Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive103

User:Unitanode reported by User:TreadingWater (Result: Closed without blocks for 3RR)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have never reported an editor for 3RR before, so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in this report; I'm trying, in good faith, to do this correctly. User Unitanode has blatantly disregarded Wikipedia rules and made clearly innappropriate edits. I will focus here, though, just on his violation of 3RR in this case. When he made his fourth edit within 24 hours, I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR, and asked him to please self-revert this fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert this edit, but he erased my 3RR warning from his talk page! I then pointed out on another page again that he was aware of 3RR because he had referenced his understanding of the 3RR rule yesterday, and I also then provided him with a new link describing the specifics of the 3RR rule to make absolutely sure he understood this rule, and again asked him to please self-revert. He has seen these warnings but refuses to self-revert. Because he has chosen to so blatantly disregard Wikipedia rules, I ask you to please give him a long enough block from editing so that he will be deterred in the future from disregarding Wikipedia rules. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is the first "revert" a revert? This is clearly an edit war, in which both sides should back off and use the talk page more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first revert is a revert because Unitanode came along and changed it from Jones to Boomer, after it had been Jones for a long time. You're right, that this is an edit war, and a difficult one because Unitanode is so unwilling to discuss on the talk pages. I've repeatedly tried to get him to approach this in a collaborative way, rather than edit warring.


 * He keeps showing an utter disregard for the rules; shouldn't he be deterred from doing this? Today, his behavior is even worse. He initiated a nonesense investigation today for sockpuppetry against me (I believe as retaliation against me for making this 3RR report yesterday). And now he uses that as an excuse for further disregarding the rules. He reverted the Generation Y page 5 times in the last few hours, claiming he can do that because he suspects that the editors he is reverting are sockpuppets (they aren’t). Isn't that a decision that administrators make? I strongly want to revert to what I feel is accurate info in these articles, but I’m respecting the rules and not reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. I feel like this is very unfair because I'm being punished for following Wikipedia rules and he is being rewarded for breaking the rules. Here are the 5 GenY reverts he made today:
 * Please block this editor in a way that will deter him form continuing this flaunting of Wikipedia rules.TreadingWater (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet investigation seems justified, although I'm not convinced that TreadingWater is really one of the socks, he may just be telling people off-Wiki what articles need to be watched. Unfortunately, although I agree with Unitanode as to the proper content of most of the articles in question, he has probably violated 3RR on Generation Y, and TreadingWater has not recently violated 3RR unless he and one of the other SPAs are considered to be the same (which does not require they technically being sock puppets; could be meat puppets).  I may not close the AN3 report, but the sock puppet question seems legitimate to me, and I would reluctantly block Unitanode for Generation Y, if he had been warned. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe I have been dealing with a large number of sock/meat puppets, as I reported on SPI, and have been addressing them as such, while waiting for the SPI to be addressed. But I'll stop until the question is settled, if it's a problem. Unitanode  02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war, even for a "good reason"... instead just let it slide till the report is processed. Which it now is, see Sockpuppet investigations/TreadingWater. To all, in this case, I strongly recommend leniency for Unitanode.... just don't do it again. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)




 * Comment: I will not make the final decision here; however, I will point out that the SPI report indicates that TreadingWater has been using multiple accounts on this and other articles to keep it in xir preferred version for some time. As important, Unitanode had agreed above to stop editing in this area until the SPI report was completed; thus any edit warring had already stopped. I note TreadingWater had also violated 3RR here. I would urge this to be closed without any blocks related to this. Risker (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unitanode agrees to stop editing in the area for now; Treadinwater has other issues to deal with. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Twospoonfuls reported by User:Number36 (Result: 24h all round)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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

(Just some examples)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Talk:Eurymedon vase

User Twospoonfuls has been consistantly reverting the page Eurymedon vase‎, these changes have been made by a number of editors, and on the talk page clear arguments for catagory headings were put forward and agreed upon by everyone except Twospoonfuls who explicitly admited that he feels ownership of the page and disregards anybody who disagrees with him, and also feels he doesn't have to put forward an argument to support his position. His reverts were originally characterized by such edit summeries as "no thanks" etc, but he has been reverting all the recent changes as vandalism, despite having it pointed out quite clearly that good faith edits should not be described as such and pointed in the direction of the relevent guidelines. As well as the three revert rule also being pointed out to him. The original discussion on the talk page ended with Twospoonfuls declaring that he would treat any edits he did not agree with as vandalism, him saying that changes to the page were his decision as the major contributor to the page and unilaterally stating that the discussion was closed. Number36 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the bit of the template that said "evidence of trying to solve the dispute on the talk page"? Weeeeelllll... its not there just for fun, you know. 24h both parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaCarax reported by User:SoWhy (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:

This is not a 3RR report but a edit-warring report, thus no diffs. This user has been removing genres from In a Perfect World... despite being warned and blocked twice for violating 3RR. Since I blocked them the last two times, I'd appreciate if another admin here were to handle the continued edit-warring by this user from here (to provide a second set of eyes). Regards  So Why  12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * — Aitias // discussion  13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Pakapshem reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The user seems to be a newcomer (ca. 1 month) and part of a pro-Albanian team of the already 4 times blocked user User:Sarandioti. It seems quiet erroneous, but he insist on deleting the town's mayor (and main representative of the Greek minority in Albania) in the list of notable personalities. He also continues the same activity in the articles: Spyros Spyromilios (3rr), Lunxhëri‎ (3rr). Although I've tried to make an reasonable approach in his talk page [], he continues the same activityAlexikoua (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that at this point, some sort of ARBMAC sanction such as revert limits might be in order in addition to a block. --Athenean (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kürfurst reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Both warned)
Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues.

1 2 3 4

Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These are from two different articles and do not violate 3RR at all... take note that there is an ongoing consensus forming process on the subject, and the reporting editor simply ignores it and behaves as he owns the article and behaves confrontationally on the talk page, see:  I have reverted to the version of Bzuk, who had suggested a discussion on the talk page. This editor ignores this complete, and continues to edit the disputed section to push through his POV. Take note of his edit comments.


 * This editor has an ongoing feud against my person which is going on now for about a month. I am trying to put up with it and not respond, I can provide dozens of diffs for this, but for simplicity, it is also evidenced on the editors talk page, see.


 * The editor has been warned dozens of times, by me, several administrators, and all his blocks have been received because of personal attacks and incivility against my person. I ask the admins to intervene and stop this behaviour pattern of his. Kurfürst (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignore the nonsense, and look at his block log and edit history. I'm the seventh editor to log a complaint in as many weeks. He's trying to deflect attention form his 3RRR. He's also trying to use the support of Minorhistorian, who he has been in conflict with for two years - he won't like that. Dapi89 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * outside opinion from r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs  First of all, this report is malformed and some admins would ignore it just for that; in the future, Dapi, if you ever need to report someone here, please do so using the Click here to add a new report link and filling out the report properly.
 * Now, as for the edit warring...as far as I can tell, both of you are edit warring. Dapi, you seem to have inserted the material before a clear consensus was reached at the talk page; more editors have weighed in since then, but your first edit may have been premature. Kurfürst, you have a history of blocks for edit warring and you really should be following the "one-revert rule" to avoid further problems.
 * I'd like to hear what another admin has to say here, but personally my course of action would be to warn both of you for edit warring (consider this message your warning) and ask that neither of you edit the article directly for at least 48 hours, but stick to the talk page instead. Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit), but you should each stick to the talk page and let someone else determine consensus and do the actual editing for now. If either of you start revert warring again on this article during that time, I would consider blocking one or both of you (particularly you, Kurfürst, since now there are two editors who have reverted you). But again, I'll let another admin here make the final decision. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus always has been "Decisive British Victory". Kurfurst has tried before to have this overturned, but failed. I have presented the sources from people like Richard Holmes, Richard Overy and John Terraine (who Kurfurst has accussed of lying on the talk page!)
 * I can't believe I can be considered for a block - I have made 2 reversions, both restoring masses of sourced material - while this guy has been removing material, all over the place. I'm just trying to do my best as an editor, while others are agenda driven. Dapi89 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...I forgot: Rjanag, the stuff about the report is duly noted. Dapi89 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit) - I disagree. Two editors in favour, at least two against (from those who are actively participating in the discussion), some made clear that the infobox is not a place for this. If you look at the history of the article, editor Bzuk suggested a discussion of the subject on the talk page. I have since respected that, and made no edits myself, while Dapi89 and EnigmaMcmxc ignored it, and both started to revert Bzuk and add their own versions again. I merely reverted their edit back to the established version (against my own suggested edit!) that was suggested by Bzuk (and which was there before the dispute over it started) until a consensus can be reached on the article in the talk page, which was again reverted. The consensus is that this should be discussed first, which these two editors ignore and try to force through their own POV with reverts. Personally, I have no problem of refraining from editing the article for 48 hours, or longer, if the consensus finding takes a longer period, but I strongly desist the way Dapi89] behaves on wikipedia. This whole ruckuss is no more than another chapter in his personal feud against my person, and a misuse of the ANI. [[User:Kurfürst|Kurfürst (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kurfurst, you have done multiple reverts on both the articles linked from here. Regardless of what is going on at the talk page, this sort of reverting is inappropriate. This page is not a place to argue over content issues; you can do that at the article talk page. In any case, please refrain from editing either of the articles directly, for at least 48 hours (but, better yet, until the issues are resolved on the talk page and an outside editor decides what to do). If you revert again during that time, it will probably lead to a block; the argument has reached a point now where you are no longer at a point where you can decide what the consensus is. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see my edits any more inappropriate than any other editor editing those articles, especially than those who ignored the consensus finding process and kept commenting their edits in a rather agitated manner. I suppose to rules apply to equally, and while its true and agreed that the argument has reached a point where a single editor can no longer decide what the consensus is, it applies to all editors involved equally. Otherwise, its just an encouragement for these editors to ignore the talk page and force their edits through reverts and false ANI reports. As noted, the editor making this report does not understand what the 3RR is and has a long history of edit warring, and personal grudge against me, for which he was blocked several times. But as noted, I have no problem with discussing the edits on the talk page first. Kurfürst (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since i have been dragged into this i would like to have my say and not what people think my intentions may or may not have been; the article infobox had no inline citations a few days back. I added one from my own sources on this battle that defines the battles outcome in a single sentance and placed it in the article to enhance the article. Since then additional editors added in more sources further supporting this and then this little edit war broke out. Today, as can be seen on the talk page, i collated the stuff myself and others had added from both sides of the argument resulting in 1 source apparently supports a strategic stalemate, 5 sources supporting a decisive British victory, 1 source stating a plain British victory and 2 sources claiming it was not decisive. Since this was all the material that had been brought up it was pretty clear what the consensus was. Additional sources were then found by other users further enhancing the consensus then looking at the edit history this material was removed because "conclusion was not yet reached on talk page". I work in an office, i hate red tape and having to prolong things - i established consensus and edited the article accordlingly. I am not attempting to force my own POV on anyone - as can be seen with other articles such as Operation Epsom that i heavily worked on the outcome states one thing that is consenus while a section is devoted to the multiple points of view that contridict it - something i suggested should be implimented in this article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, the irony of it all. Four reverts by the editor Dapi89 who filed this report in the last 24 hours in the same article... See:

EnigmaMcmxc], I see your point, but please take note that it may be a lenghtier process, and consensus is made by a discussion, not declared. Yes, I work in an office too, I know the feeling, but wiki ain't running anywhere. ;) So I suggest lets work out our sources on the talk page first before making any edits to the article. [[User:Kurfürst|Kurfürst (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, that's why you both got warnings.
 * You have both agreed to stop editing these articles (and have not edited them since that) and both appear to understand that further edit warring will lead to blocks. I don't see a need for anything else to be discussed here. No need beating a dead horse, let's move on and get some work done. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous User:86.42.75.173 User:87.198.164.254 User:86.42.65.193 reported by User:Oicumayberight (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I'm reporting this early because the user is reverting talk page comments that are not vandalism. I believe the person is gaming the system with anonymous IPs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but talk page comments should only be removed if they are vandalism. The user should respond to the comments if they don't agree with them rather than just delete them. I believe the user is reverting any reference to previous sections to hide their own involvement in previous discussions and hide any link from the real user name to the bold edits and disruption under the now multiple anonymous IPs. They all seem to be from Dublin Ireland, which seems to coincide with the home of an angry user in previous discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 June and 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I left this project. This user thinks they can do what ever they want on a talk page but cries foul every time someone archives a page. The user is once again attempting to refactor a section of discussion page after the originator disagreed with them several times. And of course the user resorted to attacks against the former me and has not WP:AGF.86.42.75.173 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Farsight001 reported by User:138.88.246.164 (Result: Declined)

