Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive107

User:Kevin5593 reported by User:Masem (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (User acknowledged by removing the warning subsequently:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
 * Editors of page have agreed on talk page to keep the "differences from book" section reasonably short and sourced before. User has inserted and reverted removals without discussion.  User has been explained that sources are needed per this warning, and one of the early reverts  pointed to the section where this was established.  (note that I've come into this after the 4th revert, after the user was well warned about this).

--M ASEM (t) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg reported by User:PasswordUsername (Result: No Vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: User has undone four changes by others over a 24-hour-period on a highly controversial article just back from AFD – where he had been lobbying for keep repeatedly – instead of working on consensus.


 * 1st revert: - reversion of numerous edits made by User:Anarchangel
 * 2nd revert: - removing synthesis tag
 * 3rd revert: - reinserting material from dubiously-worded article as reference following a removal by a different editor
 * 4th revert: - removing "US-backed" in favor of "Chinese-backed" (even as reference inserted shows that both regimes were supportive of Pol Pot)


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Martintg is aware of the 3RR rule. He's also been blocked for this previously:

Others have warned Martintg of edit-warring after the AFD nomination – notably Igny, on the talk page of Communist genocide, the article in question: see diff --
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

PasswordUsername (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

''"[http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/united-states-foreign-policies-toward-genocide At the time of the invasion, the United States was concerned with improving relations with China, which was the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the Soviet Union to be more amenable to U.S. interests. Moreover, the United States, along with other states in the region, found it difficult to accept without protest the invasion of one state by another, fearing that a dangerous precedent could be set. Incredible as it may seem, when controversy arose over which delegation to seat in the fall 1979 United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York—the ousted Pol Pot regime or the Vietnamese backed regime then in control of the country—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China argued strongly in favor of the Pol Pot regime. The dispute had to be resolved by committee, in which the United States bowed to Chinese and ASEAN interests and voted to seat the Pol Pot regime. The United Stated did, at least, go on to claim that the issue of seating a delegation was purely technical and legal, and that its support of seating the Pol Pot regime did not imply approval of that regime's policies.]"'', i.e. China is the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, and the US action did not imply approval of the regime's policies.
 * The first was a good faithed reversion due to the fact that the AfD was ongoing, and it would have confused and some what disrupted the deletion discussion.
 * Others have reverted Igny's insertion of the "SYNTH" tag, which is disruptive if no explanation of the issue is given on the Talk page, see
 * Deleting sourced text is frowned upon, and others have reinserted the text
 * And finally the last not a revert at all but aligning the text (see also ) to what the source actually says:

Given that many disagree with the outcome of the AfD debate, the article should really be temporarily protected. --Martintg (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 separate edits to the page in 24 hours do not an editwar make I recommend the nominator spend some time bhere to understand what is actionable so we don't waste time with another spurious report in future. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) comment struck given comment on my talk, I can understand PWUN being confused on how 4RR works. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask not to delete synth tag without consensus established at talk, Martintg reverts ; Anarchangel edits , Martintg reverts ; Russavia takes out , Martintg reverts ; I insert info based on added material of US support of Pol Pot as Cambodian representative at the United Nations , Martintg undoes this, adds his own take . This is not edit warring? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Escultur17 reported by User:Jakob.scholbach (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: -- I don't undertstand what I'm supposed to provided here. The following is a list of 5 edits by the reported user that insert the same material again and again. All of these edits have been undone by other editors (including myself 2 times, 2 times, an anonymous IP once).


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * The user has been warned multiple times by at his talk page. Here is the history of User talk:Escultur17.


 * The material added amounts to what another contributor (not myself) called "statements of an obvious crank". The edits of have been reverted multiple times, by multiple contributors.

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing. Next time a report to WP:AIV may have been more appropriate in similar cases. Nja 247 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: reverting different things each time, but the edit summary, generated by the "undo" function clearly indicates a revert, each time.


 * 1st revert: edit summary reads "Undid revision 307241003 by Fipplet (talk).."
 * 2nd revert: edit summary reads 'Undid revision 307398091 by Hertz1888..."
 * 3rd revert: same as previous one, edit summary reads 'Undid revision 307405173 by Hertz1888..."
 * 4th revert: edit summary reads "Revert to revision 307423650 dated 2009-08-11 19:57:00 by Hertz1888 using popups"


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user is well aware of 3RR (to the point of having this noticeboard on his watch list), has been blocked for edit warring several times and uses 3RR as a "weapon" against other users regularly reports other users for 3RR : (recent example, just a day ago, June this year, June this year, April this year, April this year, April this year, March this year)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not participated in the edit war at all. There is discussion about this topic on the Talk page:

LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Check with the users involved to see if they felt I was edit warring or attempting to resolve a dispute (look at the page history of the article and see how many of my edits are actually reverted). Funny how the one trying to get to the middle has "disinterested observers" taking potshots at them. As for using 3rr as a "weapon" that report came after 6 reverts and was withdrawn amicably (see User_talk:Ori) when the user agreed to not continually revert and continue discussion on the talk page.  nableezy  - 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the IP address being used is in a sock puppet investigation here.  nableezy  - 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked the users involved if they feel you were edit warring or attempting to resolve a dispute. If they don't think you were edit warring, I'll withdraw this report. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Er... that's an odd approach. In any event, I've protected the article. --  tariq abjotu  03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wattlebird reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several editors have approached this editor about his edits on the page, which involve changing a prose section into a table. Dayewalker (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  04:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Fipplet reported by User:George (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:21, 10 August 2009 - there were various reverts made to different things, but this is the closest to a single version being supported by the user.


 * 1st revert: 10:44, 11 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 16:52, 11 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 20:13, 11 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 20:46, 11 August 2009
 * 5th revert: 21:23, 11 August 2009
 * 6th revert: 21:33, 11 August 2009

User has been warned several times before about violating 3RR, as evident on their talk page.

Please review the history of the article's talk page. There have been three or four discussions going on simultaneously. This user was involved in those discussions, but violated 3RR anyways.

The biggest violation here, in my opinion, is that the user used an IP address sock puppet to circumvent 3RR detection (as shown in this sock puppet investigation result). The article has been protected due to edit warring, so there's no immediate need there. However, the user has been previously blocked (for 4 days) for using sock puppets. I'm not completely sure if I should report the 3RR violation using sock puppets here, but this seemed like the appropriate place. ← George [ talk  ] 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nja 247 07:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tallicfan20 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Also warned today about edit warring on Avi Shlaim. RolandR 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well on the Palestinian Refugee page, my reason for reverting is that while yes, I know there was "sourced material," it false portrayed Morris, given that I gave a direct quote of him recently, while the page sourced someone else of course interpreting Benny Morris(as opposed to a 14 year old reference we cannot see), and also claiming there to be a consensus when there really is none today. not to mention, there already is a page about the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus so why turn the general page which talks about Palestinian refugees info that should be on another page, by virtue of the fact it exists? I was merely trying to fight systematic bias, and irrelevent info and I say that for the fact we have a page about "causes of the 1948 palestinian refugees," so why give one of numerous interpretations when a page for that exists?

On Avi Shlaim, its on the talk page. It is not right that the previous editors would use very overtly biased pages like Democracy Now and the Nation to source a grand "fact" about Shlaim when more NPOV sources say what I have said. Violating NPOV is against this site, and it seems some seem hell bent on violating NPOV.Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter mate, edit warring is disruptive and is not tolerated. You should have used the talk pages to seek consensus, or if that failed used dispute resolution, or even requested page protection. Nja 247 15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo online reported by 86.22.187.144 (Result: Semi)


A certain editor, JimboOnline is constant removing links from the Rushden & Diamonds wiki page. The link in question is one to the only fan's messageboard in existance. It is not profit and a useful link for fans of Rushden & Diamonds FC and others to contact other fans to find out news not available on the club site. It is completely in the same manner of as links on other pages such as MK Dons, Scunthorpe United FC, Fulham, Chelsea, Manchester United (of particular note, Red Cafe) where these are tolerated. The site in question is endorsed by the club, although sepatate and as such is a significant resource link for Rushden & Diamonds FC. The wiki page is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushden_%26_Diamonds_F.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.187.144 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the link on the forum as per WP:EL. This editor seems to have a clear conflict of interest as per this post on the forum and shows a total disregard of the guidelines set in place and a forum user admits it's a good advertising source as the forum doesn't appear on Google, so it'd also fail on WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Jimbo[online] 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As already outlined. If this link is to be removed, then other links of its manner must also be removed from the articles outlined above. The context on the forum is as a guide to fans rather than outright advertisement. If wiki contacted Rushden & Diamonds FC, they would confirm this as relevent information for the wikipedia article upon them, in the same manner as RedCafe on the Manchester United wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDJack (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected. Two different IPs have been warring to add a link to a fansite. The IP who submitted this report has already gone over 3RR. There are criteria for adding links to fansites. Please find out what they are, and discuss on the article's talk page whether the criteria are met. Trying to force your link into the article by edit warring will not win any friends here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about admin actions regarding a move debate (Result: No action)
Please Help. I being attacked by this administrator Dougweller unfairly. A while ago a couple of editors and myself tried to change the title of this article Syrian occupation of Lebanon unsuccessfully even though there was an 8-6 vote in favor of moving it. And the message of Mr. Weller and other editors was that the status quo cannot be changed until there is a consensus; so myself and other editors relented and left the title alone. And then came a number of like-minded editors who decided to change the status quo of the article by deleting sources that point to a "presence". I went and changed back the edits to the original version and then it ketp on being changed by the other editors. Dougweller threatened to block me, but said nothing to the other editors who kept changing the status quo without discussing it first. Please help, this is not right. Dougweller talks about consesus only when it suits him and then preaches something else when it doesn't suit him.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of this comment is Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon. This was a move discussion that was closed by admin User:Y on 9 August as No Consensus. The proposal had been to move Syrian occupation of Lebanon to Syrian military presence in Lebanon. The !vote had a slighly numerical majority in favor of doing the move. In the following section of the article talk page Dougweller added his own comment in support of Y's decision. George Al-Shami is posting here to complain about Dougweller's action. My sense is that the complaint does not belong on this noticeboard, since there is no allegation of 3RR violation or edit warring. Maybe George could contact User:Y to ask if there is a procedure for appealing his decision? EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't close a move discussion. This is a response to my warning George Al-Shami that he'd broken 3RR. His response on my talk page was to say he was going to report me for theatening him - and to revert a fourth time. I've got every right to block him now as my only involvement was to point out on the talk page there was no consensus - he and another editor were asking around for an Admin that hadn't been involved that might overturn Y's closure, so I responded. George Al-Shami, by the way, had already moved the article in defiance of Y's closure as no consensus. But I'm such a nice guy, I'll report him instead. :-) Dougweller (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action, since this is not a well-formed edit-warring complaint. See Dougweller's new report below concerning the same events. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:George Al-Shami reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:31 h )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1st revert 18:20, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "undid POV edit")


