference according to WP:V why they are liberal organizations, not non partisan.")
6. 10:38, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Freedom Concerts */ added "VoteVets.org, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans" according to the referenced article wp:v. Added rebuttal to Freedom Alliance President comments for equal weight.")
7. 18:47, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 395553148 rv: due to wp:v and wp:wellknown. Just because one might it is negative, doesn't mean it is wp:coatrack. Referenced and relevant.")
8. 19:14, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit bySoxwon (talk) identified asvandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")
9. 19:20, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit bySoxwon (talk) identified asvandalism to last revision by Bluebadger1. (TW)")

• Edits 2,3,4 were consecutive and so were 5,6. So I make this to be six reverts in 24 hours by the usual 3RR calculation.EdJohnston (talk)20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. I gave a slightly more in depth explanation regarding BLP issues on the user's talk page.Magog the Ogre (talk)20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[38]

• 1st revert:[39] reverts[40]
• 2nd revert:[41] again
• 3rd revert:[42] reverts[43], which is, itself removing blatant plagurism.
• 4th revert:[44] repeats the first revert
• 5th revert:[45] repeats the first revert again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[47], and I amnot the other party in this revert war.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of72 hours Warnings aside, the block log shows that the user should be well aware of 3RR/edit-warring and his response to the warning suggests he is very unlikely to stop edit-warring.Mkativerata (talk)21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  I should add thatUser:Ma8thew has come very close here. I count four reverts but am inclined to discountthis revert which was essentially trying to respond directly to a concern of the opponent in the edit war raised in a preceding edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk)21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Urmston (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Nordy23 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert:[48]
• 2nd revert:[49]
• 3rd revert:[50]
• 4th revert:[51]

• 5th revert:[52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (haven't warned the user about 3rr, but have warned him about using Wiki for advertising -[53]

Comments:

This user is almost certainly the site's owner, consideringthis post on a community forum. Its a dead site though, it has been for about 2 years. The only site for Urmston that is regularly used and read is www.urmston.net, and has been for the last ten years or so.Parrotof Doom13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours.EdJohnston (talk)16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:M656 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:08, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Controversy */ deleting entire quotation due to its extreme libelous character")
2. 21:49, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Controversy */ Re-deleted libelous (understatement) content")
3. 22:25, 8 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Controversy */ in accordance with wiki rules libelous material can deleted any number of times")
4. 09:36, 9 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Controversy */ the deleted quotation is challenged as libelous and is now being considered on Noticeboard. Don't reinsert prematurely.")

• Earlier deletion, showing that the first is indeed a revert:here

• Diff of warning:here andhere

• See also discussion atBLPN

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[54]

Comments:
This editor has made it clear on the article talk-page that he intends to carry on reverting. The BLP exemption here does not apply -- a couple of editors here have explained to him that the material is not libellous, instead the material is a quotation from a perfectly reliable source (an academic book published by SUNY Press). He has, at least, now stricken hislegal threat (first introducedhere). The belligerent attitude continues, though. —Nomoskedasticity (talk)13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to point out the WP:BLP problem of the quotation in question. Debresser stated on Sept. 27, 2009 "Frankly, I also felt from the beginning there is some wp:blp problem here." So there are currently 2 editors who think there is a problem and 2 that disagree. I am following the instructions of Wikipedia saying that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." It is Nomoskedasticity who is doing belligerent edit warring by repeatedly reinserting the material.The rule further says "If such material is repeatedly inserted..." (which is what Nomoskedasticity did) "or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard." (which is exactly what I did). So the subject is now under consideration on the Noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Wikipedia restrictions.I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites.m656 (talk)16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But the material isnot "unsourced or poorly sourced" -- and so the BLP exemption does not apply. The idea that the problem here is anti-Semitism (defamation of the entireJewish people) is risible. You don't like what Inbari has to say, but that doesn't make it libellous and indeed no-one else on BLPN appears to be taking that view.Nomoskedasticity (talk)17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into the BLP matter, just far enough to see that the reverts don't meet the exception in theWP:3RR policy that keeps them from counting toward the three-revert limit. Text published by a university press qualifies for consideration as part of this article, and should not be considered defamatory. Ginsburgh holds unusual views and it should not be a violation to simply report what he believes. Further discussion on the Talk page is needed to decide what material deserves to remain in the article. SinceUser:M656 has broken 3RR, I've asked him to agree to stop reverting, to avoid a block. I suggest that admins wait for his response before closing this case.EdJohnston (talk)18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't happen in Wikipedia that a person is said to have religious views other than what he himself actually professes. For such an extraordinary claim having a quotation from an academic simply is not sufficient. There are more than 60 books referenced on Ginsburgh's site, and not in any of them will you find such a view.