 * Page: Catholic sex abuse cases
 * User: Farsight001


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

For more information - see --138.88.104.228 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Stale report: this page was protected yesterday because of the edit warring, and Farsight and the others involved have done no reverts since then. The IP filing this report has, however, reverted as soon as the block expired. Blocking the IP for 48 hours (if IP reverts again after block expires, it'll be extended to a week), and the page will be re-protected if other IP addresses start to revert. Deal with these issues on the talk page, guys, not the article. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Orsahnses reported by Vicenarian (Result: Blocked 24h)

 * Page:.
 * User:


 * Revision reverted to: [ 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 1st revert: [ 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 2nd revert: [ 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 3rd revert: [ 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 4th revert: [ 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 5th revert: [ 01:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 6th revert: [ 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 7th revert: [ 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]

Vicenarian (T · C) 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Just a note - it seems Huggle automatically adds reports here to the top. I'll note it over at WP:HG. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just looked through this user's history, and it's troubling. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly edit warring&mdash; four or five different editors have reverted him, he's had a chance to go to the talk page and has not. Blocked 24h. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:70.190.101.200 reported by User:Tedder (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: the good version


 * Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


 * Diff of 3RR warnings: 3rr by ForgottenManC, second and personal 3rr warning by me


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not really- but here's the encouragement to the user to use the article talk page)

After revert #6, the user did use the article talk page, but it certainly wasn't done in any better faith than the edit summaries above, which included some fairly weak personal attacks. As the IP continues to edit war rather than discuss, I'm requesting a block. tedder (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 week. 3RR + incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:Gogo123 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


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

Benjiboi is making multiple Edits sometimes 9 per day, changing or reverting any single person's comments on Cheyenne Jackson wiki page. The user will not allow any changes to the article that he does not approve of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo123 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 June 2009


 * You have not provided proper diffs of Benjiboi's reverts, and I see no 3rr warning on his talk page. No action will be taken here if you do not fill out the report properly.
 * Anyway, at this point no one should be editing the article, you should both be discussing the content issues at the article's talk page. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:122.104.191.25 reported by User:Elockid (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I discussed issue on the talk page. User is unwilling to discuss in talk page

Note: I suspect the anon user to be a sockpuppet of User:Orsahnses who is currently banned for continuous reversions without discussing in the talk page. This is evident by the unwillingness of the user to discuss the issue on the talk page and that the constant reversions are on the same article. Elockid (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks, and I have semi-protected the article. The duck test suggests that this is Orsahnses, and if the sockpuppet investigation there shows them to be linked then Orsahnses' block will be lengthened. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.50.228 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: self-rv)

 * Page:
 * Page:


 * User: /


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

97.xx removed a reliable source from two articles. Geoff B (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by Web H amster  (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:26, 29 June 2009  (edit summary: "Larry Sanger stopped contributing")
 * 2) 11:43, 30 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 299416350 by Cybercobra (talk) Well, we don't need a reliable source here. Besides, this is the official forum")
 * 3) 22:03, 30 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 299495464 by WebHamster (talk) it's not used as a source")
 * 4) 23:44, 30 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 299593329 by WebHamster (talk) don't understand what's wrong. This is from the "official" forum")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Web H amster  00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * TakuyaMurata warned and asked to start a discussion on the talk page. Will keep an eye on the article; if there are further reverts without discussion, it will lead to a block. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men, up to about 7RR now so it's looking like warning wasn't heeded. Though the article's talk page inherited the warning from his/her talk page. :( -- Web H amster  03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the user has not reverted since he was warned. Check contribs: I warned at 00:58, he started a section on the talk page around 01:08 or so, and has not edited the article since. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise that blocks aren't punitive, but sheesh, 7RR against 3 editors? Sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. -- Web H amster  06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you're getting 7, I count 4, and I don't see reverts on other articles either. (And, for the record, the first diff you listed isn't a revert, it's the first time he added the content). There's no reason to block him if he's not doing damage, and therefore no reason to block unless he starts warring again. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I had miscounted, it should have been 6 including the first one and an intermediate edit after reverting. But even so 4 is still more than 3, at least round here it is anyway. But as I said yes I do realise that blocks aren't punitive, but his behaviour was taking the piss whichever way you look at it. -- Web H amster  15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:67.169.148.163 reported by User:Moby-Dick3000 (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please block this user. He has reverted my edits several times without any discussion on the article's talk page. I warned him three times about the WP three-revert rule but he continued reverting. I also offered to compromise with him on the article's talk page but he ignored me.

Since this is an anonymous user, I think it would be wise to block the above IP address along with similar ones that show the same pattern of editing. This would prevent the same person from using multiple IP addresses to edit the same article. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind advice. I decided to semi the page instead William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention in this matter, William. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thumperward reported by User:Unknownzd (Result: Declined, no violation)

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SOCKS&diff=297388343&oldid=296896569
 * Previous version reverted to:

Actually he is not reverting all the content, but just reverting the part which is listing all SOCKS server software and only shows the link of the info of Sun Java System Web Proxy Server. Please note that he has stated out he is an employee of Sun Microsystem on his userpage, he also just calls that is "de-spam" stated which I think its totally nonsense as the useful links are removed too.

By the way I don't think he will look on the discussion page at all coz he has deleted all the links without any dicussion. So thats why I haven't tried to contact him. By the way he has reverted / edited the articles four times in 4 hours just for the fancy looking without any functional changes, and removed all the links that he doesn't want (i.e. all the SOCKS server software links that are not related to Sun Microsystem). I haven't tried to revert what he has done coz I don't want to start another war while I don't have any power to do so, coz he has reverted / deleted all the links which were at least on the page for 4 to 5 months already without any reasonable reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownzd (talk • contribs)
 * No edit warring here. I only see one set of edits from Thumperward (and it doesn't look like a revert to me), and there is no reverting in between them, so there's no edit war. Try discussing these issues with him or at the talk page rather than just coming here right away (there is no discussion at the talk page or at his talk page).
 * For general clarification... first of all, read WP:Edit war, or just the top of this page, to understand what edit warring is. Read WP:REVERT to understand why his edits were not four reverts (four edits in a row with nothing in between is considered one revert, not four, even if it is a revert). Finally, if you ever report someone here again, please fill out the report properly (provide diffs, etc.), as explained in the instructions. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Ban me (Result: OK)

 * Page:
 * User:

Already quite some time ago I came along the article formerly know as Persecution by Christians. I've partly cleaned it up, but be now the hassle has become to much for me. Recently, I got picked at by some Christian editors for the work I've done in relation to this topic see here and now I'm getting picked at by apparently atheist editors. My work for Wikipedia must have some value, one editor commented that he views me as "one of WP's finest editors in the areas of religion and recent history",diff but I am always caught in the line of fire and it hurts. I think I've broken 3rr this time, so you would have a reason to ban me for some time.

I've come here to write encyclopaedic articles, not to play some stupid games. I don't care who DreamGuy is or what standing he has at Wikipedia, but if he can take a verbatim quote from an academic textbook to be "blatant POV violation" diff, then obviously I can't discuss the topic with him. Hey, I am getting the message. I would like to quit Wikipedia so that you can continue your stupid POV-battles and produce encyclopaedic junk like most articles from Template:Religious persecution, but I care too much about what I understand to be the truth, academically speaking. If you want to have articles on religious persecution and related issues, these should be on the level of the academic debate. By our standard of wp:reliable sources you can't object to the sentences: "Nowadays, 'persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith' and Christians of all denominationss embrace religious toleration and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.(ref: Coffey 2000: 206.) until you bring forward another reliable source that disagrees.Zara1709 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what the game is here, but you have 4R so I've blocked you for 24h. If you want to be banned rather than blocked you'll have to work a bit harder William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl (Result: blocked 1 week)
On Office Open XML:


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

(Behavior continues, with multiple reverts already today.)

This is the user's 4th offense, at least, judging by multiple warnings on User Talk:HAl, over the course of multiple years, always on the same pages. The repeated offenses seem to have gone unnoticed by admins because the user has repeatedly blanked his Talk page to remove complaints.

Due to the repeated, ongoing, and long-term nature of the offense, I am blocking for 1 week.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

producer (result: 48h)

 * --85.94.128.101 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cr*p report, the worse I've seen this week, well done. But 48h all round anyway, the Balkans need a rest William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mariomassone reported by User:DoctorHarris21 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have listed numerous sources that show the Decker Dog as a nickname for Dingo. Mariomassone continues to just delete my edits even when I properly source them. This is not his first offense of edit warring, as evidenced by his personal talk page. He also finds it necessary to throw out personal insults on occasion. DoctorHarris21 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Detailed rationale on your talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevinbrogers reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Kevinbrogers has continued to insert speculation on future episodes based on sources that fail WP:RS. Reverted by myself and User:Jonh90. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that his last revert was at 18:34, that he was warned about 3RR at 18:40, and that he hasn't reverted since then- is it possible he didn't know about the rule? I see that several people are now discussing the sourcing problem on his talk page; I'd hate to block him if he's already stopped on his own. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now we have an IP making that edit: . - Warthog Demon  00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:68.173.95.177 reported by User:Che829 (Result: stale?)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Tendentious and disruptive editor Special:Contributions/68.173.95.177 possible sockpuppet for accounts including Special:Contributions/Tngah, Special:Contributions/69.86.6.163, Special:Contributions/69.201.156.82


 * I could block you both, since you've both broken 3RR. But you seem to have got bored, so I won't. Note that this is a content dispute (which is why you brought it here, not WP:AIV) so "rvv" is an inappropriate and indeed incivil edit summary William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ObserverNY reported by User:La mome (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=299693468\


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

ObserverNY has been asked several times to stop moving a part of the article to the beginning, where all others agreed it should be at the end. -- La mome (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * as User:ObserverNY's edits have shown to be against consensus. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LivefreeordieNH reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user has demonstrated a clear right-wing bias, and has objected to the addition of properly sourced material that puts a Republican in a bad light. He has repeatedly reverted the addition of an incident which is ongoing, involving police investigation, which I properly sourced, by claiming "it is slander by the Democrat Party".

Additionally, I suspect this revert and this revert, which came after I warned of a possible edit warring notice, could be sockpuppetry.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

and in the edit summary of this revert. Obviously the next revert was not done with this user name, but there are a couple accounts, identified only by IP addresses, which suspiciously have only been editing this particular page. As I suspect that this user may be trying to remove this information while avoiding WP:3RR by doing it while not logged in, I decided to report it. If I am wrong, and it was somebody else, I am prepared to accept my mistake.
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48 hours for LivefreeordieNH. This is their second block for edit-warring. Article has been semiprotected since IPs have joined in the revert war. This is not a comment on whether the 'Controversy' section should remain in the article. Please discuss that question sensibly on the talk page, and abide by whatever consensus is reached there. Editors who continue to add or remove the Controversy section without getting consensus first may be speedily blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MataNui44 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Comment: User reverted to his preferred version after a 24-hour block for the same thing. No edits were made between block period and most recent revert, though he did wait several days before starting back up. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

I would like to add that The Rouge Penguin is being very stubborn and childish in not getting his way, and is also harassing me and he himself has violated this 3RR rule. MataNui44 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I self-reverted on the fourth. As for childish, see the discussion. You refuse to participate, and have been opposed by more than just me. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional 3RR on
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

And I told you that you were the one who needed to take it to the talk page. [PA removed - WMC] MataNui44 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fhue reported by User:NRen2k5 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (page in question is an ANI archive, so attempted to resolve matter on user’s talkpage.)

