Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
*That's it guys. This noticeboard is not for arguing further with each other. Firstly, curb the urge to use tendentious words - Snappy, you included. If you wish to allude to IPs or editors as vandals, report them to the relevant noticeboard like AIV rather than making accusatory remarks. It doesn't take anybody anywhere. Start discussing issues with each other civilly starting from this moment on. Thanks.[[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red; 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"> Wifione </span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sub style="font-size: 60%">.......</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message</sup>''']] 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
*That's it guys. This noticeboard is not for arguing further with each other. Firstly, curb the urge to use tendentious words - Snappy, you included. If you wish to allude to IPs or editors as vandals, report them to the relevant noticeboard like AIV rather than making accusatory remarks. It doesn't take anybody anywhere. Start discussing issues with each other civilly starting from this moment on. Thanks.[[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red; 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"> Wifione </span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sub style="font-size: 60%">.......</sub><sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message</sup>''']] 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:NPz1]] reported by [[User:Cptnono]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:NPz1]] reported by [[User:Cptnono]] (Result: 2 weeks) == |
||
*'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ehud Barak}} |
*'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ehud Barak}} |
||
Line 481: | Line 481: | ||
:*The editor also does not appear to care about using the talk page even though he has been asked to multiple times. The most recent time was ignored (acknowledged by his blanking).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NPz1&diff=prev&oldid=413073117] |
:*The editor also does not appear to care about using the talk page even though he has been asked to multiple times. The most recent time was ignored (acknowledged by his blanking).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NPz1&diff=prev&oldid=413073117] |
||
:[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 08:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
:[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 08:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{AN3|b}} 2 weeks --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:28, 10 February 2011
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:Mamalujo reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: in talks)
Page: The Deputy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mamalujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:56, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407181905 by Ekwos (talk) Unjustified deletion of sourced material")
- 22:12, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411457203 by Jayjg (talk) Not conspiracy theory. It is sourced to RSs. Please discuss before blanking material source to multiple RSs")
- 22:27, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "I have addressed this on the talk page and will do so again. This is sourced to Times London, Forbes, The Australian, National Review, The Jewish Ledger, U. Miss. Law Prof. Rychalk")
—Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Reporting on general edit-warring here. Although Mamalujo has "only" reverted 3 times in 31 minutes today, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). Objections to it have been raised on the article's Talk: page, but he has responded with quite inaccurate statements. He's been warned about edit-warring/3RR many times (e.g. [5][6][7][8][9]). Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alrighty. I'm not locking or blocking yet, but let's consider this a final warning; no more edit warring, no exceptions.
- Mamalujo, from what I can see, the others are protesting due to your very limited sourcing here, though I understand that sourcing is tough to find. Everything I see points towards Pacepa as the genesis of this theory. Is he the only root source?
- Jayjg, why was Rychlak discredited as a source? I noticed that his Wikipedia article was written primarily by Mamalujo (with claims of Rychlak's expertise on Pius unsourced), but his U. Miss. page suggests he did have some knowledge on the Pope.
- As a final note, I'd like to showcase this source from The Times (which is a highly-reputable paper) that seems to back up Mamalujo's claims. Of course, the edit warring is still a serious offense and is being taken into account, but I'm curious as to why Mamalujo's claims are being dismissed as conspiracy theory.
- Thanks for your cooperation, all. m.o.p 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[10] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma'at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rychlak may have personal bias, I'm not quite sure he'd qualify under SPS; after all, SPS doesn't state that self-published material isn't ever acceptable. In this case, given that he's claimed to be an expert on the Pope, I see no reason to discredit him as a source. Of course, he's also going on Pacepa's claims. I wouldn't use Rychlak as a primary source, but as a secondary source, why not? I agree that, again, he may be biased, but this is inherent in every piece of work. We can't automatically discredit a source because the source happens to be related to the cause it is defending. That being said, the proposed addition is very large in comparison to the rest of the page, and relies very heavily on Rychlak; slimming it down and putting the reliable sources first (i.e. The Times) might help.
