Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 20 September 2009

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Tiamut reported by User:Jaakobou (Result: prot)

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

• 1st revert: 09:34, 9 September 2009, removing, "nine terror attacks between March 2-5", originally in article between June 2008-August 2009, removed repeatedly --sans explanation -- by IP (sample 1, 2, 3), reinserted in 02:55 by Jaakobou.
  • Comment: IP requested Tiamut edit-war for them and has made no attempt at discussion on the article talk page.
• 2nd revert: 16:02, 9 September 2009, revert Jalapenos do exist.
• 3rd revert: 19:59, 9 September 2009, large edit - sample re-insertions without discussion: (a) "According to" in aftermath, (b) "unequivocal victory", as well as (c) controversial ' Cheryl Rubenberg ' source. Corrections and concerns were made by Jaakobou.
• 4th revert: 17:02, 10 September 2009, large "undo all of Jaakobou's (edit)" revert - sample issues: (a) "According to", (b) "unequivocal victory" (used 2 times in the same paragraph), (c) removal of "Israeli success" (Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered.), (d) reinsertion of controversial Cheryl Rubenberg source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , - She's also been blocked for edit-warring before and edit warred recently on Battle of Jenin, a sub-article of Operation Defensive Shield (warned by Black Kite).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits

Comments:
Tiamut is not a new user, and a combative approach supplemented by 4 reverts to the work of others in approx. 30 hours are not okay, especially when just recently she violated 3RR on a sub-article of the same article (see above note). Tiamut has been recently warned to avoid adversarial behavior by 3 separate admins.

• - I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) static link
• - Edit Warring - I looked at the report about you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and though I declined to block based on that report, it is clear that you may need to seek a less adversarial way of editing on controversial articles. I understand that it takes two to edit-war, but it would be better not to allow yourself to be sucked into blindly reverting. Thanks, Black Kite 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• - Decorum - I noticed a post that you had made, and I hoped that you would think about striking parts of it to help preserve the civil atmosphere and decorum of Misplaced Pages. Phrases like "So please take your supposedly "warm regards" Jaakobou, and stuff them" and this don't really help, although I do understand that you and Jaakobou have a history. I really want to echo Black Kite's words here; it would be great if you could continue the excellent work you are doing on Misplaced Pages without edit warring as much; try to voluntarily restrict yourself to 1RR and discuss calmly on the talk page (giving yourself at least 10 minutes between each reply) before undoing an edit. NW (Talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

2009-09-10T21:14:03 Skomorokh (talk | contribs | block) m (28,708 bytes) (Protected Operation Defensive Shield: Full protection: dispute. using TW ( (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.138.10.158 and user:68.9.22.155 reported by - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } (Result: semi)

• Three-revert rule violation on Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.138.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:

1. 09:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
2. 07:58, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
3. 08:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
4. 13:15, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
5. 13:27, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
6. 13:35, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
7. 13:45, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
8. 13:48, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
9. 13:51, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
10. 13:54, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
11. 14:07, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
12. 14:23, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13. 14:25, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
14. 14:28, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
15. 14:31, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:

1. 02:11, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
2. 02:17, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
3. 00:33, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 13:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
5. 20:54, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 01:25, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "input poems")
7. 14:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "seven trees")
8. 15:16, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:08, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
10. 13:24, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
11. 13:29, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
12. 13:36, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13. 13:47, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
14. 13:50, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
15. 13:53, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
16. 13:55, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.

More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.

The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa (Result: 31h )

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The entirety of the following sections on the talk page have dealt with the current problem:

Comments:

I concur with Lisa's report here. Pico's edits involve the elimination of sources in favor of a singular POV, and he is not willing to work toward a consensus. His arguments lately have been that since he does not agree, there is no consensus, and therefore the edits should go his way to the exclusion of two other editors who disagree. Rather than engage in content dispute here, the edit warring needs to stop so that collaboration can return to the article in question.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that PiCo was warned about this on another article only a few weeks ago (). -Lisa (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unfair - an edit war is only possible if two sides are involved, and Lisa and Tim have certainly been involved.