Any attempt at communication with this editor quickly degrades into personal attacks, comment refactoring and deletion. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and told not to edit archived pages. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:76.118.223.230 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See the above edit war on the same page. I suspect this IP address could be a sockpuppet. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-07-02T04:42:54 TeaDrinker (talk | contribs | block) blocked 76.118.223.230 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Persistent section blanking, disruptive editing) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Arab Cowboy reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:Query)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299776227&oldid=299775170
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299853680&oldid=299845254
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299900516&oldid=299898043
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299903988&oldid=299903052

The guy is most likely soc puppeting right now on the talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan

"This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead. Nefer Tweety (talk)"

He uses the exactly same language as Arab Cowboy bringing up the "15:48, 2 July 2009" that no one supports or have ever cared about except Arab Cowboy and talking about "Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead" - this is the exactly same talk as from Arab Cowboy.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've had a 3O mediator, HelloAnnyong, who has been either collaborating with accuser above, Supreme Deliciousness, or has really been unable to understand the evidence submitted on the Talk page of the article. Annyong jumps to conclusions all the time in support of SD without examining the actual sources and then flip-flops when he "later finds out" that SD had been misquoting, to put it politely, the sources and editing much more than agreed on the Talk page. Annyong's collaboration with SD and/or negligence in examining the evidence and edits, as well as flip-flopping, has only exacerbated the situation and increased the edit warring on this article. I now have to contain the messy situation created by both SD and Annyong. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Misquoting the sources? It happened one time, and I removed it and never talked about that source again. This is coming from a man who he himself changed the whole article without any source or without any kind of agreement at all at the talk page, while I re-established the original article, brought in new info everything sourced. Enough, this is about 3rr not about the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence will show that all SD says above is untrue. I have provided reliable sources to support ALL my arguments.  Annyong stated that he made a concession and agreed to placing nationality in the lead, then he flip-flopped.  Annyong acknowledged that SD's quotation of the source, which he had endorsed, was in error.  Annyong also acknowledged that SD's edit that he had also initially endorsed was not in agreement with the Discussion on the Talk page and he reverted it again to one of his earlier edits.  This last edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009, created by Annyong, is the version that I endorsed, not my own.  So agreement had been established.  Further reverts by SD will invite more eidt warring; he's engaged in these kinds of wars with numerous other users on other articles.  --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Arab Cowboy is edit-warring and has exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. However, since no link to a warning has been provided, I am inclined to warn rather than block unless there is evidence to show Arab Cowboy was aware of the 3-revert-rule prior to his 4th revert. CIreland (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CIreland, It's a shame that you side with the aggressors on a technicality. Please review the Talk page of the refrenced article and click the links that I provided in my response above before you issue a warnings without understanding the background.  Also, please see counter complaint in New Section below. There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period.  Please see the history page of the article.  --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CIreland, Arab Cowboy was fully aware of the 3rr, he is the same person as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.194.124.102 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.195.180.144

Its the same person only he has registered Arab Cowboy now, If yo go to the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles and talkpages you will see that Arab Cownoy is continuing edit warring and the same posts at the talkpages, notice that at the Asmahan talkpage I call him Arab Cowboy/98, and he is not denying it. Here is he editing his own IP adress: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=298840535&oldid=298219813

Arab Cowboy/98 was fully aware and has been warned in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=293640909&oldid=292849281

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296730824&oldid=296721926

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296733174&oldid=296731143

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296733502&oldid=296733323

Notice also that in his post above he doesnt deny being 98, '''if you still do not believe that 98 and Arab Cowboy is the same person you can ask administrator: Graeme Bartlett, he will confirm it for you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) '''

Result
I am satisified that Arab Cowboy is the IP in question. Summary of full and partial reverts since full protection expired:
 * By Supreme Deliciousness:, ,
 * By HelloAnnyong: ,
 * By Arab Cowboy:, , ,

Since Supreme Deliciousness and Arab Cowboy are simply continuing the edit war that was occurring before full protection, I am blocking both, even though the former has not broken the three-revert-rule.
 * blocked 24 hours. blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hardindr reported by User:Bytebear (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Although no formal warning was given on his home page, several were given in comments including the link above, and acknowledged in response comments as well as here.


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and on a related article also under attack Glen Beck

This editor is trying to emphasize Glen Beck's association with Cleon Skousen and push the idea that Skousen is a conspiracy theorist, despite several editors disagreeing with his assessment. But he continues to try to put the material in the lead of the Skousen article (when all other editors agree it should not be in the article at all, let alone the lead) in order to then describe Skousen as such in the Beck article. Bytebear (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours for edit-warring at Cleon Skousen and Glenn Beck. CIreland (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 reported by SlimVirgin (result: 1 week)

 * Page
 * User

Wikifan12345 is reverting the lead against two editors at 1948 Palestinian exodus, and against talk-page consensus. There is a lot of material being reverted, but if you focus on the phrase "'repatriate' 100,000 of the refugees" in the third paragraph of the lead, you'll see the 3RR violation clearly.


 * Previous version reverted to 04:23 June 29: "'repatriate' 100,000 refugees"


 * 1st revert 8:57 July 2: agreed to 'repatriate' 100,000 of the refugees"
 * 2nd revert 09:07 July 2: "agreed to 'repatriate' 100,000 of the refugees"
 * 3rd revert 09:24 July 2: "and 'repatriate' 100,000 refugees"
 * 4th revert 05:59 July 3: "agreed to 'repatriate' 100,000 of the refugees"
 * He then reverted himself at 06:01 July 3, but with the next edit reverted back to his 4th revert
 * 4th revert repeated 06:03 July 3: "agreed to 'repatriate' 100,000 of the refugees"

Comments
Wikifan12345 is aware of the 3RR rule, and has been blocked three times for it since March. 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 week. I'm getting the impression that some editors just regard a 3RR block and edit warring as part of the normal operation of wiki, like Norman Stanley Fletcher and prison. It should not be William M. Connolley (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Arab Cowboy (Result: stale / warned)

 * Page:
 * User:

How about the accuser above, Supreme Deliciousness, himself making 4 reverts, 6 edits in total of the same article in less than 24 hours?

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299775170&oldid=298441928

2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299839985&oldid=299776227

3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299839985&oldid=299776227

4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299901250&oldid=299900516

This is a formal complaint. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Contiguous reverts cound as one; no vio. This reads like a revenge report and does you no credit. If you don't understand the rules, slow down and read WP:1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * William M. Connolley, Only 2 of the above edits are contiguous and I labelled them as edits as opposed to reverts. There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period.  Please see the history page of the article.  --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @ WMC: I think it might be time for the article to be protected. I haven't read the entire talkpage discussion over this dispute, but it doesn't really matter who's "right" here.... when this much reverting goes on, everybody is wrong as far as AN3 is concerned. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 07:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. I missed your labelling of 5 and 6 as "edits". I've removed those from the list, as they are pointlessly confusing. Looks like 4R to me. But (hopefully) a stale one. The page is fairly recently off prot and being mediated by AY so I'd be inclined to give that a chance. If all sides could hold back from revefrting for a bit that would be nice William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC, Thanks for the correction. Although, this is not a stale issue.  SD is still pursuing it, and edit warring on this article and many others.  --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau reported by User:RicoCorinth (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (In this case a third editor had deleted the whole section I'd tagged POV. Redthoreau restored the section without the POV-section tag. Cute.)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Redthoreau has been blocked five times for edit warring


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This whole article talk page subsection contains our attempt to resolve the dispute over the POV-section tag -- that Redthoreau deleted four times within 24 hours.

The dispute's not been resolved.

Just to give you an idea how bad this is, a little over two years ago, Wikipedia:Vandalism stated: <blockquote style="background-color:rgb(100%,100%,100%); padding-top:4px;padding-right:10px;padding-bottom:4px;padding-left:10px; border:solid 1px rgb(0%,0%,33%);"> Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

[…] -- Rico  08:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Improper use of dispute tags: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.


 * REPLY BY REDTHOREAU --- To specifically answer the "charges" against me, which I believe are misrepresentative of the collective reality of what went on ... [1] Revert # 1 occurred when the article was already tagged for POV on the top, Rico then decided that he would also at his sole discretion tag this section, which I in good faith found to be redundant - as I state in the edit diff: "Pov is already up top" . [2] On "revert" # 2, an editor as previously mentioned had blanked the entire section and a regular revert was not possible due to an edit conflict. As a result I had to click on an old version of the article and copy and paste that section back in. I must've copied a version of the article that did not include the tag, however that was not intentional. [3] "Revert" # 3 came after Rico removed parts of the section that he solely believed were POV, leaving the impression with me that he had alleviated his concern which we had been discussing ad nauseum on the talk page (On July 2 from 00:06-00:53 I had 8 TP replys to Rico on a host of issues). Thus I then removed the tag, adding in my diff = "seeing that the initial sole tagger has removed a part and edited the section, rmv tag – if editor (Rico) disagrees still, please revert me” . Moreover, I would add that this particular tag was only there because Rico believed it should be - which I believe is a misrepresentation of the purpose of a tag (i.e. the sole opinion of one editor who is unhappy with the printed and thus included reality on a matter). [4] In reference to revert # 4 - It was brought up on the TP that an editor objected to the inclusion of "Pinochet's" name in a quote in the section, so in an attempt to alleviate their concern I removed it and then thus removed the tag (which Rico, it’s initial tagger had not mentioned in many hours) - stating in the diff "rmv Pinochet from quote inserting with hopes of alleviating TP concern on neutrality". (Cont ...)


 * All throughout the process of working with Rico I have attempted above and beyond to work on his concerns. The article talk page is littered with numerous responses of mine to Rico as he would furiously log remark after remark in what I believed was a WP:tendentious manner. It is my view that in this instance Rico was using the tag not to address particular concerns as I repeatedly asked him what he specifically wanted fixed to remove the tag, but yet to de-validate the section because he stated on the talk page that he found a NY Times Op-ed and Christian Science Monitor article not to be reliable sources (in the case of the Op-ed as I pointed out to him several times, it was in reference to the writers actual opinion, where the necessity would seem self evident). I would further add that since I last removed the tag yesterday, nearly a day has gone by where no other editor has added the tag back in, confirming my belief that the section was not an obvious POV concern, but yet a section which Rico personally disliked for reasons outside of wiki policy. As I told him before the last removal "In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources" (Cont ...)