- I do agree that it isn't very intuitive to place Mamalujo's section above the main body of the page - something like that is setting quite the negative tone. Would it be an acceptable compromise if Mamalujo's section was moved to 'Criticism', cut down a bit, and used to flesh out the criticism section? m.o.p 23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Mamalujo, does this sound reasonable? m.o.p 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly agreeable with moving the section. But what do we mean by using only truly reliable sources? What would be deleted? With regard to Rychlak, the material sourced here may be in his 2010 book, which is not self-published. And as far as undue weight, I think this material deserves substantial weight. It is a credible assertion of great import to the subject. I think editing for neutrality is fine. I think that would best be done by published criticism of Pacepa's revelation. I know Peter Gumpel. S.J., the relator for Pius XII cause expressed some doubt about Pacepa's motivation and credibility (Of course the criticism I saw was in 2007 - since then more has surfaced about the communist connections of others involved in the play). I think we should keep in perspective though that Hochhuth has lost a defamation case, when he libeled a living person in another "historical" play, that he defended his friend and collaborator, Holocaust denier, David Irving's assertion that more people died at Chapaquidick than in the Holocaust, and that his friend Irving, in defending him, admitted that Hochhuth was naive and may have been fed information. In light of Hochhuth's lack of credibility, this info has more weight. The circumstantial evidence, communist affiliation of so many involved in the play as well as the fact of the anti-Vatican disinformation campaign, are what give Pacepa's claims greater weight. As do historians, Feldkamp and Burleigh. I think it could be trimmed some. But I think it should be accorded substantial weight. I'd definitely object to it being bowdlerized. Mamalujo (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Mamalujo, does this sound reasonable? m.o.p 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma'at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times".[10] It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
We can't use Rychlak as a primary source if we don't even know where he's being quoted from - I don't think that would fly with other editors. How about this; Jayjg, do you mind writing out a version you'd be OK with here? Use whatever sources you feel are appropriate. Then we'll see what Mamalujo thinks. m.o.p 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll create a new version of the material. I'm also going to copy this to the article talk page, this discussion doesn't belong here. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stale Looks like it's stopped for now. Re-report if things stir up again. --slakr\ talk / 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
User:146.232.75.208 reported by — Toдor Boжinov — (In progress)
Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.232.75.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 11:16, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not extreme, nor is it fringe, if there are compliable sources and DNA evidence to back up. I made it NPOV, you made it POV, read wiki rules, then come back..")
- 11:33, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "How is it neutralization if all the significant viewpoints are not included? And how many times must I say that my source is compliant with wiki rules. I am not looking for arguments or anything...")
- 05:45, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "It is not fringe theory if there is DNA evidence,all significant views must be there for NPOV")
- 11:00, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "what sock puppet, Im just at different places at different times - you people are continuing to ignore wiki rules in terms of including all signiicant views, so that it is NPOV?What is your problem?")
- 14:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "How can it be fringe if alot of Bulgarians see themselves as non slavic and there is new genetic research? According to wiki rules, for it to be NPOV all significant views must be added")
- 09:33, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "what are you serious - ofcourse there are two theories if one is backed up by many Bulgarians (who I met and chatted to and dont consider themselves slavic) and by genetic evidencem it is NPOV now")
- 10:59, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "Wiki rules says all significant views must be mentioned for NPOV, if anyone is vandalising it is you - you made it POV. Not fringe if DNA backs up theory and if many Bulg. dont see themselves as slav")
- 11:17, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "You people are ganging up on me 0 if you continue I will take this matter to an admin and explain how you are ignoring wiki:neutrality rules and how you are removing sourced info - why do you do it?")
- Diff of warning: here
First four edits listed constitute 3RR, the remaining are evidence of continued edit warring.
— — Toдor Boжinov — 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note Looking into this. m.o.p 01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note 1: let it be known that Jingiby, Laveol and TodorBozhinov are all Bulgarian - I'd recommend that you guys try not to edit-war on topics which you are likely biased in, purely because doing so muddies the waters. I'm still looking into this, though. m.o.p 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, m.o.p 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi and thanks for looking into this issue. The IP's edits introduce contradictions into the article. The intro says Bulgarians are South Slavic, Ethnogenesis now claims there are "two main viewpoint[s]" (Slavic+Bulgar and Bulgar+Thracian origin), and Genetic origin now says that some genetic study found out Bulgarians are not Slavs but relatives of Iranic/Pamirian peoples.