The article attracts very little attention from editors. When I stated editing it, it had no reliable sources and presented what Tim would call "a singular point of view", namely that the Bible is true in every word. This is not to say it had no sources at all: it quoted a mystical Jewish rabbi from the 19th century, a Creationist Christian, and the Seder Olam, a Jewish text from (I think) the 6th century AD. It did NOT quote any modern scholarship. I replaced this with a version that relied on current biblical scholarship. Lisa doesn't like it because it offends her religious sensibilities, and Tim hasn't been very clear as to why he doesn't like it. Neither of them have given good reasons.

But, there has indeed been an edit war between the three of us. If you look at the talk page you'll see that I've suggested ways of avoiding this, but Lisa and Tim insist on wholesale reversion. I'd still like to find a reasonable way forward, and so I'd be grateful if the admins could suggest what we do next. PiCo (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pico, we need to avoid bogging down this page with content issues. My preference is for an NPOV article that reflects all notable and verifiable POVs. The modern scholastic POV must certainly be included, as well as older and fundamentalist ones -- because of their notability on this subject. I've only reverted to restore content that you deleted. I have no objection to content you want to add. Just, please add it without deleting other work. Since I didn't write the earlier work, I can't go back and rewrite it to include it as easily as you can simply weave your own additions into the existing article. We are WRITING an encyclopedia, not deleting or replacing one. There are times for deletion, but this isn't it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Though other editors should try in future to intervene (report here or at WP:RFPP) earlier to avoid edit warring themselves, though the only person to violate 3RR is the blocked user, who has been blocked for 3RR in the past on the same article. Nja 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The moment PiCo's block expired, he reverted the article again, in the exact same way he did the four times that I reported here before. The block had no effect whatsoever. I don't want to simply revert it back, because then I'll be edit warring, and I'd rather not request page protection, because the last time I tried that (a year or two ago), the page wound up being "protected" in the state the edit warrior chose, which sort of defeated the purpose.

Please help. I'm trying to do this according to the rules, but PiCo apparently doesn't care about the rules. -Lisa (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of what's essentially a fifth reversion: (). -Lisa (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Validbanks 34 reported by User:Terrillja (Result: Warned)

Page: Mac OS X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently at 3rr, they are fighting over phrasing of whether the OS is Unix-based or not.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Validbanks 34 Gu1dry (Gu1dry removed their warning and did a 3rd revert)

--Terrillja _talk 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• (Taken from WP:ANI) I think the question now is regardless of whatever his intention maybe, but rather, it is his action that speaks volume of his personal standing when the two of them lost their cool conducting edits on the article page of Mac OS X, and ended up edit warring between themselves. However, the temporary block template which User:gu1dry had placed on User:Validbanks 34's talk page is in itself a wilful act of imposting as an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to give the Validbanks 34 a wrong impression and that in itself is liable for immediate Block for disruptive editing. You do not do something on Misplaced Pages just to prove a point to a fellow editor, no matter what your viewpoint is! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Agreed, though 3RR has been broken here and thus they should get a block. I edit the article a bit too much for my comfort to issue the block myself however. Other editor should be warned about behaviour so they can do better next time. Nja 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Good report, but the problem has subsided for now, and both editors warned in one way or another, further it was discussed to some extent at ANI. Re-report edit warring by either user please. Nja 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Validbanks 34 has come off his block & continues to edit war. I also I should have not been block, I was reverting Validbanks 34's disruptive edits of going against the consensus on the talk page about the OS Family. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:חכמביום (Result:No Violation)

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

This user has been deleting the same sourced information over and over for the last few weeks on the grounds that he/she thinks it is promoting someone's book and he/she doesn't like the theories expounded in it. User:חכמביום has edited only this page, Yehuda Amichai, and seems to be a sockpuppet for some earlier user who consistently removed the same material. Is there anything that can be done? Messages to this person, from me and others, have not helped. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not an accusation of 3RR. It was an accusation of persistently removing sourced information on POV grounds. If you can't help, please let me know who can.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at ANI, for lack of a better location. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have dismissed the case too quickly. A little while ago, User:חכמביום reverted the material in question for the third time today. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected All three of you are edit warring and all three of you could be blocked. To make things simpler, though, I'll just protect the page.