 * In addition, it has always been my understanding from moderators that tagging an article is supposed to occur after there is TP discussion & consensus and include a list of the specific issues that need to be addressed to remove the tag. Rico never did this. I believe he was using the tag in a drive-by manner to basically tell others "ignore this section that I personally don't agree with" - which I believe is fundamentally not what the tag should be used for. My intention was never to violate 3RR and in the heat of the constant editing of an article that was being barraged by the minute with new additions, I felt that I was acting in accordance with wiki policy, and being more than collaborative with an editor (i.e. Rico) who is difficult to work with as he responds back with flippant sarcasm and seems to leave no room for compromise. Read my short replies to Rico and decide for yourselves if it appears I am trying to work with him ??? Whenever he objected to something or a source I removed it. I however from here on out will bow out of this article all together to avoid further conflict with Rico on the matter. I apologize for the lengthy retort, however I believe Rico has misrepresented the reality with his nomination.    Red thoreau  (talk)RT 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: [1] A section can be tagged as POV, even if an article is tagged POV. Redthoreau deleted the article POV tag too:
 * 01:07, 2 July 2009  (edit summary: "rmv tag for whole article, there is no specific TP discussion on tag's continuation, if someone wishes to create one with specifics then please re-tag and do so")
 * That left no POV tag on the article, negating Redthoreau's argument that an article POV tag and a section POV tag were too many POV tags.
 * Re: [2] You knew the tag had been there -- because you deleted it, I restored it, and we were discussing it.
 * Re: [3] Just because I deleted something from the section, that didn't mean the dispute had been resolved.
 * Re: [3] Redthoreau wrote, "I would add that this particular tag was only there because Rico believed it should be - which I believe is a misrepresentation of the purpose of a tag (i.e. the sole opinion of one editor who is unhappy with the printed and thus included reality on a matter)."
 * Re: [3] This is patent nonsense. "One editor" can add a POV-section tag. Furthermore, the editor that deleted the section believed, as I did, that the section didn't belong.
 * Concerning your removal of Pinochet's name, you can't just remove something -- that a third editor objects to, that was not what I said was the dispute -- from a section and declare the dispute resolved.
 * When you wrote, in your edit summary, "with hopes of alleviating TP concern on neutrality," you admitted you didn't know if the dispute had been resolved.
 * Re: [4] There is no Wikipedia policy that allows for the removal of a dispute tag just because the tagger has not mentioned it in "many hours."
 * I'd "mentioned" it, 18:51, July 1, 2009 and you deleted the POV-section tag the fourth time 09:22, July 2, 2009.
 * I post, Redthoreau replies, I reply, etc. -- and this makes me "tendentious"? C'mon. This isn't even a defense.
 * The rest of this paragraph tries to question my motives. I expressed my concerns, and even specified an exact thing that could have been done to resolve the dispute.
 * The fact that no other editor replaced the tag after a "nearly a day," "confirms" nothing.
 * Redthoreau wrote, "In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources"
 * A POV tag only alerts editors to the existence of a dispute, not that the section is actually POV. That I had not "demonstrate[d] some evidence or basis for [my] diagnosis," is just Redthoreau's opinion, and it does not justify the repeated removal of the tag within a 24-hour period. That's tendentious.
 * Your "understanding ... that tagging an article is supposed to occur after there is TP discussion & consensus," is inaccurate.
 * An article section may be tagged, and then a discussion should be initiated promptly on the talk page, which is exactly what I did.
 * Your understanding that the discussion must, "include a list of the specific issues that need to be addressed to remove the tag," is not exactly correct.
 * When an editor puts a POV tag on a section, the editor should initiate a discussion on the talk page, with enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute.
 * Concern Expressed: I wrote, "My main concern is that we not have sections that invite editors to inject their opinions into the article, and then cite opinion pieces or less-than-reliable sources, just to get the opinions they want into the article."
 * Proposed Resolution: I wrote, "I think the subsections should be deleted. Anything that (really) complies with WP:RS and WP:NOT can be incorporated into the article."
 * So I had included enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute.
 * "Redthoreau's opinion" that "Rico never did this," runs aground on the facts.
 * Redthoreau wrote, "I believe he was using the tag in a drive-by manner to basically tell others 'ignore this section that I personally don't agree with' - which I believe is fundamentally not what the tag should be used for."
 * This is just Redthoreau's unsubstantiated conjecture that I was editing in bad faith.
 * I have already pointed out that I initiated a discussion on the talk page, with enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute.
 * Redthoreau wrote, "My intention was never to violate 3RR".
 * Maybe not, but you did. You've been blocked for edit warring five times. You knew that you were continually deleting the dispute tag, within a short period of time, even as we discussed it. Read WP:OWN.
 * Redthoreau wrote that I am "difficult to work with" and "seem to leave no room for compromise."
 * Within a period of less than 24 hours!?
 * "Read my short replies to Rico and decide for yourselves if it appears I am trying to work with him ???"
 * Irrelevant. You were discussing on the talk page while deleting the tag from the article page, again and again and again.
 * Redthoreau wrote, "Whenever he objected to something or a source I removed it."
 * That's not true. I objected to the existence of the section itself! You didn't delete it.
 * Content from the section could have been incorporated into the article elsewhere.
 * And this doesn't mean you didn't delete the POV-section tag again and again and again from the article.
 * Redthoreau wrote, "I however from here on out will bow out of this article all together to avoid further conflict with Rico on the matter." That'd be sad (if a fact). I just wanted you to stop edit warring, and specifically, don't remove POV dispute tags again and again and again within a 24 hour period unless the dispute's been resolved. You can avoid further conflict with me in that way.
 * I see that you haven't admitted you were edit warring, accepted that you mayn't summarily delete POV dispute tags while they're being discussed, or apologized for having made me waste my time keeping putting the dispute tag back in.
 * I note that you only deny that one of the four reverts, were reverts. Even if your arguments are all accepted, that leaves three within a 24-hour period.
 * Redthoreau, before you go, there is one more thing you need to do.
 * You put back the dispute tag! -- Rico  19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with this thread - it isn't long and tedious enough. Could you add some more text that no-one will read, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Life has moved on. There have been 100's of edits since rv4. Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making it clear that editors can violate 3RR -- as long as they reply to a WP:AN3 notice with a long and tedious retort, that no-one will read. -- Rico  22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the long reply. It has to do with the fact that the reverts were nearly 24 hours ago and have stopped since then. There's no point doing anything. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reported the 3RR less than three hours after the fourth revert. It sounds like "there's no point doing anything" about 3RR violations, if the violator knows to reply to a WP:AN3 notice with a "long and tedious" "retort", that "no-one will read". --- Rico  22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rico, I will drop the back and forth here, and not respond. I also apologize for my part in the matter. William, I appreciate your judgment and will do my best to avoid similar conflicts in the future, thanks.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology. If you edit war again, I will not create a notice here. I've learned. WP:AN3 can be gamed. -- Rico  22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about gaming or about the retort; blocks are preventative, not punitive, and there's no point blocking people when there's not a problem going on; if the edit war is over and both parties understand that they will be blocked if they continue, there's no need for anything to be done. Like I said already, since the reverting ended over 24 hours ago there's no point blocking either of you, assuming you've both learned how to engage in discussion rather than reverting. I suggest you move on, because sulking here and taking pot-shots at other editors is not constructive. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Three hours after the last revert, no prevention was in order?
 * I had to notify Redthoreau on his/her talk page.
 * Redthoreau had to be given time to respond.
 * Once a long and tedious retort is posted, that no one will read, it's over.
 * How does this noticeboard ever work?
 * We "learned how to engage in discussion rather than reverting"?
 * I stopped putting the POV-section tag back!
 * Sorry, but this was a textbook case. Redthoreau didn't even deny three of the four reverts.
 * I'm not taking pot shots at other editors -- at the noticeboard, maybe. You can stop replying too.
 * Face it. I did just what I was supposed to do, including desisting from the edit war, and this noticeboard didn't work. -- Rico  23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, you wrote, "there's no point blocking people when ... both parties understand that they will be blocked if they continue." Does that mean that if I put the POV-section tag back, I will be blocked? -- Rico  23:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rico, thanks for accepting my apology. You won't have to worry about even a 1RR from me, as I am bowing out of that article altogether as I earlier stated. For what it’s worth, my intention was never to "game" the system, but rather to explain my side of the story. Best of luck to you.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I never meant to imply that you intended to game the noticeboard -- just that it can be gamed. I'd reply with a vigorous defense, too. I think it's funny. Sorry if I caused you any consternation or stress. I harbor no animosity toward you. Respect. -- Rico  23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ricardiana reported by User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (Result: malformed report)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Not sure how to do this; the reverts are obvious between Ricardiana and me. Also see the Talk page of the article.  Several other editors are complaining of various issues.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


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


 * You linked to the wrong page, and you didn't provide any diffs of reverts; please actually read the instructions before filing reports here.
 * As for the edit warring, it looks like everyone is involved in discussion at the talk page now and people are no longer reverting, so there's no need to do anything. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:70.171.239.21 reported by User:The359 (Result: 55h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Original edit by 70.171.239.21


 * 1st revert: Revert 1
 * 2nd revert: Revert 2
 * 3rd revert: Revert 3
 * 4th revert: Revert 4
 * 5th revert: Revert 5


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warning


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page attempt

IIIVIX ( Talk ) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * based on previous block(s). Thanks, Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-07-03T21:21:07 Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 70.171.239.21 (talk) with an expiry time of 2009-07-06T04:04:54Z (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:58.69.116.54 and User:58.69.116.63 reported by User:Mysidia (Result: IPs rangeblocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talim&oldid=289820692


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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * Further reverts: diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11,diff12, diff13,   diff14
 * 15th revert: diff


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link


 * No talk page discussion has occured, this user's reverts are being cancelled by many editors.

--Mysidia (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than a simple 3RR violation, the edit warring is spread out over time, but with no discussion or explanation.
 * User appears to wish to use a country flagicon for an article subject birthplace, contrary to the general guidelines in WP:MOS
 * User appears to wish to remove a reference from the article.
 * Both User IPs' entire contribution history appears to be reversions.
 * The edits by the two different IP addresses are probably made by the same editor.
 * Thanks, Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:RafaelRGarcia reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: All warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (see below)


 * 1st revert: 20:56, 3 July 2009 (reverted )
 * 2nd revert: 22:43, 3 July 2009 (reverted )
 * 3rd revert: 23:30, 3 July 2009  (reverted )
 * 4th revert: 00:17, 4 July 2009 (reverted )
 * 5th revert: 00:37, 4 July 2009 (same)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: subsequently deleted by user, and


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and
 * Diff of notification of user about this report:

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This complaint is untrue. My changes to the article were reverted twice by Ferrylodge, and I changed the text of my additions in response to his complaints. Changing the text means it's not a 3RR violation. Dodd reverted my edits to another section of the article twice, and I reverted back. I have only reverted twice. In addition, I am the sole liberal actively editing the Clarence Thomas article, and Dodd and Ferrylodge are both conservatives in agreement about most everything, which puts me at a disadvantage. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300173678&oldid=300169873 vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300176839&oldid=300175430. The difference was changing the wording about sworn testimony, because of Ferrylodge's complaint at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Thomas#Goldstein. Dodd's complaint on this Edit Warring page, therefore, is in bad faith. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I was in the process of writing up my own 3RR complaint about RafaelRGarcia when Simon Dodd started this section. I count more reverts than Simon Dodd counted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300119741
 * Revert #1 (removing author names and book title from footnote at 3 July 21:36):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300149899
 * Revert #2 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 00:56):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300163647
 * Revert #3 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 02:43)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300169337
 * Revert #4 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 03:30)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300173678
 * Revert #5 (restoring statement that was removed in the previous edit: “the paper's editors decided not to proceed with additional investigation and reporting on the subject” at 4 July 04:17)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300175430&oldid=300174498
 * 3RR Warning at 4 July 04:25

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300175430
 * Revert #6 (restoring statement that “the paper's editors decided not to proceed with additional investigation and reporting on the subject” at 4 July 04:37)

Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Revert 1 was because you misplaced the citation; it didn't belong at the end of that sentence, and I replaced the citation in a different place right after, where it belonged: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300121992&oldid=300121671.


 * Revert 2 is not a revert - Dodd did not put that quote in today. My action is an edit (and you agreed with the removal on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=300176907&oldid=300176579). Even though you would like to be able to count any disagreement with your or Dodd's edits as a "revert," that's not how the rules work.