 * 2nd revert 19:10, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "tickle you're not explaining why these references are being removed")


 * 3rd revert 20:43, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "they  do not have to support the content of the article, what you are doing is against Wikipedia's rules, my goodness. You cannot remove properly cited sources that  contradict Zionist scholars")


 * 4th revert 00:43, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "you are the one that is changing the status quo, so you take it to the talk page and please discuss it before canging the status quo, you can't play it by your rules")


 * Diff of warning: here —Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Opps, I didn't see that you had already reported this... should I just delete my filing below? ← George [ talk  ] 04:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 31h Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Vercetticarl reported by User:LjL (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not given, user was repeatedly warned and blocked


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

I am assuming that User:Vercetticarl and User talk:190.53.244.15 are the same user because of statement to that effect by administrator refusing unblock. --LjL (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool3 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Systemizer reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

. : Time reported: 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert 20:47, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "Read the first sentence. Holistic theories are irrational and subjective by definition, which exempts them from such objections")


 * 2nd revert 21:39, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "")


 * 3rd revert 22:20, 12 August 2009  (edit summary: "/* Summary */")


 * 4threvert 17:35, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "")


 * 5th revert 17:52, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "Read prior to reverting, moron.")


 * 6th revert 18:04, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "Added a quotation.")


 * Diff of warning: here

This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing and 3RR on this article before, and should be quite clear that he is editing against consensus. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 72h, edit warring and incvility William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GHcool reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)
First 24-hour period:


 * 1st edit: 21:54 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.


 * 1st revert: 22:22 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence; misleading edit summary.


 * 2nd revert: 23:47 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.


 * 3rd revert: 17:38 August 11, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.

Second 24-hour period:


 * 4th revert: 17:16 August 13, inserts a comma between "Palestinian" and "Arab" in the first sentence, so that it no longer reads "Palestinian-Arab."


 * 5th revert: 17:27 August 13, restores comma


 * 6th revert: 18:43 August 13, restores comma


 * 7th revert: 20:14 August 13, adds the "dubious" tag after "Palestinian-Arab."

Comments
GHcool wants to remove from the first sentence of Kafr Saba that it was a Palestinian-Arab village because, he says, the residents did not see themselves as "Palestinian" for much of their history.

He and LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a new account and fairly obvious sockpuppet (though I'm not saying it's a GHcool sock) have been reverting against four editors. Based on the diffs above, I believe GHcool is trying to game 3RR. Although his final edit with the "dubious" tag does not revert to a previous version, the effect of the edit is to undermine that the village was "Palestinian-Arab." SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h, edit warring. Would have been better to warn him of this report. It isn't obvious that LotRQ is an obvious sock; I think you want RFCU or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:UkFaith reported by User:Mitsube (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I initially removed a section of the article for reasons explained on the talk page. UkFaith then undid this change and did not address my concern that the section was unbalanced, or that one of the sources used seems to be user-edited. Rather than edit-war I added a great deal of well-sourced material to balance the section without removing any material. UkFaith then undid this three times, once after another editor restored it and once after I restored it. I am not sure why. His short explanation on talk page does not make sense. His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior recently. Furthermore when I put a uw-3rr1 template on his talk page he responded by calling me a "bully":. Mitsube (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitsube began by deleting an entire section from the article without discussing any of it with anyone first. I believe this action falls within the scope of vandalism. I was able to successfully revert this and I posted my reasons on the talk page. Mitsube went on to say his reasons for deleting the section were that the references were untrustworthy. The references in fact included Giuseppe Tucci who was a world learder in his field of Buddhism history.


 * After this Mitsube set about rewriting almost the entire section of the article, completely changing its view. I tried to revert this also, however I was unaware at that time of the 3RR rule and I did not know how to revert Mitsube's edits, which were split into three or four, as one revert. I there for broke the 3RR rule just trying to restore the page to its original wording. I posted my ressons on the talk page. Mistube then reverted my revert quoting vandalism as his reason. He knew full well of course that it was not vandalism and that I was unhappy about him making such a massive change to an article that had respectable references without any discussion. His reason of vandalism was not acceptable in my opinion and I again reverted the changes to restore the page to its original wording and again asked for a discussion on the talk page.


 * At this point Mitsube contacted William M. Connolley who immediately blocked me for the 3RR rule without any discussion. I feel that William M. Connolley was too eager to block someone without understanding the situation.


 * The very next day when I was able to edit again I returned to the article and 'worded' the section as it was originally worded without reverting and again asked for a discussion. Mitsube immediately contacted William M. Connolley again and told him I had reverted the article and William M. Connolley immediately blocked me again. He did not even bother to check if it was true.


 * The upshot is that Mitsube has changed what was a well referenced article into his own personal opinion and if I try to challenge it in anyway I get blocked, unfairly and against Wikipedia policy in my opinion, by William M. Connolley who iseems to be supporting Mitsube's changes. I dont believe that William M. Connolley is an expert in the field of Buddhism history or that his knowledge out ranks that of Giuseppe Tucci and there for I dont believe he should be taking sides and supporting changes he is not qualified to judge.


 * Anyway I dont see there would be any point in my continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia project at this point. I will of course forward my experiences where possible after which I will delete my account.


 * The article as it stands is in a mess and has a number of omissions and mistakes and opinions. I have read more and more outside articles that say the same thing about Wikipedia and state that many other users feel they were bullied by abusive admin people in similar situations.


 * For the record these reverts were the very first ever edits I have made to this article. I have only ever edited one other page in the entire time that I have been a wikipedia member. It is an out right lie by Mitsube to say "His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior". In my opinion Mitsube set out from the very beginning to discredit me rather than discussing the article because he did not have a sound foundation for his changes.


 * I also note from Mitsube's talk page that he has been reported in the past for vandalism by other members.


 * Its very discouraging and disappointing to see that behaviour such as Mitsube's is supported by the admin team. UkFaith (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to work out the problem on the talk page. In the past, I have been in a content dispute that involved Mitsube, and in my experience, he goes out of his way to resolve the problem and insure harmonious editing.  I've been following your edits on the talk page, and you seem to be focusing on attacking editors rather than working with them to improve the article.  The LAST POST EVER DELETING MY ACCOUNT NOW gambit is somewhat tired, and you might find things would turn out differently if you appealed to our intellect rather than our emotions. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had posted on the talk page stating my reasons why I reverted Mitsube's changes and asked for a discussion. Mitsube ignored this and called all my edits vandalism and reverted them knowing full well they not. My experience is that Mitsube will say anything and will play dirty games to ensure he gets his own way.
 * As per my previous post Mitsube's talk page shows that he has been reported in the past by other users for simiar behaviour. UkFaith (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Coordinated hacking attack on this Wikipedia article? Result:Semiprotected
Please help here! I will repeat below the note I have just written on the Discussion page for the Melbourne International Film Festival article. It should be self-explanatory, but if you would like any further information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "There have now been three deletions over the past three days of the same short, referenced account I added to this article on the screening of Rebiya Kadeer's film The 10 Conditions of Love at the recent Melbourne International Film Festival.


 * Interestingly, all three deletions have been done from anonymous I.P. addresses which have no record of ever having been used to contribute in any other way to the Wikipedia, and none of them gave any reasons or justifications for their deletions. Also of interest is that all three I.P.s are registered with the same internet provider company in the U.S., one from New York, and two from Washington, D.C. The last deletion was done after I specifically requested that referenced material not be deleted.


 * I am now going to reinsert the section again and report the incidents to the WP administrators. If it is deleted once more without prior discussion I will send all the details - not only to to the WP administrators - but also to the people who are investigating the previous hacking of the Festival website and the journalists who covered that story. Please stop this blatant vandalising!" John Hill (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)-


 * Thanks to Alex Bakharev for the "semiprotected" status. In reply to the previous note - I am sorry, I have no way of telling who was behind the edit warring - I could only track three different IP addresses to their servers - I have no special tracking tools available to me. But this use of anonymous IP addresses which were apparently specially activated for one purpose only is typical of coordinated internet attacks. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

University Canada West reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)
Well it's come to this. I'd like to request assistance in resolving the edit war plaguing this article, one way or the other. Ingoman (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please give a little more information about the dispute, and what exactly you want resolved? Cool3 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy enough to just resolve the edit war to a stable article version with NPOV. Ingoman (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

helping user file report...

Reporting User:99.225.160.205

diffs:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=307774562&oldid=307774003
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307774712
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307778010

User warned:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.225.160.205

User refused to engage in dialogue. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence
(Note: I was in the process of writing up a report, not noticing that one had already been started until I went to contact Ingoman. I decided to just attach this here to avoid confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 00:23, 13 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:27, 13 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 00:30, 13 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 00:34, 13 August 2009
 * 5th revert: 01:23, 13 August 2009
 * 6th revert: 01:23, 13 August 2009
 * 7th revert: 17:27, 13 August 2009
 * 8th revert: 01:27, 13 August 2009
 * 9th revert: 04:38, 13 August 2009
 * 10th revert: 16:54, 13 August 2009
 * 11th revert: 17:02, 13 August 2009
 * 12th revert: 17:27, 13 August 2009 Made over 20 minutes after being warned, with a misleading edit summary

August 14 update
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

(somebody, do something)Seb az86556 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:06, 13 August 2009


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 02:12, 13 August 2009

Edit-warring with who hasn't been warned until just now. Editors and  stepped in to help. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit-warring continues. Help, please. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Thikkamasala reported by User:Drmies (Result: Seek DR)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user talk page, User talk:Thikkamasala