The point is, all of you are reverting one another without even giving edit summaries, and I don't see any evidence of consensus anywhere (the fact that it's two-against-one at the talk page doesn't mean there's a big "consensus"). Who knows, maybe חכמביום's edits are totally bad, but that should be dealt with through discussion, not through edit warring, Please take the time while this article is under protection to seek outside input (try Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Israel or WT:WikiProject Jewish culture) in the discussion. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is an incorrect reading of the situation. There are comments by a fourth person asking this person to stop (look at his page). After several blanket reversions by חכמביום, I did a total overhaul of the article to create a separate section for the sourced information "he doesn't like," but that did not appease him. He has "edited" only one article, this one, and contributed nothing of any value to Misplaced Pages. He is a vandal, and I can't believe that has escaped notice.--Gilabrand (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Read What is not vandalism before continuing. Throwing around the "vandal" label incorrectly is irresponsible and unconstructive, and makes people have little interest in anything else you have to say either—i.e., even if you have a good point to make, if you make a fool of yourself by incorrectly accusing people of "vandalism" you just shoot yourself in the foot. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the information on this page more carefully. It says that Vandalism is" Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason...Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." I believe that applies here, unless "not liking the information" is a valid reason.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that guideline refers to page blanking like this. Removing stuff during a content dispute, when the user has stated his reasons at the talk page (doesn't matter if the reasons are valid or not, he has still stated them), is not vandalism. Insisting on calling your enemies "vandals" is childish. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I never called this person an "enemy" and I think you are out of line in making that assumption. You have also called me childish, irresponsible, unconstructive and a fool. I am sorry, but you have overstepped the bounds of a "neutral judge." --Gilabrand (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was neutral when I started. You have only your behavior to thank for swaying me one way or the other. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. You came here hostile and you don't deserve to be in any kind of authoritative position. You ought to block yourself for incivility. I came here to seek advice on a dispute which you have not helped to resolve. On the contrary.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hostile? My first edit to this thread was to suggest forums where you could get your problems solved. The first "hostility" was when you began to throw around the "vandal" moniker without having ever read that page. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:24.2.247.208 reported by User:DJ Clayworth (Result: Warned)

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and also others.
User being reported: 24.2.247.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The pattern of behaviour is easy to determine from the user's edit list.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a persistent pattern of expanding the US healthcare debate onto any article that may be even marginally relevant; also of reverting changes to those articles to their preferred version; all this over a period of several months without any single attempt to discuss the matter. I would appreciate another admin's presence in these disputes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No edit warring since warning. –Juliancolton |  18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he comes in and does a burst of editing and then goes away. He'll probably be back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

...and he's back. No talk, no rationale, just a revert. I'd block him myself if I wasn't involved in the article. Another admin, please... DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User User:Johnsy88 reported by user:snowded (Result: Declined)

Page: English Defence League User being reported Johnsy88

• ist revert: reinsertion of Labour Party:
• 2nd revert Labour party again
• 3rd revert switches to Fabian Society possibly to avoid 3rr
• 4th revert" Fabian Society again
• 5th revert Fabian Soceity
• 6th revert Fabian Society

Warning issued here:

This is one of those all too frequent cases where any criticism of a subject has to be qualified by a designation of that person as "left wing" "right wing" or similar. In this case a Minister of the UK Government has made a statement about an extreme group, and the editor concerned is constantly inserting qualifications. This is a problematic article with some other extreme statements such as this by another editor. Aside from the 3RR issue the article may need some admin attention. --Snowded 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Editor seems to have stopped edit warring after warning -- that last revert was only a minute after the warning, and they may not have seen it before saving.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:EnterStanman reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: withdrawn, editor blocked per AIV)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