I was only deleting this extreme quotation (which I still consider quite unacceptable) until a decision was made (either by editors or an administrator). Now that you have made this decision,I have no intention whatsoever to re-delete the quotation by myself. But rather intend to redirect this issue to the Wiki Media Foundation.m656 (talk)19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - M656 warned. Any continued reverts before consensus is reached may lead to a block. Ginsburgh can't be defamed by a statement of his own views, if they are being correctly reported. If there is a more nuanced way of presenting Ginsburgh's views, you should consider proposing new sourced material for the article.EdJohnston (talk)19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Baptists (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:75.151.58.242 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Also posted originally from IPs 67.143.34.62 and 96.19.185.78

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=prev&oldid=394440697

• 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&action=historysubmit&diff=394530399&oldid=394440697
• 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=394546335
• 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395412109
• 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395487161
• 5th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395536697
• 6th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395549699
• 7th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395665112
• 8th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395666111
• 9th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395723294
• 10th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395727238
• 11th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395728750
• 12th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395733396
• new addition, little better than rest:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395734922
• 13th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395735648

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.151.58.242&diff=prev&oldid=395724640

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

Comments:

The IP appears to have edited from multiple ips, but has settled on the current one. His edits are really not that horrible, but he makes no attempt to discuss and instead insults and mocks. (see some of the edit summaries in the diffs above and the talk page) I also think one of his edit summaries is rather edifying and seems to imply his ultimate goal here - "I can do this too, till with both get banned for violating the 3RR". In that vein, I feel as though it has been disruptive editing from the start because of IP's refusal to follow BRD, but if that is not the view of whoever reviews this, I will accept a block as well. I don't quite know how to handle disruptive editors well (obviously since he got to 12 reverts before anything was reported), so I might have been a little off in how I handled it, like being late in trying a talk page discussion. If anyone has suggestions for handling stuff like this better in the future, I would love it - probably on my talk page though. Don't want to clutter up this place. Cross my fingers and hope I didn't demolish the formatting of this report somehow.Farsight001 (talk)13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And fyi, it appears thatUser:Minimac has reported both the IP and I above. (two listings up)Farsight001 (talk)13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And that I've screwed up the coding a bit somehow. Never can get these quite right. >_<Farsight001 (talk)13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. See rationale above, inWP:AN3#User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected).EdJohnston (talk)15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:John Lennon (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Wrapped in Grey (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Previous version reverted to:[55]

• 1st revert:14:52
• 2nd revert:15:04
• 3rd revert:15:46
• 4th revert:20:59

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:15:59 and 18:18

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:16:42

Comments:
The article is being considered for TFA on 8 December, the 30th anniversary of Lennon's death, and will need watching until then for 3RR.SandyGeorgia (Talk)21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of24 hours I did check the history, but I can't see what the first diff was a revert of. That said, he has clearly been edit warring and editing in quite an aggressive manner all afternoon, which is unacceptable at the best of times, but more so on an FA, especially one being considered for TFA.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It will need watching all month ... and it took Incompetent Me 13 minutes to file that report!SandyGeorgia (Talk)22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll add it to my watchlist. It took me a lot longer than that the first time I filed a report here, so don;t worry too much!HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:List of most populous cities in India (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Dangerpatel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[56]

• 1st revert:1 (first to revertBostonPunekar (talk ·contribs))
• 2nd revert:2 (second revert to revert me)
• 3rd revert:3 (third revert to revertSpacemanSpiff (talk ·contribs))
• 4th revert:4 (Same as third)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[57]. Just look at their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[58]. See also their talk page.

