Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive113

User:Welshsocialist reported by User: Riversider2008 (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: 

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of multiple attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've posted multiple citations showing that Labour is described by many authoritative published sources as neoliberal on the talk page, and in the article. I've added more citations as the edit war has continued, including one quoting a senior Labour Party figure Lord Mandelson "We are all Thatcherites now". Despite the overwhelming weight of this published material, WelshSocialist persists in POV reverts, without attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page, or to produce published material to back his position. It seems likely that Welshsocialist is a member of the Labour Party, and as such has a conflict of interests in editing that page, and also finds it difficult to understand rules on NPOV and Verifiability in relation to a subject close to his heart. Even he however has admitted "New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal" (sic), yet persists in removing this description from the infobox.

This is the first time I've had to report someone for edit warring, in my whole previous experience of editorial disputes it has been possible to find a resolution through talk page discussions, and I feel sorry that I have been left no alternative but to do this.

River sider ( talk ) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No violation. There must be four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. You do seem to be making a significant change in the article by making the Labor Party 'neoliberal', and I don't yet see anyone on the Talk page who supports your view. You are expected to abide by the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I need some help here. I was reporting Welshsocialist for edit warring, not for a violation of WP:3RR a narrow technical definition which there was never any question of him violating. I feel I have done everything right, finding plenty of authoritative published sources that establish that there is a sizeable body of opinion which describes Labour as 'Neo-Liberal' in it's ideology. Welshsocialist reverts this, without explanation, and without seeking consensus by using the talk page (if this is not edit-warring, what is?). How can we find a consensus if he does not use the talk page? I would appreciate it if people who understand rules on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI were to come to the talk page and to advise all of us there, perhaps this will help prevent the edit warring there getting worse. River sider ( talk ) 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the two of you are the only participants on the 'neo-liberal' issue, ask for a WP:Third opinion. Otherwise a WP:Request for comment is logical. Keep in mind that the 'neo-liberal' issue has been discussed many times in the past, and consensus has so far not supported putting that label in the infobox. Past discussions have occurred at:
 * Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 1
 * Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 2
 * Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive_2
 * Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)
 * Talk:Labour Party (UK)
 * Talk:Labour Party (UK)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that guidance Ed - I've seen the past discussions, and the one common factor is that nobody bothered to do the spadework of finding the citations from authoritative sources. Instead people tended to base their arguments on personal opinion, rather than citing published material. Now that I've done some of this spadework (and it was surprisingly easy to find many many citations), the weight of the sources should persuade anyone who is not a Labour apparatchik of the need to include the neoliberal label. Your guidance is very helpful, and I think the request for comment route sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks! River sider ( talk ) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Final comment (from me at least), while I didn't get the result I wanted, I still think this has been a helpful exercise, particularly in the advice and guidance I've received as a result. When a wiki works, it really does work well, by harnessing all that knowledge, experience and wisdom that exists out there. Thanks to all. River sider ( talk ) 08:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:209.6.87.112 reported by User:HalfShadow (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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: User talk:209.6.87.112

Comments:

User keep changing the page from 'standard' season numbering format (1**, 2**,3**), which the page was previously using to their own numbering format. IP makes no attempt to communicate at all, simply reverts to their numbering, sometimes adds edits that often have to be reverted as well due to being moderately incoherent. I've had to go as far as to have the page protected for two weeks just so it'd stop, only to have him come back when the page was open again.

I'm not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to the proper numbering system that has always been used until this IP showed up. He won't stop and he won't communicate. HalfShadow (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - 48 hours. Semiprotection has been tried, in late September, and this IP continued his edit warring on 11 October after the two weeks of semi expired. The IP is not inclined to discuss - he has never left a talk message of any kind. If a short block has no effect, escalation may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sgjin reported by User:C.Fred (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and similar. Key issue is the removal of tags from the article, including but not limited to the COI tag.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: mentioned in this warning ; explicit use of 3RR template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: — both the warnings inlcuded a request for the user to take this matter to the article's talk page; (s)he has refused to do so.

Comments:

As I've been one of the main people involved (and have hit three reverts myself), I need a fresh set of administrator eyes to look at the edits and tag removal. Additionally, I'm not sure I'm independent in regards to this article any more, per my comment on the talk page about the lack of sourcing, where I'm contemplating deletion of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The page has now been deleted by DGG. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No action, since the article has been speedied as a G4, due to resemblance to a previous version deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Don1962 reported by User:Dottiewest1fan (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

About a few hours ago, I reformatted Linda Ronstadt's singles charts up to standards, so they could meet the WikiProject Discographies/style, however my edits are being continually reverted by user User:Don1962. He or she continually adds the old singles chart that does not include the rest of the Canadian chart positions, as well as the other separate singles charts. The user claims I have failed to add who originally recorded the song (as Ronstadt has recorded many cover versions of songs by other artists), but this is not required on a singles chart and it keeps getting reverted. It was not discussed and if they need to see who originally recorded it, they can look on the song page, right? It is Ronstadt's version that matters after all because it's her discography.