BLP warning placed on user talk page, without response:

Comments:

User:EnterStanman has repeatedly added unsourced claims to a BLP, intended to place the article subject in an unfavorable light, holding her up to ridicule and/or disparaging her. EnterStanman's only response to warnings has been an ineffective attempt to add a phony protection template to the page . There is no good faith/legitimate content dispute here; EnterStanman has made no attempt to provide the sourcing unquestionably required by WP:BLP. My reverts to the page are exempt from 3RR as removals of clear BLP violations and vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No action required, request withdrawn. Editor blocked on prior AIV report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Aigest reported by User:Athenean (Result: )

Page: Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Aigest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Tendentious editor, also keeps re-adding material the same material over and over ] even though there is no consensus for it and it has been removed by other users . Although user participates in the talk page, he does so in a tendentious, disruptive manner, repeating the same thing over and over while pretending not to hear, with the result that other users give up in frustration . --Athenean (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned As there was no warning given, and the editor has taken to discussing on talk instead of reverting, I don't feel right blocking at this point. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note that this user was blocked in July for edit warring. –Juliancolton |  23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the first change, Veigand position has been exposed at Hamp above and below, the fact that "it was argued by one of the great specialists on the Balkan languages, Gustav Weigand, that the Albanian language itself is not of Illyrian stock" is pure non scientific argument. The linguistic arguments should have their point, just like those above and below in the same text. Apart the fact that Veigand position 1927 (!) is very outdated it also has been challenged even by Vladimir I. Georgiev 1960 who also argues the non illyrian origin. Either use Veigand 1927 or Georgiev 1960. Both of them is WP:SYNTH (Note that Georgiev is used below)

The second change here is very funny. The paragraph here was "The phonetics of the bulk of the Albanian lexicon are moreoever of Thracian origin.(website ref) However, as with Illyrian, most Dacian and Thracian words and names have not been closely linked with Albanian (Hamp linguist ref)" Apart the fact that not many traces of Thracian or Dacian languages are left (see relevant articles) and this make wonder how they can be the bulk of Albanian lexicon, it is that either first or second are wrong because they are contradictory. Being Eric P. Hamp a well know linguist it was left while non logical website ref has been put aside.

As for the third change it was pure WP:SYNTH as has been argued here in the talk page by me. A combination of multiple sources for arriving at a conclusion, moreover user Megistias misused the sources as it is explained his statements are not found in the reference book he points to.

The fourth and the fifth change are related to the same paragraph. None of the editors came to the talk page to discuss why I said this paragraph as a WP:SYNTH.

While another editor did not reply to my specific accusations that author did WP:SYNTH and misused the sources http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Albanians&diff=314495088&oldid=314360738 the answer was that

"An informed presentation of mainstream opinion isn't "WP:SYNTH". But of course, in order to be able to give such a presentation, you would need to understand mainstream opinion first, wouldn't you." A great explanation, moreover he was accussing me of POV while in the same time heis position is clear as stated above by himself "The Albanian and Illyrian languages have nothing to do with one another, barring a handful of possible loans."  So much for the supposed NPOV position!

Actually I am discussing the issue in the talk page with another editor which does not avoid the answer and does not make personal attacks. Aigest (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Validbanks 34 Round 2 reported by User:Gu1dry (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Mac OS X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Validbanks 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

24 3RR block

• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: x5

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Validbanks 34 came off their 24 temp block & immediately went back to edit warring. They have also continued to go against the consensus of the talk page to keep the OS Family of Mac OS X as Unix. I have stayed out the second wave of the undoing, even though I shouldn't have been temp blocked in the first place. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours (by another sysop). –Juliancolton |  00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I really doubt a second 24hr block will do much good, but thank you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
• 2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
• 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
• 4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
• 3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009
• Report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009
• 31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009
• 31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
• 5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 rv to the version with reliable sources.
• 6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)

PiCo's rationale:

• 09:59, 17 September 2009
• 11:29, 17 September 2009

Comments:

Given PiCo's accusation in his reversion comments that I was being emotional, I found it interesting to see his comment on the 6th reversion. It's clear from the two diffs under "PiCo's rationale" that PiCo wants to be banned. And that he intendes to be disruptive until he is banned.