Comments:
Dangerpatel has been unwilling discuss on several articles. This is not just the one. Though he hasn't broken 3RR, he's basically edit warring against 3 editors and not trying to gain any sort of consensus or discussion on the page reported.Elockid^(Talk)22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of24 hoursHJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry:Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
164.107.203.227:164.107.203.227 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• Original edit:[59]
• 1st revert back:[60]
• 2nd revert:[61]
• 3rd revert:[62]
• 4th revert:[63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[64]

Also, pointed toward talkpage here:[65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Title_of_article_and_Info_Box

Comments:
Name order dispute. Consensus formed at the page says stay alphabetical, but anon will not have this. I would block for the 3rr vio myself, but as I am somewhat involved I thought to bring this here. Obviously only block the anon if there arefurther reverts from now (no point in a punitive block if they have stopped).Malinaccier (talk)22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of24 hoursHJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Historicity of Jesus (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:RomanHistorian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[66] Note:I've never really understood what this is asking.

• 1st revert:[67]
• 2nd revert:[68]
• 3rd revert:[69]
• 4th revert:[70]
• 5th revert:[71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Previous block for edit warring on Christian article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]He has barely discussed any of edits on the Talk page.

Comments:
Previous warning and discussion about edit warring on ANI:[72]

Those were only two reversions, and both were reverting the reversions of other editors (Noloop was one). The two reversions arehere andhere. The other edits he is listing were normal edits modifying the page, NOT reversions of recently added material.RomanHistorian (talk)01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have discussed these edits on the talk page at length. This page has been having a lot of edit warring over the last few weeks. Just look at how contentious the talk page is. Other editors need to get involved in this page, as it has gotten badly out of hand.RomanHistorian (talk)01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at how contentious the talk page has been over just the last week (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Apologetics.2C_primary_sources), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#POV_Pushing), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Christian_presses_are_not_reliable_sources), andTalk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). Look at all of the space in those threads devoted to claims of personal attacks and insults, counter claims, claims of bias, of POV pushing, ect. Look at how massively the article, especially the intro, has changed over the last few weeks. I have not seen many articles that are this contentious.RomanHistorian (talk)02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take an few moments to look at the talk page on that (Historicity of Jesus). Noloop has been a party of the pretty blatant fighting going on there, and has taken a pretty hostile position to me. Take a look at all of those edits he posted, and at the history in the page. You will see that only those two edits are reversions, the rest are just the additions of material. Is Wikipedia now going to have a policy against normal edits?RomanHistorian (talk)02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, take a look at all of the sources and prior edits Noloop has deleted off of this page recently.RomanHistorian (talk)02:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whichever admin looks at this, take a look at the comment by Griswaldo (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). After all of the claims of ad hominim attacks and counter claims by a number of users, including my accuser here Noloop, Griswaldo notes that Noloop reverted what Noloop himself said was 8 hours of edits by different editors. Note these editshere,here andhere which came after my edits although I didn't touch them because they were productive. They, and others, were included in Noloop's massive revert-sweep. If anything, reverting such a large amount of material so adjectively is edit warring itself.RomanHistorian (talk)02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And then go look at the page right now, where RomanHistorian is busy edit-warring. It would be nice if the accuser were somewhatless guilty than the accused.Dylan Flaherty (talk)02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, contrary to this accusation, Noloop has indeed discussed the article on its talk page. See for yourself.Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Comment - Given what Tariq saw, without being a regular at the entry I can't blame him for protecting the page. This wasn't a 3RR violation but it did indicate the early stages of an edit war. What Tariq might not know, however, is that Noloop has a history of trying to get this particular entry protected, and it is starting to get disruptive. He uses protection as a way to win POV battles. RomanHistorian's edits should have been reverted, and were. If he continued and actually broke 3RR then he could have been blocked, but the page would not have needed protecting. When there is one editor against many page protection is not the solution. Letting that person breach 3RR and sending them to the chopping block is. Admins need to be weary of Noloops page protection scheme. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk)03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected --tariqabjotu02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Four Asian Tigers (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:122.45.181.37 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Repeated insertion of uncited numbers changing statistics, apparently to older set.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

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

Comments:

• Declined I see no attempt at dispute resolution - no use of any talk page save a warning. Please attempt to engage in dispute resolution first.Magog the Ogre (talk)06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Users being reported:
68.173.122.113 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Photocredit (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• Seearticle history for today 10 November 2010. I think both editors have made around 10 reverts of eachother's material today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On article talk page[73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[74] and discussion on my talk page[75]

Comments:
I am uninvolved in the dispute. Both editors seem set on edit warring.

• To Photocredit's..er..credit, they didsay here that they would try to resolve the dispute but reverted after that comment. They haven't reverted since. They may also have a legitimate point that some of the material should be reverted perWP:BLP.
• To 68.173.122.113's credit, as you can see fromtheir contributions, they have tried to discuss the material and they tried pretty much every noticeboard in existence.

They are clearly edit warring and I'm not convinced that they will resolve it on the talk page. Eitjher way, it strikes me as 3RR report worthy.Sean.hoyland -talk13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved in a AFD/content dispute on another article with the IP user, so I've stayed away from this article, but please note that65.112.21.194(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) and68.173.122.113(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) are the same person. Looking at the edits, there are issues with tone and how informations from sources are paraphrased into the text, so input from a knowledgeable (not me) but a neutral editor (probably not me) would probably be welcomed here.Mosmof (talk)15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected two weeks. Both the IP and Photocredit have broken 3RR, but Photocredit was drawing attention to BLP problems, and the IP seemed to be resisting the BLP cleanup that was being attempted by others. Since adminsUser:Diannaa andUser:Orangemike are both working on this article, I think that editors can address them directly in case of any further BLP problems.EdJohnston (talk)22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Storm King Art Center (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
User being reported:N2smd (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1. 05:36, 6 November 2010(edit summary: "Recent controversy regarding possible conspiracy theory")
2. 06:25, 6 November 2010(edit summary: "grammar correction")
3. 16:51, 10 November 2010(edit summary: "")
4. 17:00, 10 November 2010(edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act Revision")
5. 17:03, 10 November 2010(edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act")
6. 17:05, 10 November 2010(edit summary: "Undid revision 395963461 byMike Rosoft (talk)")

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

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

Comments:
I am just an interested bystander, I reverted the first version of the changes and now he has put them back in again, and now gotten into an edit war with another editor. I am not too familiar with how to stop it, but I did put a warning on the culprit's talk page, but it does not seem to have made a difference. Thanks.—Precedingunsigned comment added byMdukas (talk •contribs)18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• WarnedMagog the Ogre (talk)23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ronaldc0224 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[76]

• 1st revert:[77]
• 2nd revert:[78]
• 3rd revert:[79]
• 4th revert:[80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[81]

Comments:

I've tried multiple rewrites to attempt to accurately communicate the sources, but all have been reverted, including my changing of the word "conclude" which is not used in the sources, to "allege" which is closer to the "suggests" used in the source.AzureFury (talk |contribs)19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury has engaged in multiple reverts himself. He first tried to blank out the referenced material I added entirely. I had to revert these to get the material back. And he has since been trying to manipulate the wording away from what the source says to what he'd prefer it had said instead, replacing quoted material with stuff the source doesn't say. His change of "conclude" to "allege" is a POV-pushing edit. The quote in question is not an "allegation" (which implies an accusation lacking proof by a disputing party - Azure's POV preference, and a loaded wording), it is simply the stated conclusion of the paper being referenced. This is just one example of the POV edits and blanking i've had to revert, and which Azure keeps reverting himself. I've tried contacting Azure on his talk page to discuss this, but he's going for wiki-lawyering instead in hopes of getting me blocked for what he is doing worse.Ronaldc0224 (talk)19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NoteRonaldc0224 seems to be the recently created account ofIP 76.15.195.93 who was recently blocked for edit warring over a related topic:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War_documents_leak&action=historyAzureFury (talk |contribs)22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked AzureFury had at least 3 reverts, one was borderline but close enough for me, given his history, to merit a block (gaming the system doesn't work here, sorry). 48 hours for reportee and 72 hours for reporter.Magog the Ogre (talk)23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Baptists (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:75.151.58.242 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andFarsight001 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[82]

For the IP

• 1st revert:[83]
• 2nd revert:[84]
• 3rd revert:[85]
• 4th revert:[86]
• 5th revert:[87]

For Farsight001

• 1st revert:[88]
• 2nd revert:[89]
• 3rd revert:[90]
• 4th revert:[91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[92]

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute, but these two editors are doing a pathetic job reverting with vague and sometimes personally abusive explanations in their edit summaries. I recommend a block without warning, as they've already past 3RR before I even had a chance to warn them.Minimac (talk)13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just reported the IP myself before I saw this. It's two reports below this one. There are many more diffs on the IP's and my parts (and one or two diffs from others) that are not listed here. And if this is a 3RR rule issue instead of a disruptive editor issue as I assumed it was, could someone please explain the difference, as I seem to be having some serious trouble figuring it out. I've been reported for violating 3rr a couple of times now(no block though) when I thought I was just reverting disruptive editing, to which the 3rr does not apply. Thanks. ^_^Farsight001 (talk)13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. I notice that the IP has already been blocked 24 hours, but am semiprotecting because the history suggests the same person may be reverting with more than one IP. I recommend that Farsight001 not be blocked, since it sounds like he is willing to follow the policy from now on. Farsight001 is urged to readWP:Edit warring carefully. All parties should cease the personal attacks, either on the talk page or in in edit summaries, or more blocks may be issued.EdJohnston (talk)15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The IP turns out to have been an editor who also had an account,User:Mark Osgatharp (which had been blocked for three days for this type of behavior earlier this year). That person used the account to circumvent the IP block and the article protection, and admitted to as much (along with making personal attacks) withthis series of edits toTalk:Baptists. I havenoted this on the talk page of the admin who blocked the IP. Perhaps the user should also be blocked.Novaseminary (talk)05:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not intentionally circumvent a block. My anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours one morning and did not edit again till the next morning under my registered name (which, by the way, is my real name, not some phony handle designed to hide my real identity). I didn't check the time and it may not have been exactly 24 hours, but I didn't intend to circumvent the block.Mark Osgatharp (talk)12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

After checking the block history of Mark Osgatharp, I've blocked for one month, perthis rationale.EdJohnston (talk)14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Page:Hyundai Sonata (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:North wiki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 00:11, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "/* Safety */ NHTSA crash test rating; remove duplicate side barrier rating (front)")
2. 00:43, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "revert edits not supported by source material")
3. 16:41, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "rv vandalism")
4. 18:06, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "rv removal of sourced material")
5. 18:22, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "you need consensus of editors before you substantially removed materials that just don't fit your POV")
6. 19:01, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "I think you need consensus of editors")
7. 19:11, 11 November 2010(edit summary: "I suggest you raise the issue of significance in the discussion page and seek consensus")

• Diff of warning:here

—Go porch books (talk)21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hoursSarekOfVulcan (talk)22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[93]]

• 1st revert:[94]
• 2nd revert:[95]
• 3rd revert:[96]
• 4th revert:[97]

Comments:

Very uncreative edit warring over atIsraeli settlement, rejects sources linked in article, changes "Israeli-occupied" to "disputed". I'm sure I've screwed up format as I've never filed one of these things, but there ya go.Sol (talk)03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Warned Nobody warned Nicepepper. S/he has 39 edits to his/her name and apparently was never informed about the three-revert rule. --tariqabjotu03:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages:
Western Azerbaijan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Vankli, Kalbajar (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Kars, Turkey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:[98]

Western Azerbaijan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

• 1st revert:[99]
• 2nd revert:[100]
• 3rd revert:[101]
• 4th revert:[102]
• 5th revert:[103]
• 6th revert:[104], violation of 3RR (1)
• 7th revert:[105], violation of 3RR (2)
• 8th revert:[106], violation of 3RR (3)
• 9th revert:[107], violation of 3RR (4)

Note that Magoteers started edit-warring afterMarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as perWikipedia:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff[108])

Vankli, Kalbajar (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

• 1st revert:[109]
• 2nd revert:[110]
• 3rd revert:[111]
• 4th revert:[112]
• 5th revert:[113]
• 6th revert:[114]

Same story here: Magoteers started edit-warring afterMarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as perWikipedia:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff[115])

Kars, Turkey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

• 1st revert:[116]
• 2nd revert:[117]
• 3rd revert:[118]

Same story in these articles[119],[120],[121],[122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[123];[124]

User notified:[125]

Comments:
This case is mostly about the edit-warring per se than about a specific case of 3RR although violation of 3RR is a part of it, as indicated above.

Magotteers appeared on Wikipedia pages out of the blue, directly engaging in the concurrent heated discussionhere claiming he was "searching on google and was directed there". Sure... Same thing happened when another userIonidasz magically appeared in a heated discussion most likely claiming later that he was there searching for something and ooops, found a heated discussion and decided to contribute. (see link of his first contributionhere And, it's interesting how well informed about Wikipedia rules and editing these "two" new editors are.

Please also note that once Magoteers appears on pages and starts edit-warring, Marshall Bagramyan is virtually out of sight, making only a few edits on talk pages of these articles here and there, most likely to avoid being sanctioned again. All the actual reverting work is done by Magotteers.

These two users (Ionidasz and Magotteers) used the same pattern of editing:

• appearance in Wikipedia and going straight to the heated discussions;
• heavy multiple reverting and edit-warring in "battleground" articles;
• using obscene and sarcastic language against other editors (eg.[126],[127],[128],[129]);
• finally, used his favorite wordupteenth time used by Magotteers accountin summary comment and Ionidasz accountin summary comment.

If you look through their contributions, you will understand that these accounts are used to supplement edit-warring by established users. Both users have been asked to discuss their reverts on talk pages of the articles which they did, but while commenting on the articles, they also did revert to either their version or that of the established users (their puppetiers), while the established users mostly limited themselves with contributions on the talk pages. It is also interesting that Magotteers account appeared after unsuccessful attempts of blocked userAndranikpasha to re-establish himself as a sock likeAlaguerre and some other IPs (see the archive hereWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andranikpasha/Archive.

Here[130] Magotteers claims he doesn't know who Andranikpasha is. Yeah, right. Really? As Ionidacz he does know who Andranikpasha is[131].

To sum up, these are eithersockpuppet ormeatpuppet accounts which were opened to do nothing but help established users avoid sanctions, edit war on frequently edited pages and do multiple reverts (no new articles were created by these users) while abusing multiple accounts and quack like aWP:DUCK. (talk)16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are insinuating something, please have the courtesy to say it plainly and outright or even inform me. I have been heavily involved in these articles, yes, but the level of stonewalling that I have encountered by numerous editors has, to say the least, discouraged me from making too main-space edits for fear of being drawn into an edit war. All one has to do is read my comments on the talk page and see my exasperation as I am given odd demands to prove things which no amount of sources will suffice.User:Anastasia.Bukh continued to revert my edits even after I provided bountiful sources and he even removed (and so have you now) such uncontentious information as census data. I do not want to be sanction so that is why I have done little editing and have contributed mainly to the talk page, trying to find a common tongue.

Marshall, you were not the user who was being reported on. You're just mentioned in this report, so don't be telling me about courtesy. We both do know you're in constant communication with this sock account who already admitted using multiple sock accounts after being disposed by me and confirmed by administrators. These accounts are like tails to your edits. Wherever you go, they go. It's too obvious whichever you spin it. Include whoever you like in your reports. It's your right as an editor but it's not your right to involve socks to avoid sanctions. I'm not accusing you but that's the impression this whole show gives. Thank you. (talk)13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As for Magoteers, I have absolutely no knowledge of who he is and we should assume good faith rather than simply report him immediately for sockpuppet violations, as you have done, and inform him of the rules. I never told nor encouraged him to make reverts on my behalf and I find the insinuation and my connection to my quite superficial. If we are reporting edit warriors, however, we should also include Anastasia.Bukh as well, since he has made absolutely no attempt to restrain himself in his reverts either, displaying a clear-cut case ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT and incivility on the Vank (Vankli) article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk)18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, spend your time learning who Anastasia is instead of making up your fantasies that it's "Himself" or "He". Secondly, I provided with information about the article. The article is about the village of Vankli in Azerbaijan, and the third party sources say what the real name is. What the currently administrative governors call it after occupation is not to be applied. Wikipedia is about relying on third party sources in time of conflicting sources. Anastasia Bukhantseva 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Explaination:Four different users have been revert warring by removing my changes, which they have not dealt with in the talkpage. Seethis revert of mine like several others in the same article, which is included in this report, includes the clarification ofthis map, the uploader removed the legend of the article, which will bring any person to believe that in blue, that represents the borders of Armenia according to Sevres. Only when I have been reported, one of them has finally removed the map. So basically the removal assume that they did not even read my comments when they were blindly reverting my clarifications on what really represent the map.

Note also, that Western Azerbaijan article is a duplicate of another article,Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia, compare both versions, besides its intro.

Regarding Vank article, note itshistory, I believe Parishan is an Azeri user, who made a compromise. From its history, we see Anastasia.Bukh has renamed the article without discussion. This is unacceptable, as he should have requested concensus.

Regarding my revert on Kars article, read my explainations please.

Summary : It's true I have been revert warring, but check the history of the articles, I was not the only one. Note that Anastasia has made an unilateral move of an article and revert warred, failing to reach concensus, she has also been very uncivil with me.

Regarding this users insulation regarding me,that's what I have typed and it is true that I have found the article from that, as I mentioned, at which point I was pushed in this edit war. Also, was it forbidden to check other users contributions? Obviously I have checked the contributions of the users with whom I was in conflict with, and have seen from there... I am also active on Russian and Turkish wikipedia.

Also note that I was already checkedhere.Magotteers (talk)19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Where was I "uncivil" with you? Bunch of lies again trying to get out the situation. It is clear to everyone that you are a user opening new accounts to mess the pages up, then having a bad reputation contribution history, you start another new account and the history repeats itself. Anastasia Bukhantseva 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I took a look at this, and while Magotteers seems to have stopped edit warring since the warning, I do have concerns about the likelihood ofMagotteers (talk ·contribs) being a possible sock ofIonidasz (talk ·contribs). That said, the two aren't editing at the same time, since the latter is marked as "retired," but I'm not sure what sanctions or whatever might have been in place, or whether Ionidasz was sufficiently warned. If another admin could take a peek at this case, it'd prolly be better, since I'm tired at the moment and prone to error. :P Plus, I'm not sure to what extent the arbcom stuff applies anyway. Anyway, feel free to make whatever decision, and I'll take a fresh look tomorrow if nobody else grabs it. --slakr^\ talk /22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is himself an alternate account who was warned about illegitimate uses of "legitimate" socking:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive.Magog the Ogre (talk)22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thank you for looking into the reports. What I don't understand is why this and other accounts of this user are not being blocked if his sole purpose is to edit war on certain articles. I mean all his contributions under sock accounts are used for the purpose of reverts en masse and deleting sourced information. In my understanding,contributing to Wikipedia is defined not as just writing in Wikipedia, but ascontributing per se. This individual does not contribute. He has not created any articles whatsoever, he has not contributed significant amounts of encyclopedic data to any article, especially any other Azerbaijan-Armeniaunrelated articles. So, why is he here? To create battlegrounds? After all, he admitted using sock accounts for long because he was sure he wouldn't be able to conceal that information from administrators. If he's unblocked in 72 hours, he will continue his agenda. Just look at his talk page. The user is being irritated and is itching to edit war while he's still blocked. Just look at his talk pageUser talk:Magotteers#November 2010. (talk)13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)