- Would one of the accusing party please explain what's wrong with the IP's source? Granted, I can't find another instance of the report, but I'd like to know why consensus stands against it. Cheers, m.o.p 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note 1: let it be known that Jingiby, Laveol and TodorBozhinov are all Bulgarian - I'd recommend that you guys try not to edit-war on topics which you are likely biased in, purely because doing so muddies the waters. I'm still looking into this, though. m.o.p 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now, the predominant view, as has been shown in the article using quality sources, is that Bulgarians belong to the South Slavic group, even though their historical and genetic origin is not purely South Slavic. However, any theories that minimize the South Slavic contribution are alternative and should be either omitted as undue weight or clearly labeled as alternative. I believe it's the IP's responsibility to explain their edits: they never used the article talk page, but rather posted walls of text on my talk which mostly accused me of doing this and that and claiming that I am not Slavic because I, supposedly, don't look Slavic.
- As for the source (http://www.novinite.com/): I would not normally consider the source to be unreliable for news and general events. In this case, though, it is not good enough. Ideally, the statement would have to be backed using scholarly research, not a news article.
- The IP's posts to my talk have been sort of annoying and harrassing, so I don't really want to be involved in the dispute with them anymore: it has so far detracted me from more productive and more pleasant work on Wikipedia. No matter if the IP gets blocked and no matter if the dispute gets resolved, I'd just like to stay away from it. That does not mean I will not take responsibility for my actions, of course. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have been following this issue, and I am not Bulgarian. I do believe that the IP's edits constitute vandalism, and clearly he violated 3RR (no matter what his reasoning was). The user was warned to discuss the source, and his "theory.", but he/she instead resorted to edit warring and baseless accusations.
- In regards to the actual theory, it is clearly fringe as there are few, if any legitimate academic sources that state it is correct. The IP user is attempting to insert "research" done by obscure newspapers as RS-based facts.
- The problem with the information is that it completely contradicts the current, academically sourced content of the article, and goes against potentially thousands of research and university sources.
- At best, the IP info. could go into an "alternative origin theories" or "Bulgarian origin conspiracy theories" section. Just my 2 cents.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Note - Top of the page under "Listing instructions": "Do not continue a dispute on this page." Was there a clear violation of 3RR or not, do you believe? Any block would be to prevent disruption only, so if that is occurring it should be noted. Doc talk 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's any risk of further disruption, and I don't issue punitive blocks. m.o.p 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: The IP editor inserted a reply, but it isn't well-formatted; moving here. m.o.p 19:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, the intro I made said that they are either slavic ethnically or by culture and language - so as to present both views in an equal manner. yes ethnogenesis does claim there are 2 viewpoints, and the genetic section - I made it say that according to the team there conclusion was etc etc, so as not to state it as a fact and to make it neutral - so what is the problem here then?
- It is not certain at all if that is the predominant view anymore, since others have been found, backed up by a compliant source and by genetic research, plus I am ware of that many Bulgarians themselves do not consider themselves slavic. Also, in the article it says that: "the DNA of Bulgarians is clearly seperated from the tight cluster of other slavic nations (or something like that) - further adds substance to my argument
- Why would a major newspaper company not check its valadidity before posting something that could otherwise be totally bogus, mad eup and typed in someone's room - otherwise they could risk their whole reputation as a quality newspaper and thus loose lots of readers and thus millions of euros.
- Never once have I harrased you, but i am just posting replies to your argument and defending myself against your unjust and rude accusations that I am a vandal (very disrespectful, if you dont even properly explain yourself, when I explained myself many, many times) - so what is wrong with that. i am sure that if anyone saw what I wrote and how I wrote it, would agree that i didnt harass. So you are complaining that you find my posts annoying - that is just your opinion - why do you complain about something small and insignificant like that here.
- If there is any vandalsim that I did it was only the 3 revert rule thing - that was unintentional, and was not aware when I did it - for that i am sorry and would certainly be much more careful in the future. Otherwise there has not been any other vandalism from me - just trying to make page better and more neutral by following wikipedia's rules of neutrality -what is wrong with that? i did discuss it on other peoples's talk pages, and if you were really interested in the argument you would have clicked on my ip and see where I posted on whose talk page and go follow there - if you had just put in some effort on your part.