I hope that doesn't happen. PiCo is a good editor, even if he has problem understanding what WP:NPOV means sometimes. But there needs to be some way to prevent him from disruptive editing. Is it possible to block a user from a specific article? If he can be barred from editing Chronology of the Bible, at least for a while, maybe he can get back to more constructive editing. -Lisa (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• by another admin \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rodgarton (Result: 24h)

Revert warring over several articles with several editors, is at four reverts at Joseph Banks Rhine: and five at Displacement (parapsychology) Shoemaker's Holiday 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton |  15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mitch1981 reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mitch1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Comments:In the above diffs, Mitch1981 has reverted the edits of at least four editors. He has been repeatedly asked to stop and refuses. Instead of discussing on the talk page for a consensus, he has involved in an edit war. --Turkish Flame 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Uladelz reported by User:SKS2K6 (Result: 15h)

Page: 2PM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Uladelz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
  • Plus more reverts afterwards.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is concering a Korean boy band that recently had its leader leave the group amidst controversial remarks he made about South Korea. It is a sourced, proven fact that the group will now continue on with 6 members, as per remarks made by the management company/label. However, this user has constantly reverted any changes to the page that make it 6 members and reverts it back to his original edit (which undid the 6-member change to begin with).

I would like to disclose that the 2PM talk page warning did come late (like, before this posting), but it's clear from the article that any indication of the group being 7 members is just but a fan wish, as there are multiple sources indiciating the group's 6-member status. Please also note that the user has blanked his talk page twice ( and ), erasing warnings and notices regarding the 2PM page.

This is essentially a combination of a 3RR violation and just plain disruptive editing. It's obvious that the user doesn't want to discuss the issue or even look at it reasonably. SKS (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 15 hours Nja 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The editor has also broken 3RR removing my comments from the article's talk page. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) by another administrator. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything counts reported by User:173.66.252.156 (Result: Declined)

Page: The College Dropout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Everything counts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

This, too, is essentially a combination of a 3RR violation and just plain disruptive editing. It's obvious that the user Everything counts doesn't want to discuss the issue or even look at it reasonably, clinging to WP:RS as if OHHLA and Last.fm aren't notable web sites, the former existing for over a decade and run by a pioneer of the online hip-hop community, who screens submissions to OHHLA, and the latter a very popular site owned by CBS. The sources in question are a tracklisting indicating a particular version of a song and a pair of lyrics transcriptions demonstrating the repeat use of a rap verse. I believe this user is attempting to take ownership by reverting my (reliable) references and reinstating his (unnecessary) fact tags rather than allow the article to be improved. 173.66.252.156 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Declined You're edit warring just as badly as he is. Both of you need to stop editing and start discussing. Any more reverts from either of you and there will be blocks. Try using WP:Third opinion or posting a question at WP:WikiProject Hip Hop to get more input from other users. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. Anyone who is familiar with the material in the article already knows the truth; the references were satisfy Everything counts' requests. A tracklisting and proof of the verse being reused, what more can he want? This isn't the UN; I'll probably continue reinstating my references when he reverts them, so you might as well block us both now unless someone wants to familiarize him with the reliability of OHHLA and Last.fm as sources. I'd rather do it my way than yours; too much work, and this site and article don't really matter anyway. 173.66.252.156 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't the place to have a content dispute, it's just for reporting edit warring. If you want to post a message about why you think your references are good, do so at the article talk page or at User talk:Everything counts—since neither of you have made an attempt to discuss things with one another.