 * Reverts 5 and 6 are also not reverts - I changed the text of the paragraph each time in response to your input on the talk page. It appears both of you are in bad faith, and want to squash opposition to your views. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re. revert 1, you removed the author name and book title without ever restoring them. Re. revert 2, you removed the paragraph today, and it doesn't matter when the paragraph was first written, nor does it matter whether I liked the paragraph.  Re. reverts 5 and 6, you restored without changing the stuff I quoted above.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: revert 1: then you are essentially complaining about my footnote formatting, which does not rise to the level of a revert complaint. Re: revert 2: I do not think a revert means what you think it means. The Goldstein paragraph was edited out by me, and I gave my reasons in the summary, citing WP policy, and then you agreed with the removal! Re. reverts 5 and 6: the "stuff quoted above" is what the cited book says. Your word does not counteract a reliable-source book, unfortunately. I did change the relevant parts of the paragraph in response to your comments on the talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the notice at the very top of this page, do not use this page to continue your argument. You have all already said your piece, now you might as well let an uninvolved user make a decision. The more you write here, the less likely anyone is to read it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have reviewed this report and here's what I think. RafaelRGarcia, you have some misunderstandings about what reverting means...first of all, changing the text that you restore can still be a revert. If the issue is whether or not to include some information at all, then it's considered a revert if you add it once and then re-add it later in a differently-worded way. Also, it's not true that footnote formatting "does not rise to the level of a revert complaint"; any change, no matter how trivial, can be a revert. This website has seen major revert wars fought over things far sillier than footnote formatting.
 * SimonDodd, you too have been edit warring (over the inclusion of the Goldstein quote). Both you and RafaelRGarcia believe your own rationales on the talk page are right; that doesn't give either of you permission to revert. Once it's become obvious that two people are disagreeing over something, both of you need to keep to the talk page, no matter how convincing you believe you are; don't make any change to the article until you've gotten clear consensus and permission from other editors there.
 * Ferrylodge, you also made a couple reverts (over the Washington Post and pornography thing). Again, this is something that should be kept to the talk page. It appears that now both you and SimonDodd are sticking to the talk page, which is good. (For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with the inclusion of that paragraph; it looks to be a brief summary of the Anita Hill sub-article.)
 * The current version of the article is RafaelRGarcia's version, I think because in both of those disputes he was more adamant about getting the "last word" whereas SimonDodd and Ferrylodge decided to stop reverting. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing this version; it just means I think you guys should ask some people to provide third opinions at the talkpage and reach a consensus over what to do about those two disputed paragraphs (one about the Goldstein quote, one about the pr0n). Since the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone or protect the page&mdash;RafaelGarcia has violated the 3RR, but I don't want to block him just yet because it would prevent him from participating in the discussion that I keep saying you need to have. If he performs another revert over either of these issues, though, I will block him.
 * ( all three users.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Total failure of judgment. RafaelGarcia clearly THINKS he understands 3RR and how to game it. You just showed him he's right, that he can get away with gaming the system. ThuranX (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So RafaelGarcia avoiding a block is "gaming the system", but Simon Dodds going forum shopping after is enemy doesn't get blocked is.... what, exactly? If you're going to question one user like that, you'd better question both.
 * As I already explained over and over again, there is no reason to block right now. If RafaelGarcia continues reverting after what has happened in the past couple hours, then there will be a reason to block, and rest assured he will be blocked. But if that doesn't happen, there's no reason to. Rather than leaving a template response and a thoughtless block, I chose to give all three users a long and thought-out explanation of edit warring and what was going on; unlike you, I believe teaching people how to be better editors is preferable to mindless blocking. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Forum shopping"? That's an inflammatory charge to raise without a shred of support. Forum shopping implies a deliberate attempt to gain a more receptive audience for a greivance. I raised the issue at the general admin's noticeboard - and did so because I wasn't sure that this was the correct place to raise such an appeal after a decision has been made. And since admins will generally and understandably review other administrators' decisions for clear error, the better to foster collegiality and quid pro quo, it is far from clear that AN is a friendly forum! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SuzukS reported by User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Result: warned)

 * Page: User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

During recent change patrol, I noticed the user had created an article that was a copyright violation (Rubens Charles). I've tried having a rational conversation with him, but his uncivil behavior and edit-warring on my talk page is unnecessary.  APK  coffee talk  11:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have warned SuzukS that an editor is allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. Reverting has not continued since this report was filed. If he doesn't get the message, a block should be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  APK  coffee talk  12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:166.204.226.8 reported by User:RicoCorinth (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 21:08,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:17,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 3) 21:21,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:29,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 5) 21:32,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 6) 21:34,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 7) 21:38,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 8) 21:40,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")
 * 9) 21:44,  4 July 2009  (edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Practically the whole talk page is filled with discussion of this, from Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat through Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

IP keeps inserting unsourced, blatant POV and is regularly being reverted by several users, but the IP keeps reverting the reverts. At least two users have put "rv v" when reverting the IP's edits. -- Rico  22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It looks the user is User:166.214.141.133 now (also blocked), "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not."
 * I'm gonna try to get an IP range protection, if there is such a thing, before the article is globally semi-protected again. -- Rico  01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected. I don't think a range block is possible that will hit both of those addresses; it is greater than a /16 range. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ibarrutidarruti reported by User:Fifelfoo (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and  28 May and  4 May


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This has been going on for quite a period of time, additionally on other Lists of Marxists. The editor has been line driving, mis-quoting policy, and acting in bad faith, using persistence and slow reverting to nominally conceal their editing from 3RR. In addition to the diffs above, please not the article history and the repeated insertion of content by the editor identical with the 3rr diffs. This is not simply a 3rr claim, but a general edit warring claim.

When challenged extensively on the talk page the editor weaseled (fair enough), and then used rejected citations which disprove their edit, to demonstrate their edit, leading to the current 3rr element of this edit war.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Interim Result - User:Ibarrutidarruti has been edit-warring to insist that Kim Il-Sung was a Marxist theorist, across a variety of articles, and has reinserted Kim's name several times after it was removed by others. I left a note on his talk page giving him a chance to follow dispute resolution in lieu of a block. I suggest this report be kept open until Ibarrutidarruti has a chance to respond. If he agrees to dispute resolution, other participants will be expected to follow whatever verdict is reached as to the inclusion of Kim's name. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ibarrutidarruti has not edited since my last comment. He is on notice that he may be blocked if he continues to add Kim Il-Sung's name to articles without following dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud reported by User:Verbal (Result: 4 days)
. : Time reported: 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 09:54,  5 July 2009  (edit summary: "did you see i Â´ve inserted aome 20 new footnotes? After an hour of work you just come and reverte ir??!!")
 * 2) 10:15,  5 July 2009  (edit summary: "use talk page and try to prove why musicabrasileira i snot reliabel. aim affraid is a widely known source lwhich presnets texts from revista veja 9the alrgets news weekly magazine)")
 * 3) 10:25,  5 July 2009  (edit summary: "are you brazilian? have you read the sources on the talk page? do you speak portuguese? have youread her two interviews?")
 * 4) 10:54,  5 July 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 11:16,  5 July 2009  (edit summary: "VERY reliable sources")


 * Diff of warning: here

This is an ongoing WP:BLP issue which is being discussed on WP:BLPN. Know problem user in this area (see WP:FTN) keeps restoring unsourced WP:OR to spirituality section, removing OR and BLP sourcing templates, and inserting sources that fail WP:RS (some are being discussed on WP:RSN). As this is a BLP, and I have been removing biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons, I feel my actions have been correct. I should have probably brought it here sooner, but after each reinsertion I attempted to discuss this on the talk page and BLP noticeboard, but Jackiestud has failed to usefully engage in discussion each time. I tagged the article some time ago to give editors time to improve the sourcing in an attempt to avoid blocking, but this has failed to produce any improvements and the OR (only supported by synthesis from a numerology website) should be removed.

(Added later) I'd just like to make clear that I have stopped removing the OR/contentious parts as it became clear the editor wouldn't listen to reason. It has also been shown on WP:RSN that the new sources do not indeed meet WP:RS.

— Verbal  chat  11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 4 days. This editor violated WP:3RR, but has also added fanciful WP:OR material to a BLP article with no awareness of the problems it creates. User:Jackiestud appears to have learned nothing from the mid-June ANI discussion. I think this should be considered an ongoing problem. Unless this editor can demonstrate through their actions that they are willing to follow our policies, I believe that an indef block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:92.239.38.135 reported by User:Reddi (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * versions: Right after his initial block was lifted l More today [July 5th)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_terrorism#92.239.38.135_vandalization

Edit warring. See next report for detail William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Reddi (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 
 * 

Both sides are edit warring, though there is no technical violation. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. My sympathy lies with hiving off the defn to its own article, but my opinion is not definitive William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Giants27 reported by User:Postcard Cathy (Result: )

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


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


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


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

In Giants27's edit summaries, he/she says they feel that the orphan tag is useless and keeps reverting tags placed there (the articles appear on http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_orphans.php as orphans needing tags). He/she refuses to accept this and removes the tags while they are still orphans or to create links to the articles in questions to avoid orphan status. I have asked him/her to talk to people more knowledgeable on the subject of orphans than myself but he/she has refused to do so and keeps removing the orphan tag. Postcard Cathy (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The complaint does make sense, but based on this incident I am not sure that this case should be treated differently to edit-warring against a bot. Hans Adler 10:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Postcard Cathy, please provide diffs and finish filling out the report. From what I can tell by looking at the article histories, Giants27 should not be removing the tags (and rather, if he believes orphan tags are useless, should start a discussion at Template talk:Orphan or WP:Orphanage), but no one is going to do anything about this report if you don't fill it out properly. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll stop removing the tags, it's not really worth it to keep removing them.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a minor edit war but it's not WP:3RR as Giants27 ceased after the third revert in every incident listed. I also find Postcard Cathy's actions here troubling. The user added the orphan tag and Giants27 removed it with the edit summary that it was useless per WP:BRD. Postcard Cathy was unable to justify her actions in any way other than she acts like a bot tagging anything placed on a list and continued reverting instead of discussing. I find the whole orphans idea seriously over-played anyway. It is nice to have links to an article, of course, but it is not a critical issue making a broken article in need of repair. This is an out-of-date idea from the days when you reached most pages through links on portals. That just isn't the way the internet works anymore. Double Blue  (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears as though after I warned (by her which is WP:COI but whatever) I never reverted after that also I attempted to discuss the issue with her and she responded that "she didn't know".-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like no action needs to be taken. The underlying issue here seems to be a disagreement over what constitutes "orphaned" and what articles should be tagged as such (I haven't read the whole conversation, but if I'm understanding you right it mainly has to do with articles that will never be linked from many other places no matter how hard we try?). If that is the case, it's better to discuss orphan-tagging guidelines at one of the links I gave above, rather than fighting over it on any articles; once a conclusion is reached at a centralized discussion, people can start implementing whatever is agreed on. In any case, Giants27 has said he won't remove the tags again, so I see no need for any admin action. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I told him to discuss it with people at the orphan group since they could explain it better than I could. Yet he continued to remove the orphan tags despite being told they meet the criteria for orphan status.  I am part of the deorphaning project.  I don't make the rules, I am just following them.  If someone doesn't like them, I am not the person in a position to change them and Giants didn't seem to understand that.  He APPEARED to feel his articles were not subject to orphan tags and rather than make links to them to avoid the tag, he just kept reverting my tags. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First part, I know that you've said that you don't know how to discuss it with me, so I have to ask, in a completely non-dickish way, why do you keep adding it to articles if you can't discuss the action of the edit? Also, I know I don't own the articles in question but I do know they had 50+ links coming into them before they were released by their respective teams, so I don't think its necessary to waste time adding the tag only to have them removed when the said players are signed by a team.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Imho, if you place those tags, you should know the policies, too. By applying them everywhere, without checking if this is correct, you're even worse than a bot, because the bot programmer certainly knows most of the exceptions. Remember, the devil is in the details (that you disregard)! Your actions, on the other hand, result in a lot of frustration for the users, totally unnecessary discussion for the folks in the orphan group, and even additional work for the admins, as we see here. This is not really helpful, quite to the contrary! And imho many normal (=occasional) users, like me, feel like you're bullying them. Do you really want that? Pls leave the tagging to the bots, and think of your own advice: "Save your efforts for things that are more important"! Gray62 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only a recommendation to link articles within Wikipedia, it's not an enforceable rule! So, this is not like tagging an article for missing sources, which points at a mandatory Wiki policy. In this case, the user is allowed to let the article be an orphan, if he has arguments for this (like in the case of surname pages). And since its only a recomendation, imho Cathy has no right to start an edit war when an editor remoices such a tag! And to plaster tens of thousands page with those tags, even though not having a clue about the policy and hoe to help people is really rich: "How to NOT get them listed as needing a tag is something I know nothing about." Well, obviously bots know a bit more than Cathy, because they don't put tags on surname pages. And on other articles, they even leave an edit summary! Even more reason to call for Cathy abandoning this line of work, and better concentrating on stuff that is more helpful for the community and for Wikipedia, like correcting capitalisation errors in titles, or moving articles! Pretty pls. Gray62 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Noclador reported by Pmanderson (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 21:35,  5 July 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Pmanderson; Um - please keep with the standard format used for all 116 comunes!. (TW)")
 * 2) 21:49,  5 July 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "stop changing the standard format and accept that there was a move in line with the naming convention. please move on and let this discussion rest")
 * 3) 21:53,  5 July 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Pmanderson identified as vandalism to last revision by Noclador. (TW)")
 * 4) 22:00,  5 July 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Pmanderson; Your personal opinion does not constitute a reason to put this line on the top of the article. (TW)")

Four exact reverts in less than half an hour, using Twinkle.