This is an ongoing matter. While I have some doubts about the notability of this subject, I have tried to edit the article to where it became an encyclopedic article--which included the removal of fluff and peacocks, trivial information, unreliable sources, etc., but also the addition of some valid references (and making the tracklist for the album look clean...). The creator continues to revert many of these edits, insisting on for instance reinserting that the subject's brother is an accountant and that the subject is a Zoroastrian (the latter could possibly be relevant, but adding that Freddie Mercury was one too is simply namedropping). To cut a long story short: user has been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations twice by User:EdJohnston ( and ), and while they have stated they will abide by the rules they show no awareness of the Wikipedia guidelines (the usual alphabet soup of WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, and especially WP:OWN--see their edit summaries) and no inclination to follow them. The latest: an SPA butchering the article in a manner reminiscent of some of Thikkamasala's earlier edits. EdJohnston suggested I come here, since I don't really know what to do. Two blocks seem not to have helped. Your advice is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. Are you aware that the last (presumably objectionable) revert, is the version you've just reverted Editor004 back to? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Am I supposed to just revert and revert Thikkamasala, and possibly fall foul of 3RR? Look at the history and see how often I've reverted Thikkamasala--it's not unlike flogging a dead horse and that isn't pleasurable. BTW, Editor004, I strongly suspect, is simply a sock. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No blatant violation, seek dispute resolution. Nja 247 07:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.251.166.99 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h + Prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Falcon8765 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and full protection to sort dispute. Nja 247 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Marlin1975 reported by User:Morphh (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * User has not attempted to resolve the dispute on the article talk, but many other editors including myself are engadged in discussing the proper content inclusion. User was directed to the talk page.  Here is part of that discussion:


 * The user also personally attacked editors in the comments and violated WP:CIVIL ("Undo vandalism, and yes it is vandalism when right win trolls keep trying to put their POV on it.") Comment of 4th Revert

Oddly, his last edit restored an edit I made, so it's not necessarily the content but the edit waring (after a warning), uncivil behavior (after a warning), and failure to discuss the content and gain consensus (after several comments). I submit this as a "calm down" block. I also wouldn't mind a WP:CHECK.

Morphh  (talk) 1:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though reporter should also mind they are subject to the same rule. Nja 247 07:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lvivske Reported by User:Fire_55 (result: both warned)
I have showed this user the WP:Flag policy many but he continues to undo my edits. I have tried to explain to him that Nikolai Zherdev doesn't deserve an Ukraine flag because he has never played under Ukraine and only Russia. Our discussion of me telling him the WP:Flag policy, which he still doesn't get is below.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[Extended discussion from elsewhere clipped - WMC]

Malformed report. Please use the template. More: you and L are both edit warring and both risk a block. The article has a talk page; please use that to resolve disputes, rather than users talk pages. L's use of "vandalism" as a reason for reverting you appears improper; this is just another nationalist dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered it vandalism because he knows full well the WP's policy on the matter and he's making the changes simply to irritate me. --Львівське (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DAFMM reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:

The editor in question began adding full stops to initialisms on 3 August and has resisted attempts to remove them ever since. I contacted him on his talk page and two other editors also advised him the edits were against a long standing consensus. It was suggested he create a discussion to establish a new consensus at Manual of Style. He created a discussion but the consensus favoured the omission of full stops from initialisms. He has since failed to engage in dialogue and refuses to heed the advice given to him. It is not the first time he has edit warred on this article: previously he repeatedly and incorrectly added the honorific prefix 'Sir'. Despite efforts to discuss these edits with him, he blanked his talk page and continued to revert until given a 3rr warning. DAFMM gave his views on resolving editing conflicts at his recent reqeust for adminship. Barret (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Many people have told DAFMM that his preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. I have warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless he gets consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the pillory here! You're 'warned' he's given '15 hours' you 24 etc.! It's 'Pillory Club'! DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009. P. S. I will be taking this further. See EdJohnston's talk page.

User:Globalmartialart reported by User:Nanominori (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: ; please look at in which I have added references to prove the information from


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I have tried to discuss the validity of the information on kumdo with User:Globalmartialart; however, User:Globalmartialart ignored the plea and did not participate in the discussion. The user accused to the editors that the article was lies made up by some Korean nationalists ; Globalmartialart had an undone edit from User:Caspian blue for unsourced POV pushing by SPA. Nanominori (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Whippletheduck reported by User:Kevin (Result: warned )

 * Page:
 * User:

Then a break for a day or so
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and Talk:Megan_Fox

Although Whippletheduck has not quite made it to 3RR on either occasion, he/she is clearly edit warring, and the block log show that it is not an isolated incident. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was also coming to file, editor also appears to reject the notion of the consensus ("I can wait 24 more hours and then put it back").

Well I certainly will welcome this challenge......

This is the original edit in question.

[b]In June 2009, during a Transformers promo tour in Korea, Fox was asked how she would stop Megatron from demolishing the world. she replied, “I’d make a deal with him and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”[103] This response was panned by the conservative NewsBusters, writing that "While Fox may be a star on the big screen, her words certainly don’t make her shine."[104] The Naples Daily News was also highly critical of her comments.[105]. [106], [107][108] [109] [110].[/b]

This is what was said in the Biography of Living Person NoticeBoard by my accuser, user KEVIN, and his ally in this edit war that is more largely launched by Sandor Clegane

[b]""As I said at Talk:Megan Fox, there is no doubt that she made the comments, the issue at hand is whether those comments have been reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight, as this is a single comment, not widely reported, held against the totality of Fox's life. I think this fails on both counts. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. As I've been trying to say, it was never a matter of verifiability but notability. No one's doubting that she said it. It just doesn't warrant inclusion on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)p[/b]

So, in good faith, and a few experiments, I first off, upgraded the level of the sources. The sources used were both more or less verified now as valid and meet Wikipedia Verification standards for NPOV, and No Original Research. Further more, I was originally going to use as a new edit Megan's ENTIRE quote, and leave it at that. I left out the entire part about Newsbusters or the Naple News criticization, as that is outside the scope of the edit. This is the new edit that I have put in.

[b]Also in June, during a Transformers promo tour in Korea, Fox made comments against white, middle class americans. [108][109][/b]

Not exactly a HUGE edit warring slam is it?

Despite this new edit, which is what both Sandor and Kevin have both claimed was the problem, they are now crying about Consensus as their new motto. According to No Undue Weight, [b]Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.[/b].

Now if I am reading that correctly, then I understand that if an article is notable, meets verification, etc, etc, then it does not matter how many editors oppose it. It would be like if a million editors claim the world is flat, the first editor to confirm via source that it is round wins, correct?

Furthermore, both users KEVIn and SANDOR have taken a lot of relatively minor personal shots at me as well, nothing that I will get into a tissy with, but at the same time, they are coming off as they are more into protecting Megan at all costs.

I remember reading in the I think the Electronic Art's article here at wikipedia, that you all were able to confirm that favorable EA edits were coming from EA HQ. Is there a way to confirm if Kevin or Sandor edit's are coming from whatever PR or Agency that represents Megan Fox. When you consider what megan said, and how it was largely ignored; and contrast that with how Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks was treated in 2003 for her "I'm embarrased that Bush is from Texas" remark; what Megan Fox said was a million times worse, yet it was largely ignored and wonder if this is part of the attempt to spike the story. I can certainly see how they would not want any mention of it in one of the largest viewed sites in the world in Wikipedia.

More to come I'll let Sandor and Kevin chime in again. Cheers. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whippletheduck, the issue here is not really whether you're right or wrong. The issue is that you have been engaging in an edit war to attain your desired result rather than discussion.  Several editors have disagreed with you and reverted your changes.  Rather than just continuing to insert the quote and related material, you need to engage in discussion.  I know that a discussion has started on the talk page.  Please let that discussion run its course rather than just taking matters into your own hands.  Would it really be the end of the world if the page did not include the quote for a few days while things are straightened out? Cool3 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

. I have warned Whippletheduck about edit warring and I remind all parties to let the RfC run its course.Cool3 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

PiCo reported by ReaverFlash (Result:15h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

ReaverFlash (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You were both edit warring and should have sought protection or dispute resolution if talking on the talk page wasn't working. Nja 247 07:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:71.246.220.204 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result:31h )
. : Time reported: 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:01, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "Clearly there is a need for possible complicity in at least a section. How about a productive editorial effort instead of a complete revert to the false "just a driver" article, please?")
 * 2) 03:46, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "DOUBLE STANDARDS! Stop reverting and start editing. I don't see where citing Lifton's published work is any different than citing Power's or Manchester's.")
 * 3) 05:48, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "STOP! Don't revert! Edit!")
 * 4) 15:02, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "See discussion page. Clear double standard. Please make spedific edits instead of reverting.")


 * Diff of warning: here

User inserting fringe views and original research. Three different users, including myself, have attempted to explain the relevant policies. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pungimaster reported by RDavi404 (talk) (Result: 15h)
. : Time reported: 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:10, 12 August 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:33, 13 August 2009  (edit summary: "This is the truth, if you dont like it, close your eyes")
 * 3) 07:15, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "Rdavi go suck ISI cock")
 * 4) 18:18, 14 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 307956115 by Rdavi404 (talk)")

—RDavi404 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User_talk:Rdavi404#If_we_go_by_your_defination]

WP:PA may be in effect here to. I have attempted to communicate WP:TERRORIST to the User but I believe there is a lack of a desire to communicate. I believe he is a new user and does not understand wikipedia polices. I will leave his last change as it is until issue is resolved.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A discussion also is listed on the article's talk page at Talk:Maulana_Masood_Azhar. No attempt is made to use that forum for discussion either.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tamildiaspora, User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Pseudomonas (Result:24h)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There seems to have been discussion onUser talk:Gogo Dodo about this.