If you "do things your way" and if doing things your way means edit warring, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

TelsaBlue reported by Cardamon (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

• 2nd revert:

• 3rd revert:

• 4th revert:

• 5th revert:

• 6th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A new account is attempting to force nonstandard theories about physics into the Hollow Earth article. Cardamon (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (Result: Declined)

A user called WLU constantly deletes references supporting the AAH, even factual errors that have been corrected appear again if the correct fact might add possibility to the AAH.--87.188.223.239 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined No evidence of edit warring; in WLU's only recent set of edits, all he did was add references. Next time you file a report, please use the template that is linked at the top of the page and follow the instructions. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: One week)

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

• 1st revert: 18:05, 18 September 2009
• 2nd revert: 19:26, 18 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 18 September 2009
• 4th revert: 13:54, 19 September 2009
• 5th revert: 20:12, 19 19 September 2009 (slightly outside)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
This time the user did discuss his edit on the talk page so it's definitely an improvement over previous cases (see), however there is a posting which might explain the numerous reverts over many articles performed by this user recently and in the past. When accused of WP:HOUND-ing (), he replied "First of all, controlling the contributions of potentially disruptive editors is not Wikistalking"() It seems that the user is attempting to control the contributions of others resulting in the past problems. An alternative explanation is that the user is not familiar with the various policies or doesn't realize that his edits are problematic. Previously it was suggested by admin Ultraextrazz that ""May I suggest, if you plan to continue editing in this area, that you self-impose a 1RR editing restriction on yourself?". "Editing in this area" seems to be key with many of the user's edits being Hungarian related, which is slowly getting noticed by other users (exl.). It could be beneficial if the user broadens his editing range a bit to include a wider range of topics. Hobartimus (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Fourth block in a month. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza_War#background

Comments:
nableezy - 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Obviously a lot of edit-warring around the table. Enjoy the holiday. -- tariqabjotu 23:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Due respect tariqabjotu, but that makes no sense at all. There is a lot of information coming into that article as a result of the UNHCR report and protecting it when you have one user reverting against 2 over things that were presumably resolved 2 weeks ago is not the best way of dealing with the issue. There are a number of users adding information and preventing that because one user is not happy he is not getting his way is not all that smart. nableezy - 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I can see that, and I think I mistakenly looked at Arabmaniac's edits as more legitimate than they really were (and, thus, there was no edit-warring in reverting him).-- tariqabjotu 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Paradoxic reported by User:Alefbe (Result: both blocked)

Page: International al-Quds Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Paradoxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

(the total number of reverts and partial reverts is more than that and includes other reverts such as , and )