All four of them are to edits by me; but two of mine are efforts at novel solutions, marking that there is a dispute. I was not attempting to edit war; I intend to walk away, and was trying to tag the article without changing the text at issue. Would the closing admin consider a tag? I do not intend to disturb the text for a while, so it may not need to be protected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the article in question was moved and Pmanderson refuses to accept that and has decided to wage a personal revert war against the consensus and the subsequent move of the article by administrators. all comunes of the province are in a standardized format and that is what I and user:JdeJ did; now if Pmanderson has a problem with the move or the standardized format for articles, then he can discuss this, but reverting the standardized format, accusing other editors of "nationalist renaming", putting 2 neutrality tags on the pages when he can push through his changes, continuing his lonely stance that, everybody else besides him is wrong and now filing this report... and not to forget putting his personal opinion on top of the article ... therefore I request this case to be dismissed, as I was trying to preserve the article integrity against one editors personal opinion. --noclador (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, "article integrity" entitles Noclador to revert war.


 * The rest of this is also fiction; there was considerable opposition to the move, and Ian Spackman started the request to move back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this report, it should be known that the nominatior, PManderson, adopted an unconstructive approach during the whole debate over the move, often resorting to insults about other users' nationalities rather than focus on factual arguments. When the decision about the move did not go his way, he ignored the decision but instead of trying to challenge it on the talk page, he took to restoring the old name (Merano instead of Meran) in the article. Although he did it in slightly different ways so that he could file this report without having technically violated 3RR himself, all that noclador has done is to restore the page to use the name that was the result of the move. A report has been filed on PManderson over his behaviour, including his repeated insults and edit warring, for which he has a long series of blocks in the past.JdeJ (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to PMAnderson's interpretation of the revert. Ok, I voted as Noclador the move to Meran, but there are two points which we can state objectively here and which warrant in my view a lift of the 24 h.


 * 1) PManderson's general style of discussion is often provcative and full of ad hominem insinuations when we would have hoped for instructive arguments instead. This unproductive stance is again evident in his revert summaries: here ("tendentious") and here ("nationalist renaming").
 * 2) He is also factually wrong in his reverts. Actually, Noclador followed a general procedure implemented in most of the 116 articles on municiplaities in South Tyrol according to which the order of the names, links etc. in the article follow the language on which the article's English name is based on. What Noclador did was just to establish the same order as everywhere else. This has been - unchallenged and by consensus - done for months now to ensure uniformity, see e.g. Pfitsch, Kurtatsch an der Weinstraße. Therefore PMAnderson's reverts were the product of a quite uninformed and unfortunately aggressive stance and Noclador's 24 ban should be lifted. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gun Powder Ma above, the ban should be lifted. The result of the move discussion was to change the title and PManderson was well aware of that, so his edits were not in good faith. If somebodyt would change every reference to London into Londres in that article, it would hardly be edit warring to change it back. The first two reverts by Noclador simply restored the text to agree with the title after disruptive edits by PManderson who was well aware of the decision to move the article. Given that, the block of Noclador should be lifted.JdeJ (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He is also factually wrong in his reverts - this is not the place to discuss content William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In principle I agree, this is not the place to discuss content, unless it is directly related to the issue of 3RR. Restoring an article to its established form is allowed, whereas edit warring isn't. The fact remains that the first two edits by Noclador simply restored the text to conform to the title. That is allowed and the block is not motivated.JdeJ (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Restoring an article to its established form is never a defense for edit warring. --72.209.9.241 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DePiep reported by GHcool (Result: Both users edit-warring egregiously; given staleness, no action)
. : Time reported: 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (edit summary: " rm. No talk no edit."
 * 2) 13:27, 5 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 300474976 by GHcool (talk): As I said: talk first.")
 * 3) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 300480290 by GHcool (talk) At least you're talking. See you there.")

As explained to DePiep in the talk page he/she mustn't censor material cited to reliable sources. DePiep does not seem to respond to this line of reasoning. --GHcool (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both and  are edit-warring egregiously, and both are behaving poorly enough to warrant blocks. However, since there has been no activity on the page for the past 18 hours or so, I will take a huge leap of faith and assume that both parties are committed to resolving this dispute without further edit-warring. I will watchlist the page, and further edit-warring - even if <3RR/24 hours, given the atrocious history here - will result in blocks. MastCell Talk 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bignole reported by User:UKER (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Minor differences may be present due to intermediate edits, but the reverts consistently consist of the deletion of the last paragraph in this section.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

In the resolution of the conflict, it should be taken into account that the nature of the film's universe implies that even after being suggested dead, characters are bound to be reintroduced as having been 'repaired' had their outcome been sufficiently unclear. Taking this into account, the provided information intends to aid in the reader's ability to determine whether a character is bound to appear in a future installment in the franchise. --uKER (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It amazes me that people care enough about articles like this to edit war over them. But anyway, now I've vented my bile, this was stale when filed and is stale now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Andonee reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (as User: 67.83.28.245, see below)
 * 3rd revert: (as User: 67.83.28.245)
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: by User: Raul654

Raul also identified the IP (and another IP) and the user name as belonging to the same person, but there are also 4 reverts under the user name within 24 hours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - 48 hours for prolonged edit warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:86.16.133.48 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I will note that the above attempt to resolve the dispute took place on the offender's own talk page, as opposed to the article talk page. I hope that won't make any difference. – PeeJay 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours to the IP for 3RR. I note that Soccer-holic edit-warred as well. He is at 4 reverts and PeeJay is at 3 reverts, but they were both reverting unsourced information. Other admins may impose additional sanctions if they think it necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LoganPublishing reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 48h, semi)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This editor and his IP accounts appear to be a WP:SPA with a clear conlict of interest regarding the website digital-fanedits.com - editor's sole contributions have been to insert links about the contested site, or remove information about rival sites. When warned about 3RR, tried to claim other editors were either shills for his rivals, or vandals. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48h to LoganPublishing for 3RR violation and WP:COI, and semiprotection for the article, due to the IP edits. Logan plus the IPs all seem to be promoting digital-fanedits.com, a site which is not even mentioned in the text of the article. Logan removed fanedit.org from the external links, the major site which is discussed in the article. Extra-long block because the abuse is so egregious and lacking any plausible justification. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

The article is currently under editing probation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Only two of those are reverts, the other two are edits.  It should be noted that the editor who filed this report also made two reverts.  I have never understood 3RR to be a prohibition on making multiple edits to an article which are not reverts and not restoring a previous version  (if so Wikipedia would be a very quiet place!)  In any event, as I've said on the talk page there, I'm going to leave this to other editors as I would prefer not to get drawn into an edit war.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are reverts, and I'm glad you decided to finally take it to the talk page but your first instict was to edit war, and I don't like that I had to take the problem here so that you would discuss the change. I also think you were baiting Ferrylodge, and hoping others would revert him as well, that is not a constructive way to resolve disputes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because I was not reverting to an earlier version. I was simply editing.  That's what wikipedia is about.  As for discussion, you two were seeking to add new material that was in dispute so you had an obligation to discuss it.  But I was the only one who brought it up, you simply reverted.  I would say this is a case of "physician, heal thyself." --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You were deleting parts of it, hoping that Ferrylodge would continue to revert. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hoping that Ferrylodge would continue to revert?" So much for WP:AGF.  Actually I was hoping that he (and you) would discuss this before repeatedly reverting any attempt to remove or even modify it.  This isn't the correct forum for this discussion, though.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)See top of this page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Loonymonkey has not edited in almost a day, and it seems that the edit war has died down. I see statements in the history that 'NewsMax is not a reliable source,' which ought to be confirmed by going to WP:RSN. Though it might be tempting to think of Loonymonkey's removals as justified by BLP, this material is not defamatory. It is only a relative weight question, and changes like that still count against the four-revert limit. On that basis he did violate 3RR. I encourage him to not do that again.  EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Italodal reported by User:Prodigynet (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Result - Article was full-protected for one week by User:Camaron. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Suiteman reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: - This was made using his IP address.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -  This is actually a previous discussion regarding one of his previous attempts to add uncited information to the article. See comments below for further information.

Suiteman is one of a number of sockpuppets of blocked user User:Fjfhgfhdstty and is currently the subject of an open SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Fjfhgfhdstty. He has become increasingly disruptive and insists on adding uncited, original research to FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman and List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes, as well as some other articles. The diff above refers to a discussion regarding his attempts to add a season start date based on an email that he allegedly received from the production company. His numerous attempts to add that were reverted and discussed at the article talk page and numerous warnings have been posted over time on his talk page advising him of the need for citations from reliable sources in support of his claims. He has ignored all of these and posted the above request to add the information anyway, despite the warnings. It should be noted that these are not the only warnings this user has received. Discussions about verifiability requirements have also occurred on my talk page and the talk page of User:Ffaadstrbdetete, a previous incarnation of the sock. After giving up on attempts to add the uncited start date he is now insisting on adding an uncited completion date based on previous seasons of the TV series. This constitutes original research and he has now refused to provide a citation. Above all, as a block evading sockpuppet of a blocked user he shouldn't be posting anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No further action appears necessary on this matter. Shortly after I added the diff of the most recent revert the account was blocked as a result of the SPI. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Due to the indef block of Suiteman at WP:SPI, no block is needed here. From the history, there may be socking by IPs who are adding unsourced material, so I'm semiprotecting for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere and User:Vercetticarl reported by User:C45207 (Result: 24h to both)

 * Page:
 * User 1:
 * User 2:

There appears to be a war going on here: [].


 * Diff of edit war note for Therequiembellishere: []
 * Diff of edit war note for Vercetticarl: []


 * Vercetticarl edited Therequiembellishere's talk page: []
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: []

This is a third-party report.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - There have not been any reverts for a few hours now, but one party said he was not continuing since he was going to bed. This suggests the dispute is not over. There were a huge number of reverts on both sides of this debate. Vercetticarl was trying to record President Zelaya's term as having ended on 28 June, when he was expelled from the country. The other guy kept reverting that out. As I read the discussion at Talk:Honduras it appears to me that Therequiembellishere is more likely to have consensus. Nonetheless, there is no excuse for so many reverts, so both parties are blocked 24h. Vercetticarl should lay off the personal attacks in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by Rebroad (talk) (Result: 24h to submitter)
. : Time reported: 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 21:49,  7 July 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Rebroad identified as vandalism to last revision by Off2riorob. (TW)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Rebroad (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Rebroad is harrassing Off2riorob by repeatedly restoring his comments on Off2riorob's Talk page despite Off2riorob having removed them. Note also that the source that Rebroad is attempting to use does not support the contentions he is making on the article.  Note also that Rebroad is edit warring with even further reverts than Off2riorob ever did.  Note also that I came from this purely from having noticed the edit war on Off2riorob's Talk page and went to investigate, and have no dog in this hunt since, as an American, I never even heard of these people.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result — 24h to Rebroad. Off2riorob's removals are justified under WP:BLP. WWTAG's comments above are well-taken. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikiwikiq reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (fourth revert was so rapid I could not issue warning prior to violation)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

User:Wikiwikiq is an SPA who edits only a single article. Earlier today, the user inserted a large bloc of unsourced, non-wikiformatted text into the article, plainly cut-and-pasted from another source. I removed this text twice, identifying the the source with the second edit and warning the editor about both the copyvio and the sourcing issues. I also added the BLPunsourced template to the article, since no version of it included and sourcing or references. (The existing version of the article included a section labeled "References," but it was actually an external links section.) Wikiwikiq then again added back the deleted material, claiming without verification to be the original author, and removed the BLP template. I have added the template back (but not removed the disputed text, until the copyright issue can be resolved); however, Wikiwikiq continues to revert even the BLP-unsourced template from an obviously unsourced BLP. Both Wikiwikiq and I have reverted 4 times, but two my first two reverts were exempt from 3RR as removing apparent copyright violations; the third and fourth address obvious vandalism (removal of obviously applicable BLP-specific tags from a BLP). In light of Wikiwikiq's complete refusal to engage in discussion or conform to plainly applicable policies, I think administrative intervention is necessary, and have stopped attempting to edit the article pending review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24h for 3RR violation. It's hard to justify Wikiwikiq repeatedly taking out the 'BLPunsourced' tag when the article is (1) a BLP and (2) has no sources. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5 reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 08:50, 26 June 2009
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, 30 June 2009
 * 3rd revert: 05:28, 1 July 2009
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 2 July 2009
 * 5th revert: 00:45, 2 July 2009
 * 6th revert: 00:49, 2 July 2009
 * 7th revert: 01:12, 2 July 2009
 * 8th revert: 01:22, 2 July 2009
 * 9th revert: 01:33, 2 July 2009


 * 3RR warning earlier by 3rd editor:

We were both involved in the edit war, which I now regret. However, the user NRen2k5 was the first of us to report the other here, so I'm the one who got blocked. And the blocking admin Rjanag neglected to warn NRen2k5 or take any other action against him.