This looks like Tamildiaspora is trying to make a point about other material that they wanted added and which was disputed by Daedalus969 and Gogo Dodo Pseudomonas(talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Patriot Missile33 reported by User:Bytebear (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&diff=308040578&oldid=307915322


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This user was a previous anon IP who recently created an account after the page was locked down for putting in issues in possible violation of WP:BLP. There is much discussion as to the noteworthy nature of certain recent controversies involving the subject of the article. Rather than discuss the issues and work toward a compromise, he contiues to add information not yet agreed upon by all editors. I think because he is a new user, he just needs to learn to cool it until all editors can agree on content. And he needs to learn how to argue the content, and not the other editors. Bytebear (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 03:34, 15 August 2009 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs | block) blocked Patriot Missile33 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:96.247.3.170 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Doniago (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: 48h)
Repeated undoing of my edits on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. As far as I'm aware, I've included in each edit summary why I made the changes - removing piping, correcting the category, that we don't add notes to a dab and changing one entry which led to another dab. Avator has not given reasons for reverting. Avator has now reverted 4 times. I left a 3rr warning message on avator's page, but he/she simply left one on mine (to my calculations, I haven't gone past three, another editor also reverted avator's edits). Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Another avatar tries to rename Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor to "Henry VIII". This is simply false. Henry VII of Luxembourg is ever called "Henry VII" and NEVER "Henry VIII". Henry (VII) of Germany was NOT an emperor - he was rex romanorum and his father Frederick II remained emperor during his reign. For references see for example: The New Cambridge Medieval History V, p. 384ff. [for Henry (VII)] and NCMH VI, p. 529ff. [for Henry VII] ; Lexikon des Mittelalters (vol. 4, col. 2047ff.); Gebhardt. Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte 1 and so on.... but no historian (no german, no french, no english historian) calls Henry of Luxembourg "Henry VIII". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.15.207 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - 48 hours by User:Jerzy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:NottsStudent09 reported by User:Meco (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: (note: IP user immeditately registered an account following this edit)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The article has been subjected to content dispute for a prolonged time, which obviously isn't alleviated by a new user rushing in immediately engaging in edit warring. __meco (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:117.199.10.178 reported by User:Pectore (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:06, 15 August 2009


 * 1st revert: 18:14, 15 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 18:19
 * 1st partial revert 18:26, 15 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 18:27
 * 4th revert: 18:30
 * 5th revert: 18:31
 * 6th revert: 18:36
 * 7th revert: 18:36


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:20


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

This IP user has been warring on Teesta Setalvad, being reverted by a wide array of users. Not only have they reverted 7 times, but each revert adds obvious political bias and removes references, and so can be reverted as vandalism. I have not reverted on the page, but I would request the admin not to block since the IP edits do fall under the banner of  simple vandalism. Also, Geolocate indicates the IP is from Kerala, India, which is where banned troll User:Kuntan operates from. I would request a block for this reason, because the user seems quite adept at using wikipedia and isn't a naive IP user. Thank you.Pectoretalk 18:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies-I was seeing what seemed a problem of POV in the edits, hence the reverts.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Somalia1995 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Stopped)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to on Somalia article:
 * Previous version reverted to on History of Somalia article:

On Somalia article:
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 01:35, 15 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 16:52, 15 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:28, 15 August 2009
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 22:09, 15 August 2009

On History of Somalia article:
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 01:43, 15 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 16:54, 15 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:28, 15 August 2009
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 22:10, 15 August 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This user has been adding long paragraphs of unsourced, original research to the articles above, and has in the process breached 3RR on both articles. Middayexpress (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did not revert after warning. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead reported by User:Erik (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Editor has assumed ownership of The Hurt Locker and fails to assume good faith of others' contributions, calling them "vandals" and their edits "malicious". Behavior is not conducive to Wikipedia. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I feel that I was wrongly blocked in this instance. The so-called "reverts" cited were all removal of unsourced material. I assumed that removal of unsourced, original writing is okay. It is listed at the top of this page as NOT an excuse for blocking someone and shouldn't count towards 3RR. I just want to put that on the record and see if there is a way to reverse that "block" for archival purposes. Since I think it was unjustified for more than one reason. Furthermore, Erik is the one that is trying to OWN the page. He and others were told not to edit war. Immediately, he set upon completely restructuring the entire page to suit himself and allowing unsourced original plot material. I request that he be blocked for edit warring as all the examples he cites are instances where unsourced material was re-reverted by him and his colluding meat puppets. I would also like to request that someone do a sock puppet check of all recent contributors to the page The Hurt Locker as I think an administrator Ckatz may be using a sock puppet to be destructive and is definately using WP:MEAT puppets such as Erik. Neither has revealed their close association on the page. Erik continues to OWN the page (when Ckatz isn't there reverting) and has made at least ten or more contributions today alone, completely unraveling everything. Also, he went straight to blocking without discussing the unsourced plot material on the page and without warning. He did not warn of each revert leading to 3RR on my page either. I didn't even have time to write a defense before I was being blocked. He is uncivil and hostile, like several others he has associated himself with. Inurhead (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a note, Inurhead returned from his block and has immediately begun edit warring again. AN ANI has been filed and he continues making personal attacks against multiple editors. A longer term block appears necessary. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Rex Dominator (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Editor fails to assume good faith of others' contributions. After many attempts to explain WP:SOURCES the user continues to remove cited information, one example is the 2nd revert. The editor assumes ownership.Rex Dominator (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted completely misquoted information. With all due respect, I asked for assistance in dealing with this problem, and there is simply no other way to handle the outrageous edits by User:Rex Dominator. The user is completely misquoting the source, placing it out of context, ignoring the talkpage completely, and cramming it all in the lede to push his POV.
 * Be absolutely sure that this is an attempt at petty revenge. I have just introduced seven new, published, professional sources in the Chetniks article, and have fully sourced the disputed text Rex was opposed to. User:Rex Dominator has just lost a debate and is trying to get me blocked for this. Of course, its me I'm talking about, but objectively, Blocking me for trying to contain POV-crusaders and restoring sourced statements would be a mistake. (Being somewhat new, Rex does not realize all the above can be applied to him, even more so.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the discussion page of user Direktor and I am astonished: it is full of edit wars with Serbians, Bosniaks, Italians, Montenegrins et al. Why has he been allowed to do all this for such a long time? Direktor is one of the worst balkan editors, and if banned a lot of fighting inside en.wiki will disappear.--Easy4all (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rex... thanks for making yourself a sock. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Easy4all. This is the book of my personal suffering caused by this user. The propaganda edits seem to be exclusively in the Balkan related articles. Rex Dominator (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My very well sourced propaganda, Rex, lets not forget. With your sock report I doubt you'll have to endure the um..."suffering" for much longer. ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop filing reports at random places against each other and sort out the dispute please. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This did solve a lot of problems with edit wars, yet i think that this user should be watched more carefully by the admins.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnnypd reported by User:Martintg (Result: Blocked as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:03, 15 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 19:20, 15 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 19:39, 15 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 19:55, 15 August 2009
 * 5th revert: 20:03, 15 August 2009
 * 6th revert: 20:04, 15 August 2009
 * 7th revert: 20:29, 15 August 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User:Johnnypd appears to be an SPA, most likely a sock, request an indef-block on this account. --Martintg (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is quite possibly a sock of User:Jacob_Peters as Radek suggested at my talk page. For example, one can compare this revert by Moreschi in Decossackization (see edit summary by Moreschi) (the segment of text restored by Moreschi and deleted by Peters was "The suppression of the Don Cossack revolt in the spring and summer of 1919 took the form of genocide."), and that is an opinion of Johnnypd about genocide of the same Cossacks: . User:Lidua is also possibly his sock: . An attention of Checkuser would be helpful.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:131.180.140.61/User:Another avatar, reported by User:Boleyn (Result: Already blocked)
Repeated violation of 3RR on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor (see Talk:another avator). Persistently does this and was blocked, I think only yesterday. Investigation ongoing into sock puppets. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the report header to identify the correct account. Looks like User:Another avatar is evading his block using an IP. He has made only one IP edit so far to the contested article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Already blocked. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: Nominating editor 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:




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




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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Fringe_criticisms_and_undue_weight
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Noloop (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Note, I've had 4 edit sessions in the last 48 hours or so on this article, but the first is a typo fix.


 * You have editied 7 times of which three were reverts of my edits. one of which reverted  2 days edits from 6 editors Here he seems to say that he is only deleting my additions, this is not the case Much of the material I am re-inserting is by other edds. My last edit addressed the issue of the speech clearly attributing it. Noloop has constantly removed material that is soourced and attrubuted based upon the fact that he does not agree wiith it. All he has done is to try and enforce rules he had set up for page. Claims consensus when he has none  and block reverts 5 editors edits without consensus. User acts as if he owns the page, and that consensus only counts when he agrees (and indeed when he agrees and a majority don't).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - A review of the article's talkpage indicates that User:Noloop has ownership problems. A quick look at Noloop's userpage indicates that s/he is a suspected sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Free Hans. Hopefully an admin will look deeper than the surface on this one. Doc  Tropics  18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

- whilst Slatersteven should have disengaged, I don't see a blatant violation here. The history of the article shows that User:Noloop, however, has serious ownership issues with the page and repeatedly reverts back to his preferred version even when consensus is clearly against him. This is disruptive. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Err I hate to rasie this (as it might seem I am trying to push the issue) but is the block for 24 or 48 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 48h, my typo - fixed. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl reported by User:scientus (Result: Page locked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: There are earlier ones

On lead, trying to remove the most covered part of OOXML
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert - These led to HAl being blocked
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert
 * 8th revert
 * 9th revert

Argumentative removal of critisism
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

Microsoft-run sites
 * 1st revert: Note purposeful confusion of POV tag
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Ghettoblaster on same WP:SELFPUB sites.
 * 1st
 * 2nd

Google sourced critisism - discussion here
 * Ghettoblaster - remove sourced information
 * HAl

All edit wars simultaneously, i.e. wholesale reverts, by HAl
 * 10th revert
 * 11th revert

The stuff on the Microsoft-run sites, which HAl has repeatedly tried to hide the fact that they are Microsoft-run has been hashed out months ago. - Note that User:Alexbrn, aka Alex Brown has a conflict of interest on this topic as he is personally involved in OOXML development.

user:HAl has a long history of only editing Microsoft-run sites and towards Microsoft's point of view.

user:HAl also has a history of harassing editors. It appears he used a IPSock to both insult and straw-man his opponent, with 71.112.18.171, an IP located in Redmond, Washington. 

user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues.