- My accusations are not baseless - I accused you all of disrespect by calling me a vandal and not properly explaining yourselves and I accused you of not following wiki's neutrality rules - there is "base" in all of that - you have been guilty in all of that - I am sure anyone would agree— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 February 2011
- Compromise: As the problem information is currently dependent on one source group, would both parties be OK with moving the information to the bottom of 'Genetic Origin', trimming it down, and only saying that the study suggested it? The exact wording is up to you guys. This way, there isn't any undue weight, but the theory is still recognized. m.o.p 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that. My main issue was with the IP editor trying to change the article header/body, and inserting that theory as a leading one. Also, I felt quite uncomfortable when the editor asserted that all Bulgarians he/she knows do not consider themselves Slavic (especially when he was confronted by several real Bulgarian editors). He also made similar edits at the South Slavs article. It is important that the theory is in the appropriate section, and that it is clearly explained where it comes from, and that it is not commonly accepted.
- However, it also important to make sure that the IP editor understands that saying things like "all Bulgarians I know don't consider themselves Slavic" is not appropriate, and that only reputable sources can be used to insert information. Also, please discuss before reverting.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll make sure the editor understands proper etiquette and editing procedure. IP editor, is this compromise reasonable? m.o.p 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would not be fully content with this theory remaining in the article. If all other involved sides support this, of course, I'll respect that decision. Thanks for your patience and involvement, m.o.p! — Toдor Boжinov — 07:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Compromise: As the problem information is currently dependent on one source group, would both parties be OK with moving the information to the bottom of 'Genetic Origin', trimming it down, and only saying that the study suggested it? The exact wording is up to you guys. This way, there isn't any undue weight, but the theory is still recognized. m.o.p 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:DinDraithou reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: 24h)
- Page: Cnut the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: DinDraithou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Warning: [11]
- 1st revert: 23:37, February 7, 2011
- 2nd revert: 00:36, February 8, 2011
- 3rd revert: 00:40, February 8, 2011
- 4th revert: 00:52, February 8, 2011
Ideological edit-warring beyond 3rr and incivility on talk page; TharkunColl entered the fray edit-warring, though not violating 3rr. Would've blocked myself, but 'involved'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly ideological. I am making constructive edits and TharkunColl obviously has no business there. On the talk page it has already been agreed that the map is OR. And Echmarcach mac Ragnaill was not king of Man until 1052. Deacon is reporting me for telling him to not act like he always knows better on the talk page, which another editor has already done in the same section. "Would have blocked"? I'm not known for "edit-warring" (if that's what this really is) much, and Deacon has repeatedly reported me here for this and that in the past, each ending not in the result (a block) he wanted. The only time I have ever been blocked was by him. DinDraithou (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- What's also ridiculous is that if you check, only one or two of those "reverts" listed really qualifies as one. I had to go and check on the earliest Echmarcach is found in Man and so my edits changed. The first (second) listed above was really about making sure that secondary source didn't get the credit for discovering he became king of Dublin in 1036, as if it was the product of research and some reader of Wikipedia should buy the book to learn about it when the Irish annals, our primary sources, can be read for free. So there's not even a 3RR violation here. DinDraithou (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
For more background, here is the complete list of reverts by DinDraithou generated by 3rr.php. This dispute wins by a mile as the most esoteric one currently on the board. See also Talk:Cnut the Great#Old/Middle Irish:
- 23:27, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Not the best secondary source, which reports uncritically the account in the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib and its tradition.")
- 06:03, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "a solution")
- 23:37, 7 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ so what")
- 00:36, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Unreliable secondary sources, and we don't need Lawson to tell us Echmarcach was king of Dublin. Also, image violates WP:OR, for which see talk page.")
- 00:40, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412635334 by TharkunColl (talk) not king of Man until 1052")
- 00:52, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overlordship outside his kingdoms */ Again, the map is OR and Echmarcach was not king of Man until 1052. See Kings of Mann and the Isles.")
—EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Only one or two of those are proper reverts, Ed, and I mean according to the broader definition. I direct you to Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Overlordship_outside_his_kingdoms and Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Old/Middle_Irish. TharkunColl doesn't know what he's doing and Deacon has taken advantage of that to try to get me blocked. DinDraithou (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 24 hours. I explained to DinDraithou (on his talk page, now removed) that he was at 4RR and gave him the chance to make his excuses here. He did not accept the offer. The definition of a revert is given in WP:EW: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor". In deciding on a block, I was influenced by some previous threads: here at AN3, on 25 October, where he was warned for edit warring, and three ANI threads since September showing other disputes, in one of which he was warned for personal attacks by FisherQueen: [12], [13] and [14]. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User: STL1989 reported by User:lionelt (Result: No violation)
Page: Mark Bingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: STL1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Comments:
The edit war started on Ex-gay. When I realized I was involved in an edit war, I backed off and warned the editor. The editor then followed me to the article in question, Mark Bingham, where they proceeded to revert my edits, violating 3RR. I realize this is a new user, and it's really annoying that they followed me to another article, however if sanctions are in order I am not opposed to leniency. Lionel (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I first added a article link to Mark Bingham so it was Lionelt who followed my to that article and then started removing easily source-able information, each one took me less than a minute or two to find and then type in. On Ex-gay he threatened to block me for re-adding the youtube homepage of one of the people listed, The section list is of those who got "repairing therapy" to cure of gayness but no longer ascribe to those ideas and are now openly gay. The subject's website lists numerous media appearances and I wrote "Readded per WP:ELNO - "Except for a link to an official page of the subject"". As for Mark Bingham I added sources. Is this just a way to intimidate or what? STL1989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Nobody has reverted more than three times. The claim of a BLP violation doesn't hold water. A Youtube clip showing an interview of the article subject, that appears to be presented on his official channel, is OK so long as it is not used as a source for anything but his own views. The question of linking is discussed in the WP:YOUTUBE essay. Inclusion of the link would be up to the consensus of editors to determine its value to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hold On Maybe I'm misinterpreting the rule, but his 4 edits are direct reversions of my 4 edits listed here: [22], [23], [24], [25]. He didn't click "undo", he restored text that I had removed, as shown by the diffs. Is it still a revert if they cut&paste instead of pressing "undo"? Lionel (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The four edits that STL1989 made to this article are consecutive, so they count as at most one revert. Neither of you has posted anything on the talk page. If you feel this is an important issue, I recommend you try to discuss it on Talk. Bingham's relationship with Paul Holm is documented by reliable sources. See this Google Books search for evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Hoising reported by User:FootballHK (Result:Page full protected; editors blocked)
Page: James Ha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 04:22, 8 February 2011
- 1st revert: 10:24, 7 February 2011
- 2nd revert: 02:57, 8 February 2011
- 3rd revert: 03:28, 8 February 2011
- 4th revert: 04:22, 8 February 2011
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:04, 8 February 2011
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 05:53, 8 February 2011
Comments:
- A discussion about the problem is started on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Writing the school which football players studied in infobox? before the 2nd revert by User:Hoising. However, I haven't write it on the talk page. So I know I may be blocked for participating in the edit warring. --FootballHK (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Jexes23 reported by User:Dcheagle (Result: Investigating)
Page: Red River Rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jexes23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Previous version
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]
Comments:
SteamIron 06:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Post here. I'm not blocking anyone yet, but no more edit warring. m.o.p 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:66.91.217.43 reported by User:KarlM (Result:No violation technically; suggest re-filing in case issue exacerbates)
Page: Haole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:66.91.217.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]
Comments:
Already an extensive discussion on the talk page, due to dealing with the same issue from other people. User has not responded to requests to engage there and keeps making the same revert to the page. KarlM (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. File another request if the issue exacerbates. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: both blocked 24 hours)
Page: Lila Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [39]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45], [46]
Comments: I have been trying to add sourced content to this article, WM1 reverted me 5 times inside a 14-hour window. Admittedly, 2 of the edits I made in this time period could be considered partial reverts.
- This is a textbook definition of 3rr baiting. Please note that one of the reverts I self reverted. [47] Also, I have asked User:Haymaker to discuss changes to this page before making them which he has refused to do. I did inadvertently violate 3rr, I had previously misunderstood the rule to mean three reversions of the same content within a 24 hour period, after neutralhomer posted the warning, and reading again I realized that my memory had failed me and that it was actually three reversions combined. That was a mistake on my part which will not be repeated. Also, please note that I have never been blocked previously while the user asking for this block has previously been blocked three times, and has disrupted wikipedia for WP:POINT before at Christianity and abortion. I have repeatedly asked Haymaker to discuss changes before adding controversial and non-reliably sourced material to the article which he has failed to do. He is disrupting wikipedia with his ideological/activist editing. WMO 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you forgot what 3rr was you should have read the warning template I was courteous enough to leave on your talk page rather than just deleting it and continuing to make reversions. In 1 of your reversions you made some offhand comment about discussing things, this does not translate to "have repeatedly asked Haymaker to discuss changes before adding controversial and non-reliably sourced material to the article which he has failed to do." You reverted sourced content without any discussion 5 times in half a day. - Haymaker (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, perhaps I didn't explicitly ask you to discuss repeatedly on this one but I did ask, but you know how I work. We've had incidents like this before and you should know that I am willing to discuss. You continued to add non-reliably sourced, pov content to the article and yes I did revert it, one time more than is technically allowed. You've made the same mistake before and others have been kind enough not to report it... no reason why you shouldn't extend same courtesy. WMO 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you forgot what 3rr was you should have read the warning template I was courteous enough to leave on your talk page rather than just deleting it and continuing to make reversions. In 1 of your reversions you made some offhand comment about discussing things, this does not translate to "have repeatedly asked Haymaker to discuss changes before adding controversial and non-reliably sourced material to the article which he has failed to do." You reverted sourced content without any discussion 5 times in half a day. - Haymaker (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Would rather see these two talk it out on the talkpage than someone be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate that but after the 5th in half a day I felt it shouldn't go unreported. If administrative action is taken I will act the gentleman and not edit the article for the duration. - Haymaker (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- (several ec's) Just to clarify, WikiManOne, it's not "three reversions combined", whatever that means. There must be more than three reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR, so four reverts is the minimum in cases where it's not "gaming the system" or a "slow edit war". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Understood, I have never really used this rule much except in obvious cases of edit wars with the same user adding the same material over and over again while multiple editors remove it. I admit I wasn't as familiar with this rule as I should have been, I was under the impression that established editors generally assumed good faith and would discuss it out, but that appears to not be the case. Like I said, I have now read the policy and I did violate it by one edit by removing non-reliably sourced pov edits that were apparently 3rr baiting from an article. My bad. Either way, its ridiculous for this particular editor to report me for this as if you look at his edit history, there are multiple violations of such a strict interpretation of 3rr in their recent edit history. WMO 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- (several ec's) Just to clarify, WikiManOne, it's not "three reversions combined", whatever that means. There must be more than three reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR, so four reverts is the minimum in cases where it's not "gaming the system" or a "slow edit war". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- - note - user wikiManOne appears to have returned to reverting on this article, I have left him a note about this recent revert... now two new reverts - one , two - in what looks to me like a continuation of the same edit war.Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Haymaker reported by User:WikiManOne (Result: stale)
Since he wants to play the "gotcha game:"
- 1st revert: [49]
- 2nd revert: [50]
- 3rd revert: [51]
- 4th revert: [52]
- 5th revert: [53] - admittedly, five minutes more than 24 hours after first revert.
Perhaps user should continue own behavior rather than trying to bait others.
WMO 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stale SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Zkharya reported by CTJF83 (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Ishmael Khaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zkharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- [54]
- 21:11, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")
- 21:32, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")
- 21:37, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Edinburgh University Incident */")
- Diff of warning: here
—CTJF83 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Joatsimeon reported by CTJF83 (Result: Not blocked: valid BLP removal)
Page: Ishmael Khaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joatsimeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:42, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Removing vandalism")
- 21:24, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412786230 by Zkharya (talk) VANDALISM!")
- 21:33, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412790127 by Zkharya (talk)")
- 21:39, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "NPOV, etc. See talk. WIkipedia is not for defaming living persons.")
- Diff of warning: here
—CTJF83 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- This user is claiming that his reversions were for BLP reasons. I'm inclined to agree. The section in dispute is almost completely unsourced. Of the citations that are there, only two would be considered "reliable". It contains a long polemic at the end. Removal of that section seems pretty unquestionably to fall within the BLP exception. --B (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:2ko reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Formal discretionary sanction warning)
Page: Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2ko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [55]
- 1st revert: [56] February 2
- 2nd revert: [57] February 4
- 3rd revert: [58] February 6
- 4th revert: [59] February 6
- 5th revert: [60] February 8
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction. 2ko has appeared every 2 days to make the same revert (with 2 reverts on February 6). I believe this is edit-warring, even if it is slow-paced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The arbitration case requires formal warning by an uninvolved admin prior to sanctions, so I've given that warning. Future edit warring in the same manner will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:124.13.114.184 reported by Schapel (talk) (Result: IP blocked for three days)
Page: GeForce 400 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.13.114.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 17:38, 7 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412459074 by Unflavoured (talk)")
- 12:07, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412660204 by Unflavoured (talk)")
- 22:01, 8 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412746642 by Schapel (talk)")
- 01:53, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412831778 by Schapel (talk)")
This anonymous user is not only unwilling to discuss the issue; the user is even reverting the discussion of the issue on the article's talk page. I asked the user to stop blanking sections.
—Schapel (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 3 days Additional relevant link:Nvidia PureVideo. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:187.15.20.44 reported by GaryColemanFan (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Note that this report also applies to IPs 187.15.30.150, 187.15.25.9, 187.14.248.31, and 187.15.106.114
This IP editor has been repeatedly adding content to articles without reliable sources. The articles in question are Taylor Rotunda, Barri Griffiths, and Lucky Cannon. I am not sure if any 3RR violations have taken place, but his edit warring is certainly disruptive and excessive. He insists on using sources that definitely do not meet WP:RS requirements, claiming that it's okay because no major writers cover the topic, so it's okay just to use any sources available (see [62]). He has also stated that the websites he wants to use are just fine because WP:RS isn't always important (see [63]). When an administrator contacted him about his edit warring ([64]), he responded by apologizing and saying that he will try to stop with the edit warring ([65]). However, after this message (which I would consider a final warning, especially after he has many warnings within the last few weeks for this very thing), he almost immediately went back to adding the unreliable sources ([66]). He has been unwilling to listen to reason and has resorted to personal attacks in his comments and edit summaries, and a block seems like it would be the only way to slow down his disruptive behavior. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:68.198.135.130 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result: )
Page: Theosophical Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.198.135.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [67]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]
Comments:
This has been brought up on WP:RSN and consensus seems to be that the source is not reliable for these particular claims. User refuses to discuss or negotiate, and instead refers to the rest of us as vandals. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was just about to raise this myself, but Jpgordon has got here first. It should be noted that the IP appears to be a single-purpose account, only editing on Theosophy-related articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Snappy reported by 79.97.92.28 (talk) (Result: no vio)
Page: Ceann Comhairle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 10:36, 6 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 406540620 by Snappy; correct. (TW)")
- 08:11, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412320842 by Snappy; rv - its correct - Louth will return 5 TDs but 4 in the general election - and don't give ultimatums. (TW)")
- 17:57, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412878763 by Snappy; rv vandal. (TW)")
- 18:00, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412946635 by Snappy; rv anon vandal. (TW)")
- 18:03, 9 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Overview */ clarify - read the Electoral Acts")
—79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This IP was removing factually accurate and cited material from the article. I was reverting this. Why do I get reported? Can vandals report long standing contributors now? How interesting! Snappy (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was removing factually inaccurate and uncited material. You get reported because you were edit warring. I am not a vandal. Anyone can report anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And don't use "IP" as if it were somehow a slur. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's it guys. This noticeboard is not for arguing further with each other. Firstly, curb the urge to use tendentious words - Snappy, you included. If you wish to allude to IPs or editors as vandals, report them to the relevant noticeboard like AIV rather than making accusatory remarks. It doesn't take anybody anywhere. Start discussing issues with each other civilly starting from this moment on. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
User:NPz1 reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 2 weeks)
- Page: Ehud Barak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page: 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: NPz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NPz1 was recently blocked for a week after edit warring. Shortly after the editor came back and picked up the edit warring where it left off. Editors in the topic area are restricted to 1/rr per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.
Article 1
Article 2
Clear cut and no excuses. The editor refuses to use the talk page and blanks his talk page whenever someone expresses concern on their talk page.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Follow-up 5hrs later:
- [77] Yet another revert at Ehud Barak (note that he also called another editor an "apartheidlover")
- 1/rr breach at Israeli Apartheid Week
- Along with edit warring of unsourced content on a BLP even though discussion was initiated on the talk page (which has been ignored) over a week ago:
- So although I appreciate an admin reformatting this report,[82] it would have been more helpful if you would have blocked the editor who is apparently here only to start trouble. I suppose I could have been less lazy myself and formatted it correctly the first time, of course.