NRen2k5 also misrepresents his "attempt at communication" -- he used profanity during the edit warring (and another example, earlier )  as well as childish insults (and removing my words from my own talk page).

At the time I was unaware of the wiki-policy about editing archives (since the ANI archive does not have the header info/warning that other archives do), and I did not think the warning from the user NRen2k5 was valid, nor objective. His judgement is clouded by both his COI and his subjective involvement in the edit/revert war, and he continually understates his role in disputes.

Thank you.Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Stale. It is unlikely that this board would ever take action on a 3RR case that is five days old. Anyway, I thought you were unblocked only so you could request a rename. I recommend that you wait for the rename to go through before making any more requests for admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - He was blocked for just a little over a day for 3RR (the same one he’s reporting me for here), during which time a passing admin indef blocked him for the supposedly inappropriate name. The name change is in the works, and the admin decided that the old name isn’t too bad, so he can continue editing with it while the change is being processed. So as far as I know, he’s in the clear. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but can this judgement of 'Stale' be appealed?

Since I was blocked for the 3RR and then for username, I never had a chance to report this in time. I still think it's unfair for the other editor to get off scot-free without so much as even a warning. PrBeacon (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner reported by User:JohnnyLH (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I took exception to this user's behavior so I started a discussion about it on their talk page. They then deleted my discussion completely without responding to it, and continued to do so everytime I reposted it. Then they threatened me with an edit war when it was them who was edit warring. The first step of mediation--which I looked into--is to discuss the matter on the user's talk page. How can I do that, though, when everytime I post a topic they delete it completely without responding and then threaten me? I know it is against policy to delete topics off of your talk pahge without responding to them, which is what this user did. Then they threatened me for the same thing they did first. then, just now, they deleted all of it again as well as the warning I issued. Also sorry if I made any mistakes because this is the first time I have ever had to do this.JohnnyLH (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletion of comments from a user's own talk page is entirely within the user's prerogative. Restoring deleted text is the issue that can be construed as edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I am not an experienced user so please advise as to how I should proceed when I try to go about the prescribed policy and then the user just deletes my concerns without responding? Is that not a hostile act? Please advise as to how I should proceeed since I don't believe this user is acting within the spirit of wikipedia. thnks! JohnnyLH (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to proceed is for both of you just to forget this and leave each other alone. What are you even fighting about to begin with? A disagreement over behavior? If it's not affecting you, just let go of it. It seems that you are both making a big deal out of a trivial thing, and rather than continuing to have a fuss about it you could both just go pay attention to something else. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: See the report two below this; these users have both reported each other. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is over the Paul Krugman BLP article. Mostly petty conservative attacks on Krugman's BLP.  JohnnyLH hasn't commented once on the article talk page, per policy, but he's sure spent some time on my talk page.  Tiresome sock.  Scribner (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. Scribner should be careful not to edit war on the Paul Krugman article. He has been blocked four times already. One block was for 72 hours on this very article! That block was lifted with a suggestion of better behavior in the future, and we are still looking forward to that. Scribner only got up to three reverts this time, but I think that is still too many. JohnnyLH was inappropriately restoring his own comments at User talk:Scribner after they had been removed by Scribner, but he stopped as soon as the rule was pointed out to him. Brand new editors such as JohnnyLH (July 1) are well-advised to stay out of hot controversies until they have a track record. That could what Scribner is hinting at with his 'sock' comments, but he should stop using that language unless he wants to take it to WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ChinaHistorian reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h to ChinaHistorian)

 * User:


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (reverted me)
 * 2nd revert: (reverted me)
 * 3rd revert: (reverted J Milburn)
 * 4th revert: (adding disputed image again)
 * 5th revert: (re-adding image, note removal of comment-out formatting)


 * Page:


 * Prev version reverted to: (image added at bottom of diff)
 * 1st revert: (reverting me)
 * 2nd revert: (reverting J Milburn)


 * Page:


 * Prev version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (removal of speedy deletion tags, reverted me and Polly)
 * 2nd revert: (reverted me)
 * 3rd revert: (reverted me)
 * 4th revert: (reverted me)
 * 5th revert: reverted an IP


 * Explanation


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User is edit warring across two articles and a file page, over the inclusion of a non-free image. Other editors and I have removed the image from articles because it doesn't meet NFCC, and user has repeatedly restored them. When the image was tagged with di-orphaned fair use, he has repeatedly removed the tag. He is also trolling Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots (for example, calling editors Uyghur separatists, and repeatedly saying that he needs to let the "truth" out and removal of his copyvio image is "suppression of the truth"). I am asking that the user be blocked for a long enough period to keep him from POV-pushing and trolling while this event is still major news, and the image be deleted (faster than it normally would be by normal image processes) because of the controversial nature of the issue in question, and the fact that it violates Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines (as explained in the "diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've also warned for using talk pages and edit summaries for personal attacks on users. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours block for ChinaHistorian. Block made by SarekOfVulcan (I can't issue a block since I'm not registered). This user should be blocked a few hours ago. Watch for his/her action after the block is lifted. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnnyLH reported by User:Scribner (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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


 * 3rr warning:


 * Personal attack warning:

Obvious sock adding personal attacks to my user page, which I've warned against. User Continues to revert on my user page.Scribner (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't an edit war, all the diffs you've given are of different things and in any case it's on a talk page. Plus, I don't see "personal attacks"--of the four diffs you give, some are removal of talk page posts, and one is just a spelling change. This is probably not the right forum for you to be posting this. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: See the report two above this; these users have both reported each other. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action, see the corresponding complaint by JohnnyLH above. Don't keep making sock charges unless you want to take it to WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:R7604 reported by User:Thirteen squared (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: A message "warning" another user for possibly violating 3RR, so they most likely understand it


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User behavior is also being discussed at WP:ANI right now. Also, this is a repeat report from earlier. I didn't realize there was a form for this. I will be removing the other one once this has been posted. --132 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page. No objection if someone else wants to unprotect and block instead. Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:98.220.43.195 reported by User:JD554 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:47, 18 June 2009
 * 2nd revert: 09:11, 29 June 2009
 * 3rd revert: 07:49, 30 June 2009
 * 4th revert: 03:59, 1 July 2009
 * 5th revert: 02:41, 3 July 2009
 * 6th revert: 03:47, 4 July 2009
 * 7th revert: 00:17, 5 July 2009
 * 8th revert: 06:02, 5 July 2009
 * 9th revert: 20:20, 5 July 2009
 * 10th revert: 21:26, 5 July 2009
 * 11th revert: 00:24, 6 July 2009
 * 12th revert: 20:13, 6 July 2009
 * 13th revert: 06:20, 7 July 2009
 * 14th revert: 18:56, 7 July 2009
 * 15th revert: 19:02, 7 July 2009
 * 16th revert: 08:38, 8 July 2009
 * 17th revert: 07:11, 9 July 2009
 * 18th revert: 07:54, 9 July 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 07:48, 6 July 2009


 * Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

The 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th reverts breached WP:3RR following the 3RR warning, the IP has continued revert any attempt my numerous other editors to show that New Order are no longer together. Foetusized attempted to discuss the issue with the IP on the article's talk page (diff) and the IP also joined in the discussion, however, continuing to revert on the article and also disrupting other articles in an attempt to point score (diff and diff). Despite being provided with a reliable source which confirms the break up (diff) the IP rejected it stating that a direct quote from the band was required (diff). Despite it being pointed out to the IP that the newspaper article is a reliable source and meets Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (diff), the IP has continued to revert against consensus while also engaging in a personal attack (diff). --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mesoso2 reported by User:Pdfpdf on behalf of those at User talk:Mesoso2 (result: more info)
This user likes to edit war. He pays no attention to wiki ettiquette. He makes wholesale changes without discussion, then insists that someone else defend the status quo, rather than he justifies his changes. When asked to discuss, he preaches. He pays no attention to the information brought to his attention by others. The list of "transgressions" and "irritations" since 21 June is quite large. Most recent behaviour illustrated at: I have no interest in putting up with him, but on the other hand, the articles he is attacking are the result of much work and consensus by many editors, and I am loath to allow this person to destroy all that work. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Mesoso2
 * User_talk:Mesoso2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history


 * No idea what you're on about guv. This is WP:AN3. Or possibly WP:ANEW, depending on where you came from. Have you considered using the template? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response.
 * "No idea what you're on about guv." - No idea at all? Oh dear. All right, being blunt, this guy is a pain-in-the-neck (and all the other places you don't want to get a pain in.) How does one communicate some reality to him? (Does that help?)
 * "This is WP:AN3." - Yes; a.k.a. "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring". My opening sentence was "This user likes to edit war." (Yes, AP:ANEW points here too.) I don't understand whether you are asking me a question or telling me something, and in either case, I don't understand what you are asking/telling.
 * "Have you considered using the template?" - Yes. At length. None of them seemed relevant.
 * Any and all suggestions and help will be appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your complaint here is vague and is not properly formatted as a 3RR case, using diffs. (See top of this page). You haven't even specified the articles where edit-warring has occurred. However, a better-organized report on his actions has already been made over at WT:MILHIST. You should invite Mesoso2 to join that discussion. If he will not discuss, but continues to make reverts that do not have consensus, open a new complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Your complaint here is vague" - Agreed. It's more a "request for information" than a specific complaint, viz: "How does one communicate some reality to him?" Perhaps I should be making this request on a different page? If so, please advise.
 * "and is not properly formatted as a 3RR case, using diffs." - I don't understand. It is not a "3RR case". It is a case of "edit warring", so of course it isn't formatted as a 3RR case ...
 * "You haven't even specified the articles where edit-warring has occurred." - Errrrr. Pardon? Did you not read:
 * Most recent behaviour illustrated at:
 * User_talk:Mesoso2
 * User_talk:Mesoso2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history
 * "However, a better-organized report ... " - Errrrr. Yes. I know. I wrote half of it. And in this posting I included a link to it. (i.e. please re-read the above bullet point.) I don't understand what you're trying to communicate.
 * "You should invite ... " - Errrr. I gather you have read the reference you are quoting? If so, you should already know that he has been asked, he hasn't responded, and he is continuing his behaviour. That's why I made this posting. Why do I need to open a new complaint? I have already made this complaint.
 * I'm afraid your posting doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha. I have just worked out what you mean by THE template ...

I think I am in the wrong place.