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Long history of warnings: talk page, block log

Mud slinging, with no response on real content issues:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1 - was double posted on my talk page
 * 2

Response Fortunatly I notice this edit because user:Scientus has of course not informed me of his action here directed against me. I just noticed this because I have asked for third party review on the WP:Wikiproject Computing on the edits made by user:Scientus on the Office Open article and user:Scientus reacted on that request for mediation with a link to here but subsequently removed that link so that I would not notice his actions on the ANI board. The above list does show a long list of edit conflict with user:Scientus on the Office open XML article but only a few of those edits were actuallly made in the last few days. Also it should be noted that user:Scientus has a lot more of these edits on the Office Open XML as he been reverting against several other users like user:Ghettoblaster and user:Alexbrn as well. I consider user:Scientus to be a disruptive editor on the wikipedia article of Office Open XML. He has engaged in fact tagging asked a dozen or more extra citations for the most basic of things on an article that has more citations that most on wikipedia already. After that he started to use tendentious disruptive deletions on the article removing very obvious information on support for Office Open XML and blatant tendentious diruptive edits adding stacks of unreleated critisism citations to neutrl text in the article lead. From this user:Scientus has moved on to campaigning to drive away productive contributors which the above is and example of. He now tries to get me a temporary block by formulating a damaging claim but it is almost entirely made up of links that are edits from several weeks ago or older and mostly of actions where he was actually reverted against several users and thus making lost more similar unjustifiable edits. user:Scientus actually got an edit ban for edit warring on my personal talk page. Also he actually claims some kind of ridiculous strawmann claim from Redmond which is just to laughable. When confronted with his actions on the talk page of the Office Open XML article by me and byy user:Ghettoblaster he refuses to go into subject matter or tries to avoid the discusion on the article topic but in stead tries to communicate through wikilawyerling. The WP:Disruptive editing article firstly suggest to keep reverting on disruptive edits and if this not helps to seek mediation or dispute resolution. Because of our edit clash before I taken the subject to the WP:Wikiproject computing to ask for independant verification of the edits made by user:Scientus. I would ask the admins to wait for the outcome of that request for independant intervention or even to invite any admins knowledgeable on computing subject to help out on the Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already responded to this above:
 * "user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues."Scientus (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This only serves to show your bias.
 * The Office Open XML format is an official ISO/IEC standard developed by multiple companies within Ecma(also including Apple and Intel) and organizations (like the US library of congress) and ISO national boies who all want a compatible succesor to the binary MS Office files. You only see a big MS sign on all edits. hAl (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/ site has a Microsoft copyright notice, and is provided and hosted by Microsoft, then it probably is written by Microsoft. Taking efforts to hide these facts sure seems to me to be incongruous with the goals of Wikipedia, especially the goal of building a better encyclopedia.Scientus (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All I see from the edit history is two users working against each other. I locked the article for a week for you to work though this constructively. Once you stop fighting I'm happy to unlock or you can ask at WP:RFPPSpartaz Humbug! 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

99.132.143.162 reported by Ramapoughnative (Result: Incomplete report)


There is a user who is known by IP address vandalizing the Ramapough page. He 1st complained on how it was written as "high school writing" then procedes to call me a liar when I post about elders able to speak Munsee. I gave him the reference pointing to the tribal website showing they are instructing Munsee classes in the Ramapough tribal office. Now they are adding links to other group as if we were related with no references to back it up. I request an arbitrator and the page blocked from changes until this is resolved. Thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked to collect evidence and use the submission templateScientus (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * both of them, and left a note at the talk page of the article. Am going to watch it and make sure the war doesn't restart.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To assist others in watching the article, I added some header information. The IPs are all from the Chicago area. They are most likely one single person who identifies himself here as a long-time editor who chooses to be anonymous. The IP seems more familiar with our sourcing rules than is Ramapoughnative, but he seems not to have picked up much diplomacy in his WP career. Lots of personal attacks on both sides. In the last two days both parties have broken 3RR. Admins should take action if the war continues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Systemizer reported by Verbal (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Version reverted to: 21:20, 13 August 2009

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


 * 1) 05:25, 17 August 2009  (edit summary: "Added some sourced content")
 * 2) 07:09, 17 August 2009  (edit summary: "Undid an unexplained deletion of sourced content")
 * 3) 07:27, 17 August 2009  (edit summary: "The sources were written by McKenna himself, so YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THEM UNRELIABLE.")
 * 4) 07:41, 17 August 2009  (edit summary: "This version of the Summary section is sourced directly from McKenna and is INDISPUTABLE")


 * Warnings: User_talk:Systemizer

The user refuses despite repeated notes in edit summaries and on talk pages to engage in debate, and continues to edit war against multiple editors who have attempted to discuss the edits. Please also review their block log.

— <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing problem: 5. 12:05, 17 August 2009 (I think my timing on some may be an hour off, due to locale settings - not sure!) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Xashaiar reported by User:Alefbe (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


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

User:Xashaiar is not a new user and he is already familiar with the 3RR rule. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left him a warning. This shouldn't preclude a block, if anyone still feels it necessary.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Goramon reported by User:JoshuaZ(Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 08:06, 16 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:11, 17 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 09:46, 17 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 22:38, 17 August 2009


 * Did not warn user since user repeatedly in the edit war claimed other users were violating 3RR: See.


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

Note that the user was so willing to repeatedly revert without discussion that he actually reverted to the version he didn't want when he failed to read the relevant edit summaries. See. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Normally, I wouldn't care about the removal of one word in an article, but the diff of the first edit shows that he's not acting in good faith.

Falcon8765 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Cybercobra (Result: Dup)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about 3RR by other user


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since this is rather trivial and obvious.

Apologies if I've made any mistakes in filling out this report, this is my first one (or at least the first one I can recall). --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * . King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, beaten to it. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:07, 17 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: 22:11, 17 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: 23:01, 17 August 2009
 * 4th revert: 23:22, 17 August 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about 3RR by other user


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


 * Tiptoety talk 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Keka reported by User:Reg Holmes (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but my edit was made on August 13th. Keka reverted, 5 hours after I published. I happened to be showing my friend the page and my entry was gone. I thought it was an accident and reverted back. Keka reverted again 1 minute later. I saw that and tried to find a way to communicate, but being new didn't know how, so I figured revert it again and the more experienced user would try to make contact. Later, another friend said I should leave a message on their talk page, so I left a message to try and start a dialog on Keka's talk page. I waited a day and came back to find my message to him/her deleted and no other attempt to communicate with me, so I looked into this policy and it said there had to be greater than 3 reverts, so I reverted again, and within 15 minutes, Keka reverted the page again, making 4 reverts.

As it so happens Keka also reverted my post on Floor_and_ceiling_functions, at one point, but I reverted it back, and Keka has not re-reverted that one.

I did not specifically warn, but I found this page through Keka's talk page so it would seem reasonable that they would know it.
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

My attempt to communicate is here. I hope this is what you are looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keka&oldid=307755040

I'm very new to editing wikipedia, and I came up with a series of equations that work for Modulo, floor and ceil, so I thought I would share them. I didn't try to be self serving/promoting or even ask for any credit.

These were straight algebraic equations that anyone could verify, and yet this Keka person reverted my post. I posted a comment on Keka's talk page asking why s/he reverted my post and they deleted that post calling my attempt to communicate with them as nonsense.

I'm a little disappointed if this is the norm. I have found open source projects to typically be a much more friendly environment.

Reg Holmes (talk)
 * Both warned about edit warring. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reg Holmes has been adding patent nonsense, including (but very far from limited to) 0 raised to 0 which is mathematically undefined, to the two pages he mentions. Those pages happen to be on my watch list. Even though hidden by the way of using math formulas, the suggested additions by Reg Holmes are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism. Hence my reversals. Reg Holmes, as anyone else, is of course welcome to do constructive, encyclopediatic, and helpful edits. But absoute and obvious nonsense should not be kept. Maybe Reg Holmes's edits were intended to be made in good faith, but given the content of the edits it did not appear so. Indeed, given the content, I counted the edits as disguised vandalism. I should have written "rvv" or "reverting vandalism" already on the first reversals to make the reason clear, but reversal via "popups" does not allow for that ("save" is done automatically). I don't find that vandalism, even when hidden in math expressions, need be discussed in detail with the other editor. keka (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keka, If your soul intent was to revert something that you thought was mathematical nonsense, then why didn't you just talk to me when I tried to open a dialog and asked you why you were reverting my additions? I tried to take this off line and ask you, on your personal talk page, what was the deal, and you reverted that without a reply.


 * As for your statement "Reg Holmes has been adding patent nonsense, including (but very far from limited to) 0 raised to 0 which is mathematically undefined, to the two pages he mentions.", I would like to know what exactly you think was patent nonsense". Perhaps you would like to contest that ω = 2pi? ω can technically be what ever it is defined to be, but it is regularly used to symbolize 2pi.


 * I can understand your concern about 0^0=1, and that you think that it is undefined, but you need to educate yourself on the current standards. I would like to point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power where it is documented that, despite some debate, 0^0 is widely accepted as equal to 1. Of course I am citing Wikipedia since I am here, but there are numerous other sources that are much more emphatic that 0^0=1. The fact of the matter is that mathematics is not perfect, though we are all working towards that goal. You can find flaws in many aspects of its framework. I'm sure you know that there have been philosophical debates about even whether or not 1+1=2. Should we take down all math related pages, just because there is an objection to the established standards?


 * I didn't remove the alternate ways to define these functions, I just added an alternate method to looking at them. Reg Holmes (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keka states that Reg Holmes changes "are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism". That is not Wikipedia policy. Please see Vandalism which explicitly states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Disagreements should be handled on the Discussion tab, not via Revert. Please also reference AD which states how disputed information is to be handled.

Malachid (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PasswordUsername reported by User:jacurek (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert [] 18:31, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ Removed misrepresented source. "Frequently", "often" are not found in the source. "Russophobia" or "anti-Russian sentiment" not found anywhere in the article either.")
 * 2nd revert [] 19:51, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ That Chechens have an overwhelmingly negative view of Russians may be true, but it's not in source. Please stop adding misrepresented material.")
 * 3rd revert [] 21:23, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "Undid revision 308551436 by Martintg (talk) Not OR -- text is sourced to what is found in a notable court case.")
 * 4th revert [] 01:23, 18 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* Baltic states */ improper tagging - see talk")