Comment: The user is not new to Misplaced Pages and is already aware of the 3RR and had been previously warned and blocked for violating it in 2006. Overall, he/she has about 550 edits and has received warning from about 10 different users (related to different issues, from 3RR to personal attacks). Alefbe (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• For each of the reverts linked above, could you also provide a diff of the edit that Paradoxic was reverting? From my skimming the history, it's not clear if all of these are reverts, because I can't really tell what he's undoing, and it seems to be different for each one. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In all those reverts that I mentioned, he brought back a propaganda piece (by PressTV) in the section "2009 Quds Day protests". He also continued edit-warring in other reverts, but the 4 reverts that I mentioned should be enough to block him (so there's no need to discuss other reverts). Alefbe (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• The only one I've found so far is this (most recent, undoing ). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: His reverts are still going on . This is getting really ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to decline this. This article is clearly in the middle of a large burst of editing (seems like close to 100 edits a day since the 18th, and maybe 4,000 page views if you total up all the redirects) and in such a spurt there's always back-and-forth. Furthermore, the reverts of one another appear to be over a content disagreement (specifically, what I see is whether it was "thousands" or "millions" of people who marched.) In a situation like this, where the edits are not blatant vandalism and the article is being edited so heavily, I think it will be more effective to have a discussion at the article talkpage about what to do with the article and reach a consensus there; the people at the talkpage are the ones who know what's going on anyway. If you guys reach a consensus there that Paradoxic's edits are undesirable, and after that he keeps doing them, then you can report him for blocking at ANI or through an admin who has dealt with that article. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So you mean Paradox doesn't need to obey 3RR? 3RR is not related to vandalism. He is aware of 3RR and has violated 3RR and should be blocked for that. It doesn't matter if his edits are vandalism or not. Alefbe (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just said find a more appropriate place to discuss this. There appears to be a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page, and I'm not going to block someone in the middle of it if I see no evidence that the block will help. 3RR is only a guideline, per my standards, I don't block anyone unless it's clear how the block is going to improve the situation. Now, if you can have a discussion at the article and establish a clear consensus that these edits are bad, and Paradoxic continues doing them, then you can come back to me and I'll block him. But as of yet I don't see a strong reason to block. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if that's your approach, ask another admin to comment about this issue (Paradoxic's violation of 3RR). I think your approach is really against the 3RR policy. Alefbe (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Strike that; since my last message, both of you have continued reverting. Two apiece for each of you in just half an hour; now that's edit warring. Both blocked. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mysteryquest reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: stale)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both of you are edit-warring, not just him. (For example, reverts with unclear, unhelpful edit summaries like "those changes are not acceptable".) But I'm not taking any admin action on this since we already have a history; someone else can deal with it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He has broken the three revert rule; I haven't. We encourage users to not break the three revert rule. I have complied with that; he has not, and action is therefore both appropriate and mandatatory agauinst him while permissible but inappropriate against me.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You have made at least 3 reverts in the past 24 hours: 1 (reversing part of ), 2 (labeled as a revert), 3 (labeled as a revert). And your insistence that you aren't edit warring if you haven't broken 3RR suggests that you've forgotten all of your last big dispute about how 3RR works. Finally, your going up to 3 reverts and then stopping and making a big point about it is quite clearly gaming the system to get your "opponent" blocked.

Again, I'm not going to do anything because I already have a history with you. But to whatever admin does review this case: I strongly suggest you block both these editors for edit warring. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) I've made two reverts, not three. Anyone who clicks through your link will see through the ruse. (2) Blocking me would thus be an asinine reaction since it would send the message that there is no point in trying to follow the 3rr rule. It would tell editors: should you find yourself in or about to be in an edit war, don't feel constrained by the 3rr rule, make as many reverts as you like, because either way you'll still be blocked even if you've made only two reverts. No admin worth their salt would be so foolish as to undercut 3rr in that way. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. 3RR is not an entitlement. 3RR is not an entitlement. You have been told this several times before, but apparently it still has not sunk in. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And what "ruse" did I make? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, it's unfortunate that you still don't understand that your actions in our last confrontation on this point were inappropriate. You have evidently mistaken the community's indifference to the dispute for an endorsement of your position; it was not. You were and are wrong. As to this issue: I've made myself abundantly clear on the "3rr is not an entitlement" strawman. Never said it was. What I said was that if you want editors to work to avoid breaking 3rr, the rule and its consequences must have teeth. 3rr has deterred me from simply reverting all of Mysteryquest's destructive changes to the article en bloc, but if I had reason to believe that I was going to be blocked anyway, simply because two reverts allows an admin to block me, then gee, I have nothing to lose so I may as well make that third, fourth, umpteenth edit. Your "block 'em all and let God sort it out" interpretation of the rules is asinine because it increases the likelihood of edit warring, which is one reason why, as mentioned before, you were and are wrong in your interpretation. And lastly your ruse was in citing as a revert. The difference between a revert and an edit will often be unclear because almost any edit to an existing article can be said, in a manner of speaking, to undo another editor's changes in part. The community has thus taken a common sense approach, one that rejects your reductio ad absurdum view that a constructive edit can be branded a revert for the convenience of an admin fishing for reasons to block both sides of a dispute rather than the one who broke the rules.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Your edit undid all the changes to the first two sentences that had been made in the previous set of edits. Thus, it is a revert.