Can someone please advise which is the "right" place to get advice on dealing with a user who likes to edit war, and pays no attention to wiki ettiquette? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Undid Pdfpdf's strikeout of the complaint. There was nothing wrong with making the report here, and it is now answered. Any further discussion can occur elsewhere. I have suggested some other options to Pdfpdf. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe i was edit warring, my perspective is that it is Pdfpdf who was edit warring, since my edits were legitimate and factually based, and pdfpdf had no factual or encyclopedic basis for his reversions. I was making bold edits and pdfpdf didn't like it so started to reverse any edit i make. I beleive that this means pdfpdf is being difficult and obstructive, not me. Mesoso2 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever.
 * As I stated, I thought this page was for something else.
 * When I realised what it was for, I struck through my posting because I don't have the sort of complaint that this page is for. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Mesoso2: "I don't believe i was edit warring" - Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. Mesoso2 has his own selective view of reality that isn't supported by the facts. That's his problem, not mine. And I'm not about to let him try to make it into my problem.
 * If we look at the facts (no, not my opinion, the facts):
 * 1) Several people have complained, not just me.
 * 2) I'm not warring - examine the evidence.
 * 3) Mesoso2's edits are to replace what's there with his opinions - not with fact. Also, I have yet to see Mesoso2 provide any supporting evidence for any of his opinions.
 * 4) Mesoso2 ignores consensus.
 * 5) Mesoso2 ignores wiki ettiquette.
 * 6) Mesoso2 doesn't understand the difference between "bold" and "rude and inconsiderate".
 * 7) Mesoso2 pays NO attention to what people say to him. (e.g. I do not "dislike" his edits; I dislike his behaviour. I've told him that at least twice. And I am but one of many on his talk page who have politely tried to tell him that.)
 * 8) Mesoso2 isn't very interested in facts - only in his view of the world. Dozens of people have reverted his illadvised & unjustified edits. Not just me. Again, examine the evidence.
 * Etc.
 * That's the last anyone will hear from me in this particular subsection.
 * Consistent with the advice I have received (from William M. Connolley and EdJohnston), if I consider that Mesoso2's behaviour becomes intollerable, I will return and use "the template".
 * Mesoso2 is a nuisance and a great waster of other people's time.
 * He is well intentioned, but completely unaware of the impact he has on other people, (even when they politely go to the effort of telling him!)
 * I hope I NEVER cross paths with him again. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:79.97.98.207 reported by User:Irtrav (Result: 48 hours)
I'm going to break the template here, which I will first off give my apologies for.

But short and sweet, seems this user is edit warring with anyone and everyone, more over, specifically regarding "plus size/overweight" women.

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torrid&diff=prev&oldid=300987065 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hot_Topic&diff=prev&oldid=300986918 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plus-size_model&diff=prev&oldid=300986759 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_safe_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=300986214

Seems the user in question was previously banned for edit warring, too.

Again, sorry for template breaking.

Peace and love.

irtrav (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Osprey9713 reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: 24 hours)
User Osprey has been engaged in a long term edit war on the article Rapture -- continually reverting and warring against a consensus of at least 4 editors. A simple look at the history of this page will show repeated reverts involving a good number of editors all trying to maintain stability against his reverts.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[]     

These are just the most recent. It's been going on for weeks now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Osprey continues to revert: 20:25, 8 July 2009. Tom Harrison Talk 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:SkyWriter has consistently used original research to control this article. all sources have been demonstrated to be false quotations or non-existent. I have continually warned him to provide accurate source material. Author appears to be using several usernames to do multiple edits. The views of this article do not reflect the consensus of organizations that this article describes Osprey9713 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "other" user names are other editors. Osprey continues to ignore well known notable and verifiable sources, many of which have their own articles which also list their views relevant to the subject.  I don't have time and neither do the other editors.  Osprey needs to be advised on the proper use of collaboration in editing.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally -- I've tried to communicate with him off the talk page, but he routinely blanks his own talk page. From what I can tell, he also appears to be edit warring on a few other pages.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Osprey9713 has been reverted by Barrylb, Lamorak, TKempis, SkyWriter, and me. SkyWriter in the past has expressed his willingness to incorporate almost all of Osprey9713's proposed changes somewhere in the article, but keeps trying to force his own preferred version. Clearly there are improvements to be made, but Osprey9713's slow-motion persistent edit warring is making that difficult. Tom Harrison Talk 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I warned the user about 3rr 17:44, 5 July 2009. Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This warning was invalid, because I had not reverted the article three times within 24hrs. As has been done by these users.
 * I have provided several sources on the talk page that demonstrate that the article is incorrect, and that these editors statements are original research and not supported by an organization or notable people. Wikipedia has a standard of excellence that shouldnt be thwarted by a few editors with an agenda. These editors refuse to deal with the evidence that I have added to the talk page, and instead are pursuing a smear campaign. They have done this previous with other users such as rossnixon in the past. If they can demonstrate that their views are true, then their edits will remain and I will be fine with them. I am willing to resolve the problems, but the users are unwilling to provide quotations references or any evidence that supports their Original Research Osprey9713 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * additionally reverts have been done without reason. I have contributed valuable information that has been recklessly reverted, which is vandalism. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that this noticeboard is not for content disputes. It is not a place for arguing over who is right and wrong; it's only a place for determining if edit warring has taken place. Wikipedia's edit warring policy states that you should not edit war in an article, even if you are right and everyone else is wrong; it's your responsibility to convince everyone of that at the article's talk page.
 * I have my hands a bit full at the moment so I probably won't make the final call on this report, but my impression is that Osprey9713 needs to understand the edit warring rules and the use of talk pages, and should be blocked if he makes another revert without consensus after a warning (such as this very one) has been issued here. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Every edit that I have made has been reverted, including adding a npov tag to the page. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. The current revision of the article is your preferred version, which you reverted to at 20:25, 8 July 2009. Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also not the case for his PREVIOUS edit warring, in which I managed to get 100% of his additional information -- verbatim -- into the dispensationalist subsection of the article to which it applied. But he was even reverting THAT, in spite of the fact that his info was all in there.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This post and the subsequent revert show that he understands the 3RR policy already. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonm223 reported by User:Asdfg12345 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

9 July
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert (not happened yet)

Now if you look at the page history, you'll see quite a long of back and forth. The fact is, it only becomes real edit-warring here. this is because up until then it was not straight deletions and restorations of the same piece of text, but iterations and content changes. Then it reached the natural conclusion, and was taken to a third party opinion about reliable sources, here. Simonm223 has not made any remarks on the talk page, or responded to that opinion. The talk page argumentation cites policies and so forth, and since there was no agreement I took it to a third party. Of course, the opinion of another wikipedian is not binding on content, but what is clear here is that Simonm223 is editing against the consensus of three editors, who have cited policy and argued for the wording that he is removing. Simonm223 has presented no argument against this, has not responded to the third opinion, not referred to any policies, and has stopped arguing on the talk page, instead simply reverting.

I don't want to go past one revert per day, so I'm hoping the three reverts shown so far for July 9 are evidence enough that Simonm223 is engaged in edit warring. If not, then I can revert again and wait until he reverts again (there is every sign that he will), and then he'll have broken 3RR. Or maybe someone else will come along and revert and he'll break 3RR then. Anyway, the point is not to get him to break 3RR, I'm sure that's not the requirement for reporting here (I hope not).


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- note, this is just the long long conversation. Skip to the end; the argument peters out as the editor produces no response to consensus and policy.
 * This is the diff of third party opinion on the RS noticeboard, opining in favor of citing the material. Simonm223 has only dismissed it:,.

Okay, I hope I have jumped through the hoops as required. I appreciate the time of the people who are processing these. The community needs it. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 22:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No violation . Protected. I notice that two of the three people above who are said to constitute the consensus (Asdfg12345 and Dilip Rajeev) are among those who have been sanctioned under the Falun Gong arbitration case. The material that Simonm223 keeps persistently adding is a quote from the New York Times . Apparently the other side is arguing that NYT is not reliable for this purpose, and it's better to go to Falun Gong's own website. I think the POV alarm bells are going off. It seems possible that the majority of those editing the article are Falun Gong members. I suggest that Simon consider opening a Request for comment, and getting it advertised, or consider use of another forum, like WP:Arbitration enforcement. It is a conceivable solution that that the different readings of the speech by NYT and by the Falun Gong authorities could both be mentioned, without any need for Wikipedia to say who's more likely to be right. Once Simon gets a hearing in a sufficiently neutral forum, he should of course abide by whatever consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Postscript - Per the extended discussion below, the article is now fully protected. For clarity, the editor who brought this case, Asdgf12345, appears in the list of those blocked at Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong. My original closure did not include everything I learned about the edit war. The optimum solution might be a case at WP:Arbitration enforcement, but I don't have time to undertake that, and probably someone quite experienced would have to put the case together. During the protection, please discuss the issue more thoroughly at Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong, and for clarity can each participant state whether they are affiliated with Falun Gong. I remain convinced that a much wider discussion is needed to ensure a neutral audience, though I can't provide one. I hope someone interested in the case will open an RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking for outsiders' comments is very welcome, and I understand why you have protected the article. But seriously, do you think people "affiliated with Falun Gong" don't know how to edit according to the policies, try to use substandard sources, or seek to distort the facts? Are you familiar with the long-lasting disputes surrounding these articles, and who exactly are the editors who refuse to discuss their edits and who use illicit sources? Did you know that nearly all peer-reviewed references in these articles have been added by people who practice Falun Gong? Do you know what top researchers in the field say about this subject, or are your own notions based on something completely different? If people "affiliated with democracy" were editing democracy articles, and an edit conflict appeared, would you ask them to unilaterally "state" this relationship? Moreover, all veteran editors who practice Falun Gong have disclosed this a long time ago; there's nothing secretive about it. What I am concerned about is your unwillingness to approach this issue with neutral language and demands.


 * If "affiliation" means "membership" in some mysterious "Falun Gong organisation", then no, nobody is affiliated with Falun Gong. Falun Gong is not an organisation with membership, and there exist no officials in some postulated Falun Gong hierarchy, apart from whether an individual chooses to practice Falun Gong in his or her life or not. We can back this up with reliable third party research. Personally, I am a lot more "affiliated" with religious studies on the university level, and I have always taken an academic approach to editing Wikipedia. Please do not bring your prejudices into this dispute; you may be unwittingly giving kudos to those who really try to use these articles as a platform for ideological struggle, and who blatantly violate the policies. The two guys who were permanently banned from editing all Falun Gong articles by the ArbCom were fierce anti-Falun Gong warriors. I would be seriously concerned about the affiliations of these kinds of people. Asdfg12345 has been involved for several years; he has been blocked once for 48 hours, it was more than a year ago, and as far as I can remember, it was because of edit warring with someone who tried to insert material from a private website. I have a clear record, and I've been here since 2005. Simonm223 is a new editor, who has refused to answer to our well-justified arguments. Anybody can see this by actually reading the article's talk page. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Verifiability. In an article about Falun Gong's teachings, the only website where Falun Gong practitioners go to read Li Hongzhi's lectures is a highly notable primary source. The content has been transcribed word-for-word, and the same website is the only possible source NYT could have used. This is not about "different readings of the speech"; whatever NYT says is an interpretation of exactly the same text that's available on the website. Moreover, it seems you have misunderstood the argument. We are not talking about removing the New York Times quote, since it qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. But as there is discrepancy between the sources, we are entitled report it. This is fully consistent with the policies. Verifiability says: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Simonm223 attempts to remove everything that refers to this "disagreement between [the] sources". &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, unfortunately you didn't look into the dispute. The NYT source is not being removed. The Falun Gong source which follows it is. There is also no need to draw battle lines along "pro-FLG" and "anti-FLG" -- the key thing is that people respect process and policy. Your remark that "It is a conceivable solution that that the different readings of the speech by NYT and by the Falun Gong authorities could both be mentioned, without any need for Wikipedia to say who's more likely to be right" is precisely the conclusion of talk page discussion and a third party opinion, all of which I linked to and it is also what the revert war is about. At this point, to me it appears that you simply didn't check the diffs properly and let your prejudices get the best of you. If you had checked you would have seen a consensus had been reached on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm reverting him now, and will consider that I'm entitled to do so three times in a 24 hour period before being blocked. You've established that precedent by not doing anything about clear edit-warring here. I expect to file a new report showing four violations in a 24 hour period. Hopefully you will take some action then. I know you are a volunteer, and appreciate the time it takes to process these requests.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the consensus is myself, Olaf Stephanos and user:Blueboar, according to his note on the RS noticeboard. Dilip Rajeev hasn't waded into this dispute. Further, I wasn't sanctioned as part of the arbitration case. Finally, just to make it clear, this sentence you wrote: "The material that Simonm223 keeps persistently adding is a quote from the New York Times" is untrue. He keeps persistently removing a reference to a FLG website which has the support of three editors. He's not even arguing about it or citing policy, either. The evidence for all this is in the diffs above. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)