Previous reverted versions from most recent to least recent:
 * Link 1
 * Link 2
 * Link 3
 * Link 4
 * Link 5

Please help me in whatever way you can. There is obvious fancruft here. Than you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fixed the report and added diffs. Both Don1962 and Dottiewest1fan broke 3rr. Neither was warned, but D obviously knew about the rule. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Both warned. Neither party is innocent in this dispute since both are over 3RR, but the submitter is a long-experienced editor, and the accused party seems resolute in ignoring feedback as to how these discographies are usually set up on Wikipedia. Both are warned that they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting a talk page consensus first. This warning expires seven days from now, but blocks may be issued (if needed) up until that point. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ShadowRanger reported by User:Crossmr (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before, he's aware of the policy.

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

Comments:


 * Protected for a week. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Stoneacres reported by User:M.nelson (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warns that the user has "already" broken 3RR, giving in essence a second chance;  Giving "third chance";  Elaboration on "third chance"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Basically the entire section of Talk:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park (and the comment directly above) is explaining my change to the page, and User:Ahunt's support. User:Stoneacres continues to revert (amid warnings) but does not address the underlying faults of his version.

Comments:

There is applicable discussion on the article's talk page, as well as in Talk:Gatineau Park, where User:Ahunt and I (do our best to) act as a voice of reason. Also of note is discussion at User talk:Stoneacres, particularly Ahunt's statement at User talk:Stoneacres. Note that the article remains in Stoneacres' version, as (though I believe to have explained my reasoning clearly) I don't want to get caught up in 3RR myself.

Also, I just realized, user has reverted four times in Gatineau Park:, , , , as well as a fifth revert on different text. Should this be a separate report? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the changes made by the above were whimsical and their consequence was to delete important information which viewers are entitled to know to obtain a balanced view of the subject. My edits were made to ensure accuracy and verifiability.

There is a broad consensus that the park needs protection. Unfortunately, comprehensive information on the park is very difficult to obtain, save on wikipedia, as editor Alaney observed some time back.

The Politics of Gatineau Park article, in my view, respects the spirit of wikipedia which is to inform and be easily accessible. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fairly clear. 24h, Black Kite 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:BluefieldWV reported by Verbal (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Version reverted to (initial edits): diff
 * Warning about edit warring policy: 2 October

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


 * 1) 14:54, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "sources are used for "facts" not opinions, unless those opinions are directly attributed in the article")
 * 2) 16:06, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "its the opinion and POV of the reporter, not anything directly attributed to Watts.")
 * 3) 16:08, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "these look like they should be included under WP:EL")
 * 4) 16:30, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "the 'novel' discription given in this article appears no where in the link "About surfacestations"")
 * 5) 17:40, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "the phrase "peer-reviewed" exists no where in the source")

— Verbal chat  19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous, you and two other editors are deliberately introducing material into the article that is found nowhere in the sources you cite. One of you actually admits as much, but prefers the other version. In addition, since this is a BLP, removal of such material is not subject to 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Only BLP removals are not subject to 3RR. Two of your edits refer to a website, not a person, and the other two the word "conservative" which is sourced and not subject to BLP either. Verbal chat  19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "conservative", while sourced, was not properly attributed. It was the opinion of the author and should have been reflected as such. The inaccurate description of the website is WP:NOR and is not allowed in a biographical article,. You might have a case if the material was on a page specifically about surfacestation, but it wasnt. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the opinion on WP:BLPN, but it is irrelevant here. 5 clear reverts well within 24 hours. Verbal chat  20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that it has only been up several hours and all the contributors happen to be the same people involved in the article dispute, that’s hardly a solid example you have set forth. Or as another editor said on the talk page (where several of the editors involved in this back and forth are surprisingly absent): Here's a fact: "Surface stations is not a ball of yarn." That is an entirely true and uncontroversial statement, and yet we don't include it because SS doesn't ever claim to be anything related to yarn, one way or another. I've not seen any evidence that SS claims to publish, nor that it denies publishing, and no reliable source has made these points either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to include what they don't do. BluefieldWV (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring disputes here. That doesn't explain your reverts, and has been answered on the article talk (no one has proposed a yarn entry). The way to address these issues is by consensus on the article talk page, not by edit warring. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it explains the reverts as it is a quite humorous illustration of the kind of garbage that is filling up a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 24 hours. Others have extensively discussed the 3RR policy with BluefieldWV on his talk page, so an actual block seems needed to convince him that he really is over the line. A brand-new editor (Sept 23) who starts right off with a lot of reverts on a contested topic like global warming tends to attract attention. Block can be lifted by any admin if Bluefield will agree to stop edit-warring on Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:PRODUCER reported by User:Aradic-es (Result: stale)
Notification Page:

User being reported:

Couple blind reverts:


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

Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you BOTH reverted like five times. -- King Öomie 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

his history of reverts blind reverts: Page:

 -pay attention to category and external links removal.

Summa summarum:he deletes what he dislikes, does not care if he commits some collateral damage.He is an SPA edit warrior.Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk)
 * I don't see any 'blind' reverts, actually. -- King Öomie 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

aNOTHER example:of blind reverting

He removed with no explanation this section: "The ledership of Herzeg-Bosnia, however, did not proclaim independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Herzeg-Bosnia did not have its own constituition (not any similar document). The official capital city of Herzeg-Bosnia was Western Mostar.However, beeing that Mostar was a war zone, effective control center was in Grude."

HE tried to do that as well before  but this time he offered no explanation. he inserted what he likes and removed what he dislikes.Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CraigMonroe reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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: Talk:Chris Benoit

Comments:

I love your trickery. You get reported, so you report me. One problem, unlike you, I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours as required by the rule. In fact, a poster even pointed this out in the history for the Chris Benoit article. Admins, please take notice of this. I am trying to make this place better, and posters like GaryColeman seem intent on trying to change history. I keep asking for evidence that Benoit didn't do it so I can at least understand the dissaproval of the edit but instead get the response that the murder is unverified despite the facts, news reports, legal findings, etc. In fact, the majority of logic agaisnt me seems to be "I don't care what the papers say, I know better." Without question, such edits are clearly questionable. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reverts were:


 * 18:27, 8 October 2009


 * 11:32, 9 October 2009


 * 15:55, 9 October 2009


 * 17:40, 9 October 2009


 * Clearly, this was all within a 24 hour period. The article history shows that I did not, in fact, violate 3RR. Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, you posted my violation here prior to the fourth edit which was not a reversion so the argument about it being a "warning" is asinine. Second, where did I revert for the fourth time within 24 hours, unlike you? Come on, I am still waiting for you to explain your logic. Saying the investigation MAY be wrong is not a valid reason. What can we do to compromise and make the article better? I have repeatedly asked you to explain your reasons but the best you have stated is that a coroner's inquest is only an opinion. I guess if a person stretches logical reality it may be. Then again, if that is true, so is a court's decision, admissions of guilt, video of a crime, etc. Looking away from this, what can be done to compromise? (Which, by the way, my fourth edit was an attempt at and was not a reversion). Admins, do you see what I am dealing with now? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, he edited his post substantially. Note the absurdity of his claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=318925251&oldid=318924621 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - The article has been protected by User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and what about the violation of 3RR? GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is uncommon for someone in a 3RR case to be blocked when the article is already protected. (Since the article is protected, the war can't continue). Ask the protecting admin, User:Bibliomaniac15, if you believe there is a continuing problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, even though CraigMonroe deliberately violated 3RR after being warned about the consequences, the "solution" is just to reward his edit warring by locking the article on his preferred version? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is traditional to protect the Wrong Version. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary, please just let the Admins do their job. If we had worked this out on the talk page, this would be unnecessary. Also, you violated 3RR. So Don't play so innocent. CraigMonroe (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: GaryColemanFan is now questioning Admin action, and accusing admins of being "spineless" and "ignorant:" . Is there any way to get a ruling so that further attacks by GaryColeman can be stopped? I am simply trying to improve an article and he seems steadfast in not allowing improvement for some unforeseen motive and talking down to anyone trying to follow Wikipedia policy. When will it end? CraigMonroe (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) CraigMonroe is now engaged in wikihounding, as he is following all of my edits and posting numerous follow-up notes to each of them. (2) Any editor is perfectly entitled to question administrative action. Administrators makes mistakes and I think it would be hard to find an administator that does not believe that he or she should be held accountable by other editors. (3) CraigMonroe is deliberately misquoting me, as I have never called an administrator ignorant, let alone multiple administrators, as he has claimed. (4) I provided the diffs to prove that CraigMonroe violated 3RR. His claim of innocence is a blatant lie. (5) His claim that I violated 3RR is also a blatant lie. If diffs proving otherwise can be provided, I will apologize fully...but they won't be, because they simply don't exist. (6) As I said before, Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not being disingenuous in any way. See EdJohnston talk page where Gary states: "What does this teach him? That Wikipedia administrators are spineless and that acting like a bully will get him his way." Additionally, he states "As an administrator, you should be open to giving a straight answer to a reasonable question instead of making the situation worse with such an ignorant response." In response to an Admin pointing out the rules, he states "The issue at hand is the attitude with with you replied to my question and your failure to apologize." I am sorry if he thinks my act of responding to him discussing ME when he is trying to get me banned is wikihounding. Also, talk about hypocrisy. He claims this isn't the proper place to take a dispute yet still comes back here forcing me to respond, otherwise being accussed of ignoring his half-truth argument. Now he continues to lie about his innocence and me. The fact remains--despite his lies--that if a rule was broken by one person, they were broken by both of us, except in the case of a 3RR violation since, unlike him, I did not violate the rule. Meanwhile, I still want to solve the problems with the article but instead, Gary wants to play these games. Admins, is there anything you can do to help?CraigMonroe (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. Anyhow, can I please get a straight answer from an administrator that takes his or her position seriously? I have two "yes" or "no" questions. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but I would like a simple "yes" or "no" so that the talk of false accusations can be put to rest. (1) Did I violate 3RR on this article? (2) Did CraigMonroe violate 3RR on this article? Thank you in advance for your two-word response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a four-against-three revert situation, with Craig reverting one more than GaryColemanFan. In a case like this article, I would not have blocked for 3RR but I might have blocked both parties for edit warring. Bibliomaniac15 did the right thing by protecting, since a two-person revert war can't be allowed to decide the fate of an article that has serious WP:BLP issues. User:Bibliomaniac15 has already opened an RfC on the matter: Talk:Chris Benoit After this RfC has run for at least a week, why not ask him to close it and state the result. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Captain Occam reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:42, 10 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319115151 by Muntuwandi (talk)")
 * 2) 22:05, 10 October 2009  (edit summary: "Please discuss this on the talk page before continuing to change it.  I'm trying to discuss it there; you're reverting without discussion.")
 * 3) 13:13, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ As I said on the talk page, if we're going to mention that this was done by a blogger, we need to say what the analysis involved.  If you disagree, please discuss it there.")
 * 4) 14:29, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319231653 by Ramdrake (talk) This doesn't accurately describe the Behavioral and Brain Functions study.")
 * 5) 15:00, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "Revert: This is being discussed at length on the talk page.  You can express your opinion there if you think this is mis-cited, but just sticking on a tag with no further comment isn't helpful.")
 * 6) 15:19, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Synthesis problem fixed; tag removed.")
 * 7) 15:38, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "Revert: This edit is an obvious NPOV violation.")
 * 8) 15:50, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "Revert: This issue was brought up and resolved on the RS noticeboard.  If you wish to dispute its conclusions, you need to bring this up there.")
 * 9) 17:32, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "Following suggestions from RS noticeboard.")
 * 10) 19:00, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Trying to be NPOV about this.")


 * Diff of warning: 9th October

—Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has already warned others that he will engage in a revert war diff Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) -->


 * Comment The user's belligerent attitude is clear, but it's not clear to me that this is a 3RR violation. The sequence of the above edits by Captain Occam and edits by others seems to have improved the text over time. Another administrator might see things differently that I do. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I'd go forum-shopping with this, but if this isn't a clear case of 3RR, isn't it at least a rather clear case of edit-warring? Wouldn't it at least be worthy of a warning from a thirdt party (as I doubt Capt. Occam will heed a warning from someone involved in the situation - already tried on the talk page).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of forum-shopping, I noted that the matter is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm leaving this open, but I think it likely that resolution of this issue will occur in the WP:RS discussion. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks!!--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not resolved, I have added more diffs. I believe we have at least two 3RR violations. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How can there be a one-sided edit war? Fixentries (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message for User:Captain Occam, pointing him to this 3RR case and asking him to explain the ten edits within 24 hours. I hope that he will respond in time for the closing admin to take this into account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see how there can be a on-sided edit war. One-sided 3RR violation might make sense, but edit warring takes more than one person. Ramdrake makes the following reversions within a 24 hour period on the article:


 * 1) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (apparently this is counted against 3RR too)
 * 2) 17:34, 11 October 2009
 * 3) 15:46, 11 October 2009
 * 4) 14:22, 11 October 2009
 * 5) 21:45, 10 October 2009

It's a waste of my time to have to dig through that. I would rather be editing neglected and "less important" articles some of which are badly in need of it. I wish the litigiousness (wikilawyering?) and careless/POV edits would stop and people would just try to work together. I'm about to remove this article from my watch list because the nonsense is distracting me from more useful things. Fixentries (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixentries, why do you give me a nasty feeling of deja vu? Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Race and intelligence was recently placed under full protection. That protection expired at 07:46 UTC on 10 October. The protecting admin, MuZemike, has commented on the situation here. At this time he favors blocks in lieu of a new spell of protection. If his advice were followed, Captain Occam and Ramdrake would need to be checked for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to comment on this, so here's what I have to say.


 * As Fixcentrics has pointed out here, the race and intelligence article has a lot of issues that involve more than just edit warring. He mentioned some of the issues in his comment, and I described them in a little more detail here and  here.  If I've contributed to this problem by violating 3RR, I'm willing to accept a temporary block for that, as long as it's part of a larger effort to fix the problems with this article.


 * Alternatively, if the rest of these issues can be addressed, I'm willing to promise not to violate 3RR anymore. My repeated reverting of the article was done out of frustration at some of the other POV-pushing edits that were occurring, and while I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have made the problem worse rather than better, fixing the rest of this article's problems would nevertheless remove my motivation for involving myself in it.  As I mentioned in the comment on my user talk page, previous attempts to resolve this problem through the proper channels have been unsuccessful.


 * Either way, the one thing that I ask is that administrators come up with a solution that addresses all of this article's problems. It's had these problems for upwards of two years, and I'm willing to accept a block if it's necessary as part of a long-term solution. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm being called into question for possible edit warring, I'd like to point out that out of the 5 edits I made within 24 hours, one was a simple rewording to make a sentence more descriptive of the situation, and of the remaining four, I'm quite certain they don't point back to the same revision/version of the article (unless someone can point out to me the revision in question). In other words, while I've threaded quite close to 3RR in this case, I don't see that I have broken the rule per se.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24h to Captain Occam. He was notified that he was over 3RR, and was given a chance to promise to stop edit warring. He did not do so, and he has continued to revert while this case was open. He wants to make a deal with admins that he will accept a block if they pursue the improper editing of others. (The comments he left above are some evidence of that). If other admins believe that sanctions are also due to other parties, then can handle that as they wish. Ramdrake is warned that his above justification for exceeding 3RR doesn't hold water, and he may be sanctioned if he doesn't follow the letter of WP:3RR in the future. (See WP:REVERT for specifics). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:User:Hdboeck reported by User:Modernist (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , Comments:

User:Hdboeck claims to be a veteran editor only he's using another name. He added material to the article and was reverted by User:Freshacconci whose rational was that the edit did not fit the criteria of the article, he reverted Freshacconci, then he was reverted by User:Teapotgeorge, then he reverted Teapotgeorge and changed the criteria on the page, which has been there relatively unchanged since 2004. I then reverted him, he reverted me again and I 3RR warned him. Then he reverted User:Kafka Liz and finally User:Ewulp a couple of times, and I reverted his last edit. All the time ignoring the voluminous talkpage arguments by Tyrenius, Freshacconci, KafkaLiz, Ewulp, and me...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Protected. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Marin17 reported by User:Martin451 (Result: protected )
. : Time reported: 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 14:38, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319443394 by TH43 (talk) Undid my work.")
 * 2) 14:39, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319371790 by TH43 (talk)undid my work and changed it")
 * 3) 14:40, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319371679 by TH43 (talk)changed my work.")
 * 4) 14:51, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 15:00, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 15:01, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 15:02, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* Series overview */")
 * 8) 15:11, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "moved List of 18 Kids and Counting episodes to 18 Kids and Counting episodes")
 * 9) 18:12, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319655717 by TH43 (talk)You don't have to say it snotty and why did you change it back. I u[date the episodes every week.")
 * 10) 18:13, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654775 by TH43 (talk) I do work hard I was the one before you so rudely took over added each episode each week.")
 * 11) 18:14, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654202 by TH43 (talk) I do work hard.")
 * 12) 18:15, 13 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654574 by TH43 (talk) I liked it all in one color how it orignally was.")
 * 13) 00:42, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319719183 by TH43 (talk)I am right your wrong. By the way your an adult fighting with a high schooler pretty pathetic.")
 * 14) 00:43, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319718296 by TH43 (talk)I was here first. I will keep changing it back so everytime you change be preparded for me to chang")
 * 15) 00:45, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717974 by TH43 (talk) I don't care about jon and kate plus eight's format.")
 * 16) 00:46, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717663 by TH43 (talk) I liked it before.")
 * 17) 00:46, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717520 by TH43 (talk) I will change it back everytime you change it.")
 * 18) 00:53, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 319656189 by TH43 (talk) Look at the logs bitch I have been editing this article since July 1,2009.")
 * 19) 00:53, 14 October 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

The user has not edited since I gave him the warning, however his edit summaries maintain that he will continue warring, and he has significant WP:Own problems. I am particularly concerned about this edit. Note I am not involved in the dispute, I noticed whilst patrolling recent changes.
 * Comments.

—Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Page protected for three days. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Jk54 (Result: Jk54 indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=319004115
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=318061116
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=317868825
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=319324124&oldid=315576799

Comments:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - I closed a 3RR case involving Jk54 and the Quilliam Foundation back in February, 2009. He was given a 24-hour block for edit warring at that time. Though Jk54 has received plenty of advice from regular editors, none of it seems to sink in. He is back again charging other editors of Quilliam Foundation with vandalism in this edit summary. In the cited edit, made on 26 September 2009, he blanket-reverts the work of others, and triples the length of the article using his own favored material. This is the same editing pattern he displayed last February.


 * Here is some background:
 * In Feb 09 Jk54 was blocked as the result of this edit-warring complaint


 * I issued Jk54's previous block


 * Jk54 discussed the matter with me in Feb 09 on my talk


 * A case against Jk54 was filed recently at 3RR. The closer declined to take action here, but forwarded it to WP:NORN


 * The NORN discussion attracted no comments from anyone but Jk54 himself


 * A case about this article is currently open at WQA. Some people have observed that Jk54 is adding original research as well as POV criticism of the Quilliam Foundation


 * I consider the behavior of Jk54 to be long-term edit warring. It would be logical to warn him that he will be blocked if he restores his own version of the article again. Let him know that he must not make further changes to Quilliam Foundation unless he can find support for his edit from at least one other person. He is welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page. Since I took the previous admin action on this article, in February, I hope that another admin will consider the matter and close the case as they deem appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was mentioned here without being informed. The issue is currently being actively discussed here,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:Jk54 - with an apparent consensus so far against Jk54's insertion of NPOV original material. In the meantime I've been undoing JK54's reversions pending the end of the discussion, since that seems the sensible thing to do? In his latest reversion he states that  "Avaya1 is a Quilliam employee". Making this kind of accusation is surely POV (and reflects his/her POV editing style), and also against wikipedia etiquette.  I hope some adminstrators can assist us in this case. Best Avaya1 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I came to this via Wikiquette Alerts, and agree with Avaya1. What Jk54 keeps re-adding is entirely hostile WP:SYNTH, and the repeated demands for discussion smell of WP:TE; we're not obliged to discuss every detail of something that is wrong in so many ways: POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS. Nor does Wikipedia work by inclusion by default, then everyone has to discuss what should be removed. The way to go is for Jk54 to propose changes, incrementally, on the Talk page - but I'm not sure how this is going to work since he doesn't seem to 'get' fundamentals of what constitutes original research, why blogs are treated as unreliable, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - After edit warring by some parties on a previous occassion, the last version of this article that EdJohnson and the editors involved at the time approved to remain and locked down was the version I have reverted - the advice provided was to work off this version and remove and POV/original research etc that may exist. I am working off te version on which there had been a concensus at the time. For reference see:


 * 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (59,396 bytes) (Add semi-protection template) (undo)
 * 1) (cur) (prev) 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) m (59,366 bytes) (Protected Quilliam Foundation: Edit warring by IPs who do not participate on Talk ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)))) (undo)


 * Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included. I have requested POV or original material to be removed if it can be demonstrated to be the case as this article has been vandalised by those supporters/employees/sock puppets of the Quilliam Foundation who cannot bear to see any balanced critique of the organisation - Avaya1 has repeatedly removed 3/4 of an article which no doubt includes non-wiki approved material but importantly includes non-POV, non-blog and non-original material. Whenever I have done a revert it is simply to replace the large quantities of material that has been incorrectly and arbitrarily labelled as POV/original material. I would be obliged if facts were represented as they are and not how Avaya1 is choosing to portray them.
 * I would suggest the full article is used as a basis to reduce what may be objectionable or against Wiki rules rather than the other way round as the vast majority of the content is valid and some material needs to be removed - this approach was being explored until the arrival of Avaya1 - one simply needs to look at the article's discussion forum to see sections being debated in a sensible manner and what has been shown to be POV / original material etc was agreed to be removed with concensus.
 * Finally, I would request the editors to consider Avaya1's IP address to check if he is a sock puppet of the Quilliam Organisation. If one simply looks at Avaya1's history, the sole focus has been this article and since I have raised this point, he has over the last couple of days started editing other articles which makes it appear he is contributing towards other wiki articles. Jk54 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included
 * Yes, but you've made no attempt to self-assess the material, merely re-added it wholesale.
 * JK54 has restored the disputed version yet again. EdJohnston, would a block be appropriate? As I said, Wikipedia doesn't work on a default of adding contentious material against consensus - in this case, hostile WP:SYNTH - then everyone discussing what to remove; dubious material starts as out by default, and we discuss what can go in.
 * I'm also concerned about the similarity to this text : Wikipedia isn't an annexe of someone's polemical blog. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with JK54's edits is also related to the rule WP:N and to coherence, given the history of the article, in which all the time we've merely been editing down his polemical essay. If we look at the history of the page, it originally started out the same as that blog article. Additionally the continuous claim that I'm an undercover quilliam employee is bad wikipedia etiquette. I have no association with quilliam. Like all the other users here, I merely read JK54's edits and saw that they broke all of wikipedia's rules. However studying the talk page of the article shows that the accusation has been made before to other users who similarly disputed his essay. Avaya1 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed result - Within the next 12 hours, I'm planning to close this complaint with an indefinite block of Jk54, unless some other admin decides to close it. Due to the many links above, there is plenty of data to review to decide whether Jk54 is working in good faith on this article. Since he only comes around occasionally, and always does the same thing, it is unlikely that a short block will be much of a crimp in his activities. Unless we actually GIVE him the article on the Quilliam Foundation to do with as he pleases, we need to do something decisive. So far nothing any other editor has said to him (since February) has persuaded him to modify his approach. I am notifying him of this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with you EdJohnston. I have no objections to the edits made by Gordonofcartoon and have let them lie as they have removed only those aspects which violate wiki rules. As I have repeatedly said if someone is removeing valid research then surely that must be reverted. I have accepted the point that when reverting material one should assess it to revert only that which is relevant which I will do in future. I see little point to a ban as the issue appears resolved.Jk54 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Jk54 blocked indef. This is a single-purpose account, devoted entirely to long-term POV-pushing at Quilliam Foundation. He has continued to revert even while this 3RR complaint was open, suggesting that he is immune to correction and is unwilling to follow our policies. His suggestion that things are fine cannot be confirmed from any of his actions. Any other persion who edits the article he sees as 'removing valid research.' So by restoring his POV material, he is fixing a 'violation of wiki rules.' The edit summary from his last wholesale revert, dated October 12, was "Reverting Avaya1 vandalism".' EdJohnston (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sherurcij reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 11 October 2009


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 01:11, 12 October 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:38, 12 October 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:48, 12 October 2009
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 23:15, 12 October 2009 -- full revert which user attempted to conceal by linking one word.
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 23:30, 12 October 2009 -- full revert except for the retention of one sourced phrase from edit he reverted.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: The user above has repeatedly reverted attempts by myself to add sourced statements to the article in question. He has also categorically refused to allow both myself and another editor to select more appropriate language for certain passages in the article that gratuitously use strong, racist language (specifically the word nigger). The user for some inexplicable has insisted on retaining this word, although it has already been demonstrated by myself and the other editor on that article's talk page that this is contrary to Wikipedia's WP:PROFANITY policy. Despite our citing the relevant policy for him, my already having warned the user before his last revert that he had breached 3RR, & my already having explained the rest of my edits to this editor at the Administrator's noticeboard where this same issue is being discussed, he just keeps reverting & has now well surpassed three reverts. Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Results - 48 hours. Editor has three past blocks for edit warring. I do not see that Sherurcij obtained a talk page consensus anywhere for his version. Since only three parties were active in the editing dispute of October 12-14, they might consider opening a WP:Request for comment that could draw more participation. It may not be easy to reconcile the verifiable but harsh language that Sherurcij favors for the article with our WP:PROFANITY policy. This issue was recently discussed at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl reported by User:Scientus (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st set of reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * -- unreferences, and in conflict with old and current consensus.
 * -- edit history Claim of initial removal edit note is untrue (relevant sec on talk)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: ≤--here user:HAl was blocked for 10 days, with a long history of such blocks
 * 5th revert:

After the block expired user:HAl immediately proceeded to edit war, with no discussion, no rationale, and no consensus—infant against long established consensus.