User informed [] but not warned (repeat offender)--Jacurek (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He self-reverted his last:, so it's only 3 reverts in 24h. Offliner (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR is not a an entitlement to revert 3 times and PassportUsername has also been reverting on the article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II
 * 1st revert 15:59, 17 August 2009 (Marked as a minor edit) (edit summary: "/* Russia and the Soviet Union */ Removing material irrelevant to subject of collaborationism per WP:COATRACK and minor rewrite for coherency.")
 * 2nd revert 16:04, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 308499149 by Vecrumba (talk) The article isn't about this. What Shthern stocks are isn't even explained.")
 * 3rd revert 17:02, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Rvt again. Please explain WHY this is relevant information for an article about collaborationism. No one has done this, days after my request. Nothing has been said on talk despite days of asking.")
 * --Martintg (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I self-reverted myself yesterday long before Jacurek made his "4RR report." ( - I'm not sure how Jacurek could have missed that one, because I self-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 308591443 by PasswordUsername (talk) fourth revert -- undo") I think that sufficiently addresses my editing at Anti-Russian sentiment, where every change is very well justified. As for what's brought up by Martintg's piling on top of this, I'd like to point out that I've also asked others, like Jacurek and Martintg, to put up an argument for including material outside the scope of WWII collaborationism before reverting my changes at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, on whose talk page Jacurek simply contended that Stalin's pre-1941 relations were significant to be detailed in an article dealing with WWII collaboration with the Nazis, without ever explaining why - others agreed with my edits on talk, and Martintg reverted, but never even participated. So explain their reasoning they never even did (please take a look) – although happy to revert they were, even without discussing the subject rationally and seriously. This report is ridiculous. Not only did I undo an accidental 4th revert as I reverted myself, I actually bothered to use the talk page where I had to in good faith undo the changes of these content opponents. I recommend that the admin reviewing this take note of Jacurek and Martintg's contributions - because I think that this report should be withdrawn in good faith. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PasswordUsername, please focus on the fact that you did revert extensively recently on many articles instead of attacking other editors. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Password Username has also been edit warring over at Nochnoy Dozor (group) (1st, 2nd , 3rd .) as well. Note that like on the other two articles (there may be other articles where this is going on) he is careful not to "officially" break the 3RR barrier but he's edit warring against multiple editors none the less. I believe this is usually seen as an attempt at "gaming the system" or "fence hugging" - I'm sure that since he's been blocked for 3RR before, PU knows he can't do 4 reverts (he got a little ahead of himself on "Anti-Russian sentiment") but he seems pretty keen on getting "his" 3 reverts per day on multiple articles at once. Furthermore, he also had 3 reverts, right-up-to-but-not-past-the limit on Neo-Stalinism a couple days ago (1st, 2nd , 3rd . I'm sure he feels his edits are "justified" - but then people who revert always do.radek (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those diffs aren't even all reverts – do let me know what reversion you see in this: . Nice try there. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a revert. Standard strategy among some editors who try to POV articles - present favorable sources' unequivocally and without attribution in text, while preceding all information from unfavorable sources with "according to an opinion..."radek (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfectamundo. Attributing a source is now a revert – do everyone a favor and stop bringing your content disputes to an edit warring noticeboard. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When done selectively, yes. And please watch civility.radek (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:HOUNDING. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:IslamForEver1 reported by User:Jeff5102 (Result: socks blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:

This user is sockpuppetteer of a lot of sockpuppets, at the moment he uses User:GladHights, User:LeafyPlus, and User:Androizant. See also Sockpuppet investigations/IslamForEver1/Archive


 * Previous version reverted to:See below:


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

And so on and on.

The problem with this user is going on since September last year, when he edited the article as User:72.81.208.215.


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


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I edited the article talk-page 53 times. I think that would do.

Jeff5102 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All 3 socks blocked indef and article semi'd for a month. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result:96h)
Persistent edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Was blocked for 48 hrs but still edited the page through an IP address, and has done the same again now the block has been lifted. Being investigated for sock puppets. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is really frustrating that "Another avatar" ignores all the references (see The New Cambridge Medieval History etc) and is doing original research. Henry of Luxembourg was never called "Henry VIII" but ever "Henry VII"; Henry (VII) of Germany was never "head of the empire" or emperor - his father Frederick II was the emperor. If you can understand german: read the articles in the NDB (Neue Deutsche Biographie - New German Biography): Henry (VII) and Henry VII. --77.176.22.203 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es reported by User:Polargeo (Result: 48 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Also User:PRODUCER is involved in this edit waring with User:Aradic-es. I have not provided evidence of attempts to stop this because it seems that there is no point talking to these users. They are going at this edit waring across many articles. I first came across this waring in the article Karađorđevo agreement. However, in the case reported here Aradic-es appears to be repeatedly removing well sourced and accurate material from the lead section of the article. This material is simply showing details of a major international court case which the person is currently a defendent in and which the person is internationally most famous for. It appears Aradic-es wants to cover this up as much as possible. I think Aradic-es has been editing disruptively. I am new to this reporting of users so please forgive my mistakes. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported Aradic-es here, please take a look for more information regarding the "edit waring across many articles", I have found discussing with this user to be ineffective even when a third opinion is brought in. PRODUCER (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked both and  for a period of 48 hours for slow moving, long term edit warring.  Tiptoety  talk 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:70.48.41.215 reported by User:Hexagon1 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page: Template:Passports (Template talk:Passports • history)
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: The difference lies in the link to the British National (Overseas) passport, which is politically sensitive in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. Edit difference demonstrated in following reverts:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 22:07, 17 August 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:33, 18 August 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:46, 18 August 2009
 * 4th revert: Current revision as of 15:49, 18 August 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on our respective talks: User talk:70.48.41.215 and User talk:Hexagon1, where I have warned the editor twice. The edit summaries of my edits too changed from explicitly referencing WP:AGF to a cautious warning tone.

My edit summary requests for the editor to discuss on template talk have been ignored, though some discussion has very recently occurred on our user talks, accompanied by reverts. I have been very active on the template's talk and would welcome the IP's contributions there. This template, used on hundreds of often politically sensitive pages needs to reflect a neutral consensus-supported viewpoint, and this IP consistently violates such a consensus. I am hoping a brief cook-down block will help the IP understand that edit warring is neither productive nor efficient. I should note this user edits from a dynamic IP and would thus not be debilitatingly affected by such a block, merely made aware of Wikipedia policy's stance on constructive debate, which I have been trying to foster from the get-go. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Hexagon1! why didn't you report yourself?? 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I have not to my knowledge breached WP:3RR, and unlike you, have consistently tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page. If you agree to revert the template to the consensus-supported state and commence discussion on the template's talk then there's no need for blocks. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * are you 100% sure you are not breached WP:3RR? are you sure you have tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page?  pls check carefully!  70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take that as a no, you won't agree to discuss. Good night then, it's twenty to three on Wednesday morning here. PS: 3RR is four reverts in 24 hours, not three. I have not breached it. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that your pair of eyes are selectively blind. No matter it is technically fitted within 24 hours, if you keep reverting, it will also be counted or considered as edit warring or disruption.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that blocking the IP would probably not stop the dispute, I've protected the page. Settle it on the talk page or through DR somehow. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:192.87.123.115/User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: AA's block extended)
User has been banned for second time in a week for edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Both times, his/her edits have been re-added by an IP address. Plus another avator has left a rude and defiant response to latest ban on his Talk page. I think the page needs protection from IP edits. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - User:Jerzy has extended Another avatar's block to 200 hours. I don't see the need for semiprotection to deal with a total of two IP edits. The block-evading IPs were 131.180.140.61 and 192.87.123.115, both from the Netherlands. (There is at least one good-faith IP working on the article, from the 77.* range). EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Noloop at Criticism of Human Rights Watch reported by User:Doc Tropics (Result: 1 week)
Two days ago this editor was given a 48 hour block for disruptive editing at the article linked above. Immediately upon returning his first edit to article space was a blanket revert of every single change made to the article (by at least 4 different editors) since his enforced break. This represents an unacceptable pattern of behaviour and deliberate flaunting of WP process. Please review and consider appropriate actions. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try talking to me first, and authority second? Noloop (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made an extensive plea for communication on the Talk page. That's how consensus works.... Noloop (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is equivalent to a statement of intent to edit war: "I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time." --DocTropics It's interesting that one can always report a "mass deletion" and it automatically looks bad, but it's much harder to report a "mass addition of POV-promoting WP:WEIGHT-violating" material, and have anybody care. You are editing without the consensus of 2 of the roughly 5 editors active on the article. Noloop (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider it counterproductive to communicate or negotiate with an editor that exhibits such profoundly bad-faith behaviour and disregard for policy; official channels are more appropriate. Doc  Tropics  22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why did you not wait for responses from the eds whose work you deleted? Why did you post the request[] after the deletions[]? You should not delete material wihtout consensus, wihtout aloowing others eds to explain thier edits to you. Consensus is alkso achived thru edits, not just talk pages. You have mass deleted consensus edits that took two days to arrive at. Two days of work you have just blindly deleted. All of the added material is sourvced (much of it from notable persons) and attributed, i9n addition much of the work you deleted was aimed at putting in HRW's side of the story, or material defending their work (as such it is difficult to descirbe it as POV pushinig, putting in both sides arguments). What Noloop saying is that we cannot edit the page with out his consent. I have said that if you want we reset the page to 26th July and work from there.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More of the usual I-am-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong attitude Noloop has shown for far too long. I endorse a longer block to stop the edit-warring and the continuing removal of sourced and neutral material for which consensus has been reached. It is time to stop this disruptive editor. Pantherskin (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this user for one week; he seems to have leaped back into the dispute he was blocked for disrupting, without any attempt at reasonable discussion that I can locate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Has been offerd the option to go back to a pr dispuute date and to start work from there[] sadley he only had 10 minutes to resppond prior to his block. I do not wish to post on his talk page as he has used this in thw past as an example of stalkiing.23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

User:Jadran91 reported by User:Radeksz (Result: AB 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not asking for a block and I think this is just dealing with a new user.

This appears to be a new user so not looking for a block or any kind of restriction. Assuming that it is in fact a new user (though he appears to be familiar with German Wikipedia) and not a sock of some sort, I just want a quick warning made to the user - in my experience new users pay more attention to warnings from uninvolved admins than from someone they're in a dispute with. So if not a sock, just warn, please don't block. Thanks.radek (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is a new user. Ostap 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts as well. But let's AGF.radek (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 hours by Lifebaka. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:98.236.11.92, User:75.36.205.242, User:76.216.23.78 and User:WikiLubber reported by User:Tim Song (Result: Page semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * Users:, , ,


 * Previous version reverted to: Separate Version Merged Version diff


 * Reverts: (see comment below)
 * To merged version:
 * Each of those reverts was reverted in turn to the separate-season version in the next edit. I'll supply diffs if necessary.


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for one of the user. See below.