But here we go, once again you're trying to distract people from your own misconduct by wikilawyering, changing the subject, writing long rants, and generally being disruptive. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) In any case, this has gone stale by now; no other admins seem to have been active at this page all day, and it's too late for there to be any point blocking anymore. If edit warring continues this can be brought up again, but for now I'm leaving you both warnings and suggesting you discuss things before edit warring. Simon, I will not be blocking you because I don't believe in punitive blocks, but I will leave a note in your block log to reflect that you should have been blocked if an admin had acted here more quickly. If you disagree you're welcome to contest it somewhere, and create even more drama (again). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Inquietudeofcharacter reported by WayGoneOr (Result: Declined)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boston_College&diff=302865941&oldid=302706042

Previous version reverted to:

Please note that from July 1 through July 21, the user in question edited the page approximately 44 times: much more than anyone else. One telling revert is this one (please note the deletion of references from the paragraph's bottom. During mediation, it became obvious to the other party that the Carnegie citation does not belong in the opening sentence where he or she was insisting on placing it:

• 1st revert:

I have tried seeking a request for comment, but the mediator whom I have sought to corroborate the story has evidently been away. Though the page's instructions say the request should have been deleted after 48 hours, it is still intact after nearly 21 days!

I do not know how to warn the other user, I am--or would be--quite new here. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempted mediation:

Comments:

The other user 'tattooed' my talk page with--unfounded--notices about vandalism when I tried to log in and clean up the introductory section and reference information that had long been presented there. There has not really been ground to attempt a direct dialogue, so I brought the matter to the mediation cabal, and informed the other user of the case (See link above). He or she participated initially, continuing to controversially revise the page, and then refused to continue with mediation. The problems with the user's actions have not been acknowledged, my talk page unfortunately still reflects this behavior, and contributions made in good faith are still erased. WayGoneOr (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined There are lots of things you should be doing rather than reporting this here. First of all, there is no recent edit to be reported—the last time Inquietude edited this article at all was 10 days ago, and the revert you linked to is a full two months old. Misplaced Pages blocks are to prevent immediate damage to the encyclopedia when a person is being disruptive right now; they are not used for punishment during a dispute. See Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. Plus, you yourself have been gone for over 20 days—what suddenly prompted you to file this report now, of all times???
• Secondly, I see no appropriate attempt at discussion. You have never posted a message at Talk:Boston College, and the last time you sent this user a message was 2 months ago. disputes should be resolved through discussion, not edit warring and noticeboard reports. And I don't see what you mean by "I don't know how to warn the other user"—nothing fancy is required, you can just send them a message. It's strange that you say you don't know how to send a user a message but you do know how to file a MEDCAB case.
• Finally, I don't see anything wrong with the other user's editing. This is a content disagreement, not inappropriate editing; editors are always free to disagree over how to best word a paragraph or whatnot. The other user's edits are certainly not vandalism (please read What vandalism is not before ever accusing someone of vandalism; usually when people call each other "vandals" they are misusing the term and it just pisses everyone off). Plus, the message he left at your page were not "tatooing" you with notices—from what I can tell, what he sent you was a carefully written and well-thought-out point-by-point explanation of the changes he was making, and why he thought they were appropriate, with links to Misplaced Pages policies to support them. That is the very crux of discussion.
• So, long story short, there is no point blocking anyone here, nothing to do here. You, however, do need to read up on some policies and try to edit more cooperatively. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are capable of reading my post here, you would see that I have been waiting for a request for comment during the past 3 weeks! What needs to be explained? The person made up LIES and posted them on my talk page, I then determined that the mediation cabal was the right place to turn. After the other user refused to follow through with mediation, the mediator suggested a request for comment and then disappeared. I had been waiting all of this time for the mediator to respond because two persons are needed for a request for comment, but there has been no activity from him.

The good faith edits I have made are still erased, and the only way to restore the information would be through "edit warring." You are not introducing a community that I care to participate in, so do non instruct me to do anything, unless you can be helpful toward me with this matter. WayGoneOr (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Flegelpuss reported by User:Tim Shuba (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Related edit warring on History of special relativity and Introduction to special relativity as well. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear edit-warring. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Izzedine (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Izzedine (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring