LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 428: | Line 428: | ||
:Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a four day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. --[[User:Ari89|Ari]] ([[User talk:Ari89|talk]]) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
:Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a four day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. --[[User:Ari89|Ari]] ([[User talk:Ari89|talk]]) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--[[User:Ari89|Ari]] ([[User talk:Ari89|talk]]) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
:Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--[[User:Ari89|Ari]] ([[User talk:Ari89|talk]]) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Esoglou]] reported by [[User:LoveMonkey]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Esoglou}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> |
|||
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=374816076&oldid=374737676] Added yet the same sources and passages into the article again (ones source and sentence of that source is in some form or another in this article 4X now). |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=374816472&oldid=374816293] Adding sourcing requests to not section or even sentences but words in the article as a means to edit war and frustrate with no discussion on talkpage. The section Esoglou is asking to source words from is copied word for word from Orthodoxwiki. One source citation request would seem reasonable. |
|||
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=374824598&oldid=374816472] Reverted out citation request even after issue was resolved by other editors on article talkpage to remove the text completely. |
|||
* 4th revert: [hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=374816076&oldid=374737676] This entire section is sourced by a valid online source editor Esoglou has peppered the section with citation requests even though it is sourced by to get the section deleted. |
|||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> |
|||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> |
|||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] |
|||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> |
|||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=edit§ion=16] |
|||
<u>Comments:</u>Esoglou refuses to use talkpage to arrive at consensus. I (LoveMonkey), and ex admin here [[User:Richardshusr]] and [[User:Cody7777777] have agreed to start and rewrite sections of the article that Esoglou has clobbered with citation requests and deletions, blank edits and edit warring tactics of the like. We had arrive at consensus for just one section of the article under Esoglou's contention on it's talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=372636009&oldid=372634837] Esoglou has now moved his edit war from the article [[filioque]] and [[East-West schism]] to now this article [[Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences]]. Esoglou refuses to compromise again refuses to listen and or co-operate in the collaboration process as I (user:LoveMonkey) Richard S and Cody7777777 have tried to do. Esoglou has insisted that even with valid sources and sources that are of higher value and an overwhelming amount of them that Esoglou's opinion is correct and that Esoglou will continue to edit war until the articles say what Esoglou has been asked to source (by Richard S for example on the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences talkpage) but Esoglou refuses to source.<br /> |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: I understand that I am not perfect and I too have not been perfect. But I have not right to murder someone just because [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] did. Esoglou must be held account for Esoglou's behavior he is not justified because he doesn't like the message or because he disagrees with me. Thank you. ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 15:55, 22 July 2010
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)
- Page: Complementary color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User being reported: Dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION
- (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
- (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
- (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY
Comments:
So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Wikipedia and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.
- This: User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is your user talk page where people leave you messages. Those messages include links as to why your edits kept getting reverted, and links to where to go to discuss them. Please also click Help:Contents/Getting_started which will introduce you to the Wikipedia user interface if you are not sure how or where to do something. Thanks! ArakunemTalk 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please check out the link above as Arakunem suggested. User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is the page you need to be commenting on, not here. Editors will try and help you understand WIkipedia policy there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Wikipedia. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design
- Note — The reporter, Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs), was blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs). However, another admin, Dougweller (talk · contribs), protected Complementary color (the article in question), and later, the blocked user was unblocked. As an uninvolved admin, I would have only blocked Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) and left the article unprotected had Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) been properly warned of the 3RR (due to multiple editors reverting the user's edits). Otherwise, it looks like this is just a new user getting frustrated. :\ --slakr\ talk / 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Mikemikev reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: Page protected)
Page: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:43, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ This has been reproduced. No counter data exists.")
- 12:58, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 373969281 by Verbal (talk) This controversial fact has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't *you* discuss it?")
- 17:26, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Brain size */")
- 09:26, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ per WP:NOTCENSORED")
- 09:13, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Brain size */ Consensus is not about strength of numbers. Sources contending these figures have not been produced.")
- 12:52, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 374485687 by Mustihussain (talk) You don't remedy "undue weight" by unsourced rewriting of facts towards your POV.")
—Wapondaponda (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Mikemikev is involved in a low grade edit war on race and intelligence. Mikemikev's edits have been reverted by multiple editors, yet he appears unwilling to compromise. The article is currently on a 1RR restriction, which Mikemikev has violated at least twice. Links to 1rr restriction [1]
Mikemikev is knowledgeable about edit warring restrictions as he recently filed an edit warring complaint here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]
Comments:
Wapondaponda (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the 1RR has yet been approved, but this is ongoing editwarring and needs to stop. Verbal chat 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It takes more than one to editwar. Which editors have been fighting with Mikemikev about this? (I have not checked the diffs.) David.Kane (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- David, you really should check the diffs: you're right about it taking more than one to edit war, however. It seems that several (more than two) editors have indeed[3][4][5] reverted Mikemikev on this issue (his intended insertion seems in gross violation of NPOV and significantly alters an otherwise reliable source). This article is definitely a "hotbed" for edit-warring, BTW - how could it not be? "Race and intelligence". Small wonder... Doc9871 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, if you glance at the article history you will see multiple editors have reverted him with valid rationales. I see no one fighting with him, just one editor trying to force an edit into the article. Verbal chat 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Which specific "valid rationales" are you referring to? As best I can tell, Mikemikev wants to include average brain size data by race. Brain size data is discussed extensively by secondary sources, see Mackintosh pages 234-236. Mackintosh even cites (approvingly!) Rushton. As best I can tell, Mikemikev has addressed the arguments raised. It is not clear to me that the editors who argued about this last week remain unconvinced by the subsequent discussion. So, to make progress, we need a list of the editors that, you claim, still object to this edit and the reason(s) that have for objecting. David.Kane (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, if you glance at the article history you will see multiple editors have reverted him with valid rationales. I see no one fighting with him, just one editor trying to force an edit into the article. Verbal chat 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- David, you really should check the diffs: you're right about it taking more than one to edit war, however. It seems that several (more than two) editors have indeed[3][4][5] reverted Mikemikev on this issue (his intended insertion seems in gross violation of NPOV and significantly alters an otherwise reliable source). This article is definitely a "hotbed" for edit-warring, BTW - how could it not be? "Race and intelligence". Small wonder... Doc9871 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It takes more than one to editwar. Which editors have been fighting with Mikemikev about this? (I have not checked the diffs.) David.Kane (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing: Another revert with uncivil edit summary diff. There can be no argument that he hasn't gone beyond the point where he should have attempted to engage in discussion now rather than continued reverting. Verbal chat 13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have unaddressed arguments on the talk page. It's odd that those who are telling me to discuss are not discussing. mikemikev (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Page protected -- tariqabjotu 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is not a valid solution, you are punishing all editors and, naturally, protecting the "wrong version" of an uncivil edit warrior. Please unprotect the page and address the actual issue. Verbal chat 14:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Arlen22 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 48h)
Page: Deluge myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arlen22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- Diff of warning: here
Comments Repeated page moves against consensus and edit warring over the word "myth". Further edit warring and EW warnings (other than diffs above) occurred.
—
13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
User:68.248.237.151 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Semiprotected)
Page: Template:Pixar Animation Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.248.237.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [6]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Comments:
Anon IP is possibly another user known for pushing this issue editing without logging in. Cannot confirm yet. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR. Two different IPs from Milwaukee have been fighting (during July) to keep various things out of the template. Most likely these are the same editor. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached on the Talk page about the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
User:TEK reported by User:Ihgyqxfs (Result: 24h to submitter)
Page: List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TEK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Comments:
- At first, I reverted his edit because I believed it was vandalism. When he reverted it and explained on my talk, I told him that I would place a comment on the articles talk page, and to await the decision of the community before furthur reverting. Having not heeded my message, he went on to revert the page three more times, each of which I was forced to revert. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Ihgyqxfs is a brand new account that instigated this edit war (and has also violated 3RR already) by removing sourced information, and no discussion other than a request to read a different page and "restore my edit and apologize", when TEK had nothing to apologize for. Just a third party view, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- User:TEK a vandalism template against me and continued his editwar even after explanations. Ihgyqxfs (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I apologise for this edit-warring. As I explained above, at the first glance, Ihgyqxfs's edits looked like vandalism – he removed sourced information, and the edit summary was tagged "removal of sources". However, he told me to read Air Comet, which has indeed ceased operations, but according to the article the company ordered A380s before it shut down. He left me a message demanding that I "restore my [Ihgyqxfs's] edit and apologize on my talk page", when in fact I had little to apologise for. I told him that I would comment on the talk page of the article and for him to stop reverting and await the decision of the community. He refused and continued to revert anyway, adding "Read what you reverted - they never ordered" on his talk for me to see. However, he did not cite any sources. Again, I apologise for the edit-warring, which I think was caused by a misjudgment on my part. I promise to stop my unacceptable behaviour. Please understand and consider my side of this conflict. Thanks. TEK (talk • e-mail) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Result - 24h to Ihgyqxfs. A brand-new account (20 July) that may have been created just to edit-war on this article. He only has three reverts, but good faith must be questioned, since he files a report at AN3 less than an hour after creating a 'new' account. Both parties were invited to promise to stop warring but only TEK did so. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Goodone121 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)
Page: Baraminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goodone121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 03:42, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 02:04, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 374248861 by Mann jess (talk) There is, indeed, a POV Dispute,under the heading "'typically considered'" pseudoscience".")
- 23:33, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 374417784 by Mann jess (talk)Mann jess, I am warning you. Do this again, and I will be forced to request a block be placed on your account.")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments User was just unblocked this week after edit warring on the same article. His 3rd contribution since the auto unblock was edit warring again. It may be early for this request, as he hasn't yet violated 3RR, but since he went from a block straight into the same behavior, I feel this report is warranted. Thanks.
—
01:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Muzicalb reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Notified under ARBPIA)
Page: United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muzicalb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
- 1st revert: [18] - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", re-adds "several thousand missiles were fired into Israel during this time"
- 2nd revert: [19] - re-adds "if not necessarily unbiased"
- 3rd revert: [20] - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."
- 4th revert: [21] - re-adds "not necessarily unbiased", re-replaces "influenced" with "intimidated", removes again "The report further notes that there were also a number of anonymous calls and messages received on private phone numbers and e-mail addresses by some of those who provided information to Mission or assisted in its work in the Gaza Strip."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23], not on the article talk, but an explanation of one example of the problem with the edits has been given to the editor
nableezy - 06:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- He seems to have stopped now and the total effect of the edits following fixes and sans editorializing/advocacy looks okay-ish. The 'influenced' to 'intimidated' change is a matter of which source you pick i.e. Times says "ability ...to freely describe", BusinessDay cited later says "reports that ....may have intimidated ...are baseless". He picked the latter. The worst case, misrepresentation of a source, is described here. The bottomline is, he was edit warring (amongst other things), he ignored a request to go to the talk page (amongst other things), he seems to have stopped for now but whatever happens he needs to receive a notification of the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Notified of the possibility of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Pantherskin reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 30 hours)
Page: Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is an instance of slow-motion edit-warring on multiple pages, explained further below
On Golan Heights:
- 14:21, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ excessive quoting and dubious given that the same article makes it clear that historians are very sceptical")
- 07:29, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Between World War I and the Six-Day War */ removed excessive quote, assessment by independent historians")
- 06:57, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "rv attempt to bias article")
On Syria:
- 09:54, 13 July 2010 (edit summary: "fringe view, not acknowledged by serious historians")
- 08:00, 15 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 373273504 by Nableezy (talk)")
- 13:40, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubious statement, violates basic WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE")
- 14:19, 17 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ dubvious statement, in conflict with what can be found in most history books")
- 07:19, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Six Day War and Aftermath */ removed content that violates NPOV, a non-negotiable policy")
- 06:51, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "NPOV and UNDUE violation")
- 07:05, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "explained on the talk page, no consensus for this version")
There is currently a near-edit war going on there, with which I am involved. Two editors and an IP are violated WP:CRYSTAL and adding speculative content, which I am trying to remove. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Every single edit that Pantherskin has made in article space since 09:54, 13 July 2010 has been to remove a quote from Moshe Dayan about the nature of the border skirmishes between Israel and Syria. Pantherskin has been reverted by three separate users but continually comes back to re-revert. The material has been in each article for as long as I can remember. Pantherskin has claimed that it is "POV" or "fringe" to include the comments of the then Israeli Defense Minister. This has been discussed at length on the talk pages of both articles. Pantherskin is aware of the restrictions on edit-warring.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes and Talk:Golan_Heights#Dayan_quote
Comments:
nableezy - 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Syria shows clearly no consensus to remove the Dayan text. Pantherskin is continuing to remove information he personally doesn't like. Both me and admin Zero gave him reply's at the 19th at the talkpage, and instead of answering us he started a section below with the same pov pushing he posted earlier, once again without bringing any sources. It is now clear Pantherskin wants to forcibly remove sourced information from the article he personally doesn't like, and he doesn't care about what any other person says. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I care what other editors have to say, but I do not care what the usual partisan pro/anti-Israel editors have to say. As so far only the usual partisan editors have shown up (i.e. you, Zero and Nableezy) I have set up an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard to get the input of non-partisan editors, those are actually interested in this old-fashioned concept of NPOV. Pantherskin (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of thirty hours Okay, but you're still edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User:95.24.183.137 reported by ialsoagree (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Steve Jobs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.24.183.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 23:33, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
- 23:40, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
- 23:43, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
- 23:48, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Early years */")
- Diff of warning: User talk:95.24.183.137#Warnings
- Discussion for revert (which was being ignored by the IP user) is here: Talk:Steve_Jobs#Please Take Out the LSD Sentence
Comments:
I am a third party to this edit war. I caught the 4th attempt by this IP user to make changes to the article and, seeing the discussion on the article's talk page, reverted the changes by the user.