 * Update: all other editors warned:  . Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes

I'm not originally involved in the article's editing (I discovered the problem during RC patrol a couple days ago, reverted once b/c the edit was apparently contrary to the talk page consensus, and watched it ever since), but this is getting out of hand. In the past few days there's been a revert war, with at least 8 reverts to the merged version by different users in the past 72 hours as far as I can see, and another 8 reverts (including mine) to the separate version. While there's no technical violation of 3RR, I thought that an admin might want to look into this matter and also consider possible sockpuppetry for the anons. Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I brought this here b/c of the revert war. I included everyone who has reverted at least twice in the past 72 hours. If I missed anyone, it's purely inadvertent. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I only wanted the seasons of that article separate for easier viewing, since there are 5 seasons. And all other TV shows that have had more than 1 season have separate seasons on their episode lists. WikiLubber (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected for a week. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 07:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:55 18 Aug 2009
 * 1st revert: 23:57 18 Aug 2009
 * 1st revert: 23:58 18 Aug 2009
 * 1st revert: 23:59 18 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:23 19 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:23 19 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:27 19 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:36 19 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:36 19 Aug 2009
 * 3rd revert: 01:09 19 Aug 2009
 * 4th revert: 02:43 19 Aug 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Introman made a bold change to the article which I reverted and set up a discussion. However he continued to make alterations to the text that did not reflect the sources and provided no sources to defend his edits. Furthermore he reverted the text without attempting to gain consensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No actual 3RR violation, and there's a start at talking together on the talk page, thus hopefully any further edit warring will now be avoided. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Karasek reported by User:Radeksz (Result: Self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (this is a revert because removal of names was disputed before)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (basically the user is trying to add contested info and change names based on an unclear source of unknown reliability and application)

OK, first of all I didn't know the rule, and until now I wasn't used to users like Radeksz, who simply removes academic(!) sources again and again (the third time User:Space Cadet miraculously appeared) and without any proper reason. Bad luck I suppose. Karasek (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The revert war was about a German source, which Radeksz and Jacurek did not understand. "dt." in short biographies means "German". Ask any native speaker about it. Just because none of the three Polish users can speak German doesn't mean that revert warring makes up for your language barrier.
 * 2) the warning was given after the last revert and there was no additional revert after the warning
 * 3) gaming 3RR? Radeksz and Jacurek have been involved in three 3RR cases against different users on different articles in the last 24 hours: this case (both Radeksz and Jacurek revert-warred), Jadran91 reported by Radeksz (both Radeksz and Jacurek revert-warred)  and PasswordUsername reported by Jacurek (Radeksz revert-warred). Both Radeksz and Jacurek are under are on editing restrictions and known for revert warring.--88.134.51.186 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm sorry but I only made one revert. You've been on Wiki for 3 years. Usually when new users break 3RR I'm pretty sympathetic but you are not one and I seriously doubt you didn't know about it. You seem to know enough about it to be able to point to other reports. Yes, the weird recent correlated upswing in edit warring is part of the reason why I wasn't quite sure Jadran was in fact a new user. I did not revert-war with PU nor am I "known for revert warring" - if I have violated 3RR policy, please file a report or take your personal attacks and false accusations elsewhere.radek (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about. The IP is a different user.
 * Sorry. Originally the text was unsigned and it looked like a continuation of your message.radek (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I read the rule now and self-reverted the article. I will start the discussion on the talk page again... Karasek (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted after you were reported here with "Jacurek demanded" edit summary, this was not in good faith. Also, please focus on the fact of edit warring by you on the above article instead on attacking other users. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

hmm Karasek you are on wiki since November 2007 and you've never heard of the 3RR rule? riiiight. seems to be a "the dog eat my homework" type of excuse. Loosmark (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at my number of edits and you probably know how experienced I am. I have maybe 1000 edits since 2007, you have more than 1000 edits since May 09. I don't spend that much time here. Karasek (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As Karasek self-reverted the last one, I'd say the likelihood of a continuing edit war is, in the short term, low. I'll keep an eye on the page to make sure further reverts relating to this issue don't happen (as one can edit war without breaking 3RR), but nothing else needs doing immediately.  Cheers, everyone.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx reported by User:J (Result: 48 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: stable


 * 1st revert: initial revert (after his wholesale deletion of content was undone)
 * 2nd revert: second revert
 * 3rd revert: third revert
 * 4th revert: revert to include contentious material previously not supported by consensus (previous)
 * 5th revert: enforcing his ultimatum that any "supportive" content must be removed unless his preferred content is included


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The ramifications for a wp:blp of someone apparently hellbent on removing any "supportive" content and increasing the presence of criticism is pretty clear. He's clearly expressed his ultimatum (on the article talk page) that any "supportive" content will be removed until his particular notion of "balance" is achieved, and he's enforcing it quite blatantly through revert, now at four for the last few hours... The poorly sourced Condé Nast content has long been excluded from the article for wp:blp reasons, and it is one point that I believe the wp:blp wp:3rr exclusion comes into play for, so I hope some outside party can take a look at this, address User:Rvcx's behaviour, and perhaps stick around to help in the meantime. user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the WP:3RR exception for WP:BLPs, I "revert(ed) the addition of [...] poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." (The poorly sourced, controversial Condé Nast photo caption was the reason for long-term full protection on the article.  User:Rvcx picked up the content from the talk page archives and decided to run with it this morning.)  user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And, in retaliation, User:Rvcx removed non-controversial "supportive" content... His edits are quite blatant, and quite ridiculous examples of edit warring.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would encourage 'user: J to assume good faith. If inclusion in one list is considered a violation of WP:BLP and requires even more discussion than has already taken place, then inclusion in these other lists requires the same. In fact, the default position of WP:BLP is "just the facts"---if you consider inclusion is such subjective lists to be opinion, then it should *all* be removed until consensus is reached. Rvcx (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And the definition of "revert" continues to grow to include any edit to the page at all. Brilliant. Rvcx (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed good faith until you began retaliatory edit warring. At that point, there's no need to assume good faith, since there's a clear example of bad faith.  wp:blp precludes controversial content, not retaliatory removal of what you call "supportive" content if other editors don't cede to your ultimatums to include, as you put it, more criticism.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Already blocked. User:Rvcx was just blocked for 24 hours by User:Smashville, for violating WP:3RR. user: J  aka justen (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was 48 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Malke 2010 reported by User:Chhe (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Malke 2010 has something of a long history of disruptive editing. He seems to have the intent of adding POV to the Karl Rove and other articles to paint the subject in a more favorable light. So far he has added POV, deleted entire sections that were sourced, deleted things many times without discussion, gone against consensus, made threats of libel (although I agree with VsevolodKrolikov that they were vaguely made), been generally hostile, avoided discussion of specific points by quoting wikipedia rules, accused others of violating wikipedia rules, attempted to change the Karl Rove talk page on several occasions so as to obfuscate the situation, and changed the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page by inserting his comments before another user justdafax's comment so as to make it seem he was agreeing with him. I think there is even more problematic things he has done, but I don't have time to continue listing them just now. I have to go to work. He as also been causing problems at some other pages including Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Catholic Church, and Reverse discrimination that I know of. Jusdafax has asked for help from administrators with regards to this on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but it hasn't gotten a response yet which was why I was adding it here hoping to get a more speedy help from an administrator. P.S. when reading through the talk page please note that Malke has made some changes to it to make it unclear as to who said what to whom. So you will have to go through the history of the talk page carefully to discern this with regards to some points.Chhe (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tacv reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The user is a single-purpose account dedicated to making Carmen Miranda be described solely as "Portugese", despite consensus otherwise and the fact that she is associated with Brazil, having moved there when an infant. He claims that calling her Brazilian "is an outrage to the portuguese people".
 * User blocked for 24 h. Ruslik_ Zero 12:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb az86556 reported by Serpentdove (Result: Submitter indef per ANI)

 * User:Seb az86556 reported by User:Serpentdove is edit warring and possibly baiting me to get me banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpentdove (talk • contribs)


 * Coincidentally, I've just started an WP:ANI thread about this editor. This should probably be added. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seb az86556

 * Author kept removing a speedy deletion tag from an article created by him/herself. gave uw-speedy and re-instated tag. this is not edit-warring. speedy-tags are contested by using { { hangon }}, not the author removing them. Note from article's edit-history that even when/if taking these re-instatements into account, there were only 2 reverts. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I gave the author 2x uw-attack which s/he subsequently removed from his/her talkpage. rationale for uw-attack warnings based on these remarks:
 * Edit comment: ''"removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb"'
 * On my talkpage: "libeler"
 * On article's talkpage: "Noteworthiness is not by consensus you wannabe geniuses and word-misdefiners (...) you're whining your unnoteworthy jealous opinions"


 * accusations of sockpuppetry are completely unfounded

Note: reporting user has been blocked indefinitely. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meco and Seb az86556 reported by Serpentdove (Result:Submitter indef blocked per ANI)
User:meco (reported by User:Serpentdove) is edit warring via User:Seb az86556 and possibly baiting me via User:Seb az86556 to get me banned.


 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

Evidence of harassment:

The noteworthiness of the scientist Paul A. LaViolette was already well-established and I was allowed to remove the notice of non-notability put on the page and did so when I more than established the noteworthiness of Paul. Immediately user Seb az86556 begin putting up baseless disputes about me not being neutral and I stated why that was absurd, he then took it to a harassing level even further when I removed his dispute but allowed his cleanup request to remain by removing his clean up request and with a childish comment reinstated a non-notability template. He, unlike me, has not explained his reasons for his disputes which I clearly settled. Look at the page history and notice his childish "don't m[e]ss with me" and "fine, have it your way" comments of evidence as to what kind of person this is I'm dealing with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_A._LaViolette&action=history
 * 08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
 * 08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
 * 08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
 * 08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
 * 08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
 * 08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
 * 08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
 * 07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
 * 14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)

As for meco, notice in my talk page history how he magically appears after Seb's contesting to babble to me about the non-noteworthiness template? Clearly meco is trying to subvert the three edit rule via seb, and is sockpuppetting via Seb.

Seb baited me and then libeled me by implying I'm not keeping my cool (sound familiar? Notice meco told me to be temperate on my talk page? Clearly they are attacking me subversively and trying to get me banned in their bias against LaViolette. This is a clear edit warrior and provocateur and it is he who is not being neutral with his baseless contesting.Serpentdove (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I've just started an WP:ANI thread about this editor. This should probably be added. (as noted in above thread) <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally Verbal?
What a convenient coincidence Verbal that you happen to place your very late welcome notices AFTER I made it clear that I was a fundamentalist Christian and after having already been welcomed by that starred user. You are making personal subversive attacks and clearly with your friends meco and seb.Serpentdove (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical note: The above user appears to have made a minor correction to the above paragraph, after being blocked, via an IP address: for what it's worth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: reporting user has been blocked indefinitely. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bytebear reported by User:ThuranX (Result:24 hour block for both )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: No single instance is a good example; editors tried to accommodate some of his criticisms; I moved the material to a more appropriate section, it doesn't matter to him.


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

Bytebear has demonstrated an absolute opposition to the inclusion of any material he feels diaparages Glenn Beck, under the guise of BLP. He argues that presenting anything negative is a violation, even if Beck himself has said it and is quoted, no quote is full enough to give 'fair context', even where criticism of such statements is sourced multiply, no source is good enough, the NY Times is biased, ABCNews is 'better' but not good enough in other cases.

Four editors have worked on this, all four are reverted or objected to, it seems no amount of discussion is enough to convince him otherwise.


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and . His replies, seen in that section of his talk page all either refer to BLP as a get out of jail free card, or condescend to other editors.


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Glenn_Beck#Change_of_View_on_Health] This section represents this most recent matter, others include Talk:Glenn_Beck, Talk:Glenn_Beck, and a RfC he pretty much dismissed.

It may be time for a topic ban, a solution I already stated I would ask for. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bytebear's edit warring was particularly egregious and I've blocked that editor for 24 hours, however ThuranX reverted four times as well and has also been blocked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, blocks aren't punitive. Did you have reason to believe that ThuranX was going to continue what you saw as disruptive behaviour? Blocking an editor 22 minutes after their report to ANI with no other discussion looks like arbitrary justice to me. p.s. What's with the commented out talk in ThuranX's comments? Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure what you are referring to with "commented out talk in ThuranX's comments." Something on this page or elsewhere?


 * Obviously I know that blocks are not punitive. Thuran was still edit warring at 19:50, the edit war seemed to be ongoing, and I blocked him less than 40 minutes later, along with Bytebear (incidentally I took these actions before seeing the above report&mdash;I was keeping an eye on the Glenn Beck page). That seems a pretty clear cut case of a preventive block to me&mdash;two parties were actively edit warring and blocks were used to stop it. Blocking Bytebear was obvious (7 reverts is egregious), but Thuran was right there edit warring as well, reverting four times in four and a half hours. Should I have ignored that while blocking Bytebear? To do so would, I think, invite understandable accusations that I only blocked one of the edit warring parties when another also violated the 3RR line. There was a third user edit warring as well, but they did not breach 3RR and are not a veteran editor so I let them off with a warning. I hope this explains my thinking on this a bit more, but I absolutely did not and do not view this as a punitive block. If my original comment above led you to that impression than my apologies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Bigtimepeace on this. Once you know it's getting out of hand you try to talk or seek WP:DR (esp with experienced editors), not revert up to the 3RR limit. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Meadvillebulldog reported by 99.149.84.135 (Result: 24h)
A contributor, formerly an IP, but lately editing as Meadvillebulldog, has determined not to allow certain individuals with Wikipedia articles to be included amongst 'notables'. Another opinion would be appreciated. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result — 24 hours. One of his IPs was already blocked by User:Mazca for edit-warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Patriot_Missile33 reported by User:Rhode_Island_Red (Result: Page Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This user is repeatedly deleting content from the article's lead despite the fact that they have not provided reasonable justification for doing so, have not adequately participated in ongoing discussions on the Talk page, have not included edit summaries, and have ignored input from other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island Red has effectively controlled all editing on the Juice Plus article for years now and is impervious to attempts to fix the extremely slanted negative view pushed in the article. For example, he added 8 referenced articles regarding O.J. Simpson to the Juice Plus article. Other editors try the reason with RIR but these attempts have proven useless. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not the case and not what's at issue here, and personal attacks like that are neither warranted nor consistent with WP policy. Patriot Missile33 (talk) violated 3RR. Content was repeatedly deleted from the article lead and and no reasonable rationale was provided for doing so. This was pointed out on the Talk page several times, and the deletions were reverted by two editors. Our reversions were repeatedy undone and our objections on the Talk page were essentially ignored, as were our edit-warring warnings. The user was blocked for 24 hours on Aug 15 for violating 3RR on another unrelated page, and then started deleting content from Juice Plus, leading to another revert war and another instance of 3RR violation. The project page has now been protected, so that resolves the edit-warring issue. User conduct is another issue. A second longer block of this acccount is warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Patriot_Missile33 reported by User:Rhode_Island_Red (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This user is repeatedly deleting content from the article's lead despite the fact that they have not provided reasonable justification for doing so, have not adequately participated in ongoing discussions on the Talk page, have not included edit summaries, and have ignored input from other editors. Two editors have been reverting the content blanking and the user in question keeps reverting.


 * User continues to edit-war. S/he is ignoring discussion of the article lede while continue to edit war.
 * User is also confident that there will be no punishment for 3RR / edit warring:
 * "you may get some idle threats but I promise no one will bite you. :)"
 * I would please encourage an administrator to take action either way. If PatriotMissile33's behaviour is acceptable, then please reject this report as inappropriate. Bhimaji (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bidgee reported by User:The Gnome (Result: Misplaced report - no further action required )

 * Page:
 * User:

Trying in vain (and politely) to show him the need for integration of footnotes. A minor style item about to erupt into a typical wiki drama... Does not even read messages in his User Talk.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Today's (21st of August [only 2 reverts]) tagging is unnecessary when it's being discussed on the article's talk page. The editor who has filed this has also used bullying tactics. Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gnome, It looks like you had an argument about whether a clean up tag was or was not required when in fact the basis for the reasons for or against that clean up was being talked about on the talk page. I am at a loss then as to why are you posting this message here when your last edit at the page in question says I agree that since the notes are referencing a different page number each time, the current version is perfectly alright ...? If you have had a discussion with Bidgee about what or what should be in the notes section of the Talk:Wagga Wagga, New South Wales page and you agree in essence that he and Mattinbgn are correct - why add more drama to the situation to post a complaint here?  Also do you think you could sign posts that you present here in future please?-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 10:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed looking more closely you replaced the "clean up tag" about 8 hours after Mattinbgn fixed all of the references which you subsequently agreed with as referenced above. Bidgee removed it quite rightly (remember you agreed with Mattinbgn's adjustments) and then you replaced it again, now over 9 hours after Mattinbgn fixed the references before then 9 minutes later making a complaint here about Bidgee's removal - what the?   I am going to mark this thread as no action required - and in some ways I'm not sure that you haven't just disrupted wikipedia with your actions.-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es reported by User:Polargeo (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:

latest revert after completing 48 hour block


 * Also has continued war across other Balkan articles here and here

The user has just completed a 48 hour block for edit warring and come straight back in to continued warring with the same user on several other Balkans articles.

User:Aradic-es is a Croatian nationalist POV editor, with a tendancy to get involved in long edit wars over many articles. Just returned from a 48 hour block for edit waring and continued edit war by adding back in inflamatory material.


 * Warned by an admin about Balkan probation in editing practices on 24 January 2009 here and previously warned here by this edit (19 August 2008).


 * On Ahmići massacre added a section saying the massacre is used as anti Croat propaganda here. Then expanded on this here. All three sources Aradic-es uses to back up his arguments are blogs. This culminated in an edit war with User:PRODUCER and User:ICTYoda where he accuses these two users of propaganda.


 * Came straight back in after 48 hour ban on 21 August and continued the edit war on Ahmići massacre here.


 * Corrected far right Croatian nationalist party to make them look less extreme here.


 * Removal of well sourced information on Croatia's president Franjo Tuđman meeting with Milosevic here (10 June 2009). This was followed by extensive edit warring with both User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER.


 * Attempt at obscuring/censorship by removing information on the international war crimes trial of Slobodan Praljak, a Croat politician accused of crimes related to ethnic cleansing, from the lead of the article here, then followed this up with an edit war to keep this information out of the lead. I reported this edit war here and Aradic-es was blocked along with User:PRODUCER for 48 hours for this.


 * Attempt to censor information on the war crimes of the right-wing Croat politician Branimir_Glavaš by removing and marking the edit as "minor (removed profanities)" here. This is an attempt to hide vandalism.


 * Added a section trying to show that the Bosniaks identify themselves strongly with the Turks here on 18 August 2009. To add this particular information to a page on an ethnicity is borderline racism and very provocative. An IP 193.244.33.47 also came in and added Croatian nationalistic stuff just after. Previously rude about Macedonians/Greeks as per warnings here.


 * Also a considerable amount of edit warring on the Karađorđevo agreement starting as User:Aradic-en back in February. Most of Aradic's edits were based on putting across a Croatian POV and protecting the Croatian leader of the time Franjo Tuđman.


 * Continued edit warring (to 18 August 2009) on West Herzegovina Canton despite having been previously warned about incivility and warring on this article here on 13 July 2009. Polargeo (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

just I have to answer:

1st of all -no labelling,please!


 * Croatian_Pure_Party_of_Rights-removed statements that are not supported by sources(Croatian ones)-unlike some people I speak Croatian and I understand what they say.


 * Added a section trying to show that the Bosniaks identify themselves strongly with the Turks I cited statements of their leader-also can be verified. I cited the sources about riots in Mostar.I repeat:this is not what I (or some other Croats) say.This is what they say about themselves-And I just cite them here!!!


 * About Slobodan Praljak- I have deleted no sources-just rearranged them. See talk page
 * On Ahmići massacre_ i cited couple sources (mostly forums)-because these are the places where propaganda was written


 * My edits related to Macedonia are irrelevant since I am not neither Greek nor Macedonian-therefore I am neutral position
 * To be continued...

I will not edit them anymore till this dispute is beeing solved.--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Two weeks. I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back. My action is not due to the cited edit on the massacre article, but to this new revert at the Slobodan Praljak article. He is just getting off a 48-hour block for slow-moving edit warring on that very article, including changes to the lead! (The 3RR report is still visible above). Now when returning from the block he applies his favored revert to the lead yet again. Any admin may lift this block if Aradic-es will agree to an article restriction that prevents him from editing Balkan articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Andiharve reported by User:Aspects (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:19 19 Aug 2009


 * 1st revert: 12:14 21 Aug 2009
 * 2nd revert: 12:15 21 Aug 2009
 * 3rd revert: 12:15 21 Aug 2009
 * 4th revert: 12:16 21 Aug 2009
 * 5th revert: 12:17 21 Aug 2009
 * 6th revert: 12:17 21 Aug 2009
 * 7th revert: 12:18 21 Aug 2009
 * 8th revert: 12:19 21 Aug 2009
 * 9th revert: 12:20 21 Aug 2009
 * 10th revert: 19:00 21 Aug 2009


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:34 21 Aug 2009


 * For 3RR, many of the reverts are consecutive, so they count as only one revert. For edit warring in general, it doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a block. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)