—ialsoagree (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: X! has blocked this IP for 24 hours for edit warring. ialsoagree (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:OCNative reported by User:OCNative (Result:No action )
Page: George Runner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OCNative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [24]
- 2nd revert: [25]
- 3rd revert: [26]
- 4th revert: [27]
- 5th revert: [28]
- 6th revert: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
I am reporting myself as I forgot the 3RR rule and engaged in an edit war with another user. I am sorry, and I have just posted on the article talk page moments ago to try to resolve this dispute without further reversion at this time. My most recent reversion has been reverted by another user. OCNative (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not blocked Since you have clearly understood that you've violated the rule and stopped reverting, I don;t feel that further action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Seven days seven nights reported by TFD (talk) (Result:No action )
Page: Classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seven days seven nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 07:44, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 20:46, 21 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "no difficulty")
- 01:30, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This is personal lack of ability to tell the difference. It is not truly difficult to tell.")
- 02:10, 22 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: ""difficult to tell" is personal lack of mental power of the editor")
TFD (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
- Not blocked There is a technical breach of the 3RR, but this is a very new editor and "reverted good faith edits" does not explain why you;re reverting them, so I can sympathise with their frustration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Page: Afghans in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]
Comments: User:Saki is very disruptive, he refuses to explain why he is reverting my fixing of the article. I also suspect that he may be another sockpuppet of banned User:Teckgeek, the creator of the Afghans in Pakistan article who used a numbe of other blocked IDs to edit the same page, and User:CaliforniaAliBaba is probably another of his ID because that one also began distrupting my edits at the same time and both of them have very similar bios on their user pages. Example, both speak same languages and been to same countries, etc. I further suspect that he is a Punjabi ethnocentric POV pusher with anti-Afghan agenda.--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you that your edits to the page were correct and appropriate and should not have been reverted. —Stephen (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks!--119.73.6.164 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Pontificate823 reported by Arxiloxos (talk) (Result: )
Page: Mike Leach (American football coach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pontificate823 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 13:32, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 15:44, 19 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 03:23, 20 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 18:51, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 02:33, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 03:35, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
- 13:31, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Firing */")
No support on talk page for this editor's actions.
—Arxiloxos (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: )
Page: Historical Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [41] - 18 July
- 2nd revert: [42] - 18 July
- 3rd revert: [43] - 19 July
- 4th revert: [44] - 20 July
- 5th revert: [45] - not a revert 20th
- 6th revert: [46] - not a revert, 20th
- 7th revert: [47] - 21 July
- 8th revert: [48] - 22 July
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Many, in many different places.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]
Comments:
- Note hostile tone in discussions.
- Canvassing like-mined editors from different article to come oppose edits: [50]
- Um...those are reverts and general edits (that were not reverts) over a four day period and are in no way close to a violation of 3RR. Trying to use WP noticeboards repeatedly as revenge for me reporting your edit warring (which you were subsequently blocked for) is clear abuse of the system. --Ari (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also note, the reason for most of these reverts were in response to Noloop's refusal to gain consensus on his controversial edits. A number of editors and administrators reverted Noloop's non-consensus edits in this period, and he was blocked in this period for edit warring.--Ari (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: )
Page: Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [51] Added yet the same sources and passages into the article again (ones source and sentence of that source is in some form or another in this article 4X now).
- 2nd revert: [52] Adding sourcing requests to not section or even sentences but words in the article as a means to edit war and frustrate with no discussion on talkpage. The section Esoglou is asking to source words from is copied word for word from Orthodoxwiki. One source citation request would seem reasonable.
- 3rd revert: [53] Reverted out citation request even after issue was resolved by other editors on article talkpage to remove the text completely.
- 4th revert: [hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic%E2%80%93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences&action=historysubmit&diff=374816076&oldid=374737676] This entire section is sourced by a valid online source editor Esoglou has peppered the section with citation requests even though it is sourced by to get the section deleted.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:Esoglou refuses to use talkpage to arrive at consensus. I (LoveMonkey), and ex admin here User:Richardshusr and [[User:Cody7777777] have agreed to start and rewrite sections of the article that Esoglou has clobbered with citation requests and deletions, blank edits and edit warring tactics of the like. We had arrive at consensus for just one section of the article under Esoglou's contention on it's talkpage [55] Esoglou has now moved his edit war from the article filioque and East-West schism to now this article Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Esoglou refuses to compromise again refuses to listen and or co-operate in the collaboration process as I (user:LoveMonkey) Richard S and Cody7777777 have tried to do. Esoglou has insisted that even with valid sources and sources that are of higher value and an overwhelming amount of them that Esoglou's opinion is correct and that Esoglou will continue to edit war until the articles say what Esoglou has been asked to source (by Richard S for example on the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences talkpage) but Esoglou refuses to source.