As he gives no reasons, I have a hard time seeing how user:HAl's edits are constructive, and I have a feeling he is pushing an agenda instead of trying to improve the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Stale at this point. I'll keep an eye on it, however. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the page links above.Scientus (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reopening:


 * 6th revert:

user:HAl continues to hide the origins of Microsoft-run sites, and remove criticism from Google and other notable sources.

user:HAl has a long history of uncivil behavior. including hiding origins of Microsoft-run sites, being called out for apparently biased editing, being blocked for edit warring, among other things.Scientus (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This edit warring has been going on for months at that article. No sooner has one guy got off a 10-day block, and he's at it again within minutes. Light penalties obviously haven't worked.-- Lester  11:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:79.182.108.170 reported by Dr.K. (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

IP keeps reverting different editors inserting heavy-handed POV into article. Technically he is not in violation of 3RR within 24 hours but warning had no effect on the behaviour of the IP. I suggest a block based on a pattern of edit-warring and no discussion. Dr.K. logos 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me guess. It's gone stale. No problem. It's maybe for the best. Dr.K. logos 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. If the problem continues, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. Nice seeing you after such a long time. Thank you for the action and for exercising your discretion. It was a nice surprise. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Scientus reported by User:hAl (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Scientus has more than 50 edits on his name echt time removing fully sourced information on organizations supporting the Office Open XML and adding hidden critisism link in a string of irrelevant 12 critisims citation links (in stead onf just one) added to an (unchallenged) critisism about the 6000 page size of the specification. The extr additional links are actually about the standardization proces of Office Open XML and belong in the Standardization of Office Open XML article. The supporting sites issue (which has been reverted most of all) was recnetly discussed again and by dealt with by consensus multiple editors in this section [Talk:Office_Open_XML

user:Scientus pattern is to start with fact tagging, then removing info (even though citation were provided) and reverting them then complain on the ANI board to get them a bnan and then a few day later again edit the same edits over an over and over again.

user:Scientus has several times added in his edit summeries or on the talk page he thinks Office Open XML is a Microsoft standard and that he removed information because that information is somehow related to Microsoft.

I can't find the exact first issue edit on this as there are too many

A partial list of recent edits by user:Scientus:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317256317&oldid=317115910 Revision as of 11:32, 1 October 2009
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317053543&oldid=317048760 Revision as of 09:30, 30 September 2009
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=315549143&oldid=315542955 Revision as of 18:53, 22 September 2009
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314349579&oldid=314334726 Revision as of 15:41, 16 September 2009
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314293873&oldid=314163854 Revision as of 08:11, 16 September 2009
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=314061479&oldid=314048363 Revision as of 09:29, 15 September 2009
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=308366639&oldid=308291451 Revision as of 22:56, 16 August 2009
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=308253924&oldid=307884538 Revision as of 06:57, 16 August 2009
 * 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=307846982&oldid=307705059 Revision as of 01:36, 14 August 2009
 * 10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=302554313&oldid=302174952 Revision as of 07:34, 17 July 2009
 * 11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301668306&oldid=301660355 Revision as of 10:17, 12 July 2009
 * 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301458053&oldid=301457153 Revision as of 00:07, 11 July 2009
 * 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=301326144&oldid=301164333 Revision as of 07:36, 10 July 2009
 * 14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=299976600&oldid=299703971 Revision as of 02:22, 3 July 2009
 * 15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=299047868&oldid=298950006 Revision as of 03:33, 28 June 2009
 * 16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=298336626&oldid=298312310 Revision as of 13:14, 24 June 2009
 * 17) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=297353032&oldid=297341219 Revision as of 13:56, 19 June 2009
 * 18) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=297032269&oldid=296723747 Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2009
 * 19) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=295436493&oldid=295430817 Revision as of 20:58, 9 June 2009
 * 20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=317562743&oldid=317346640 Revision as of 01:53, 3 October 2009
 * 21) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=319665033&oldid=319577538 Revision as of 19:23, 13 October 2009

The user has been asked to stop his behaviour many times on both his talk page as well as the talk page off the Talk:Office Open XML article:

I have requested help from the wiki project, have tried to get RfC and Request for medation but none has attracted the nescesary outside help.

Comments:


 * Could you cut the diffs which aren't reverts, and then highlight which ones happened in which 24hr period. The ones I looked at included normal edits and happened on days more than 24hrs apart, ranging from yesterday to the 22 September - that's a lot more than 24hrs. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  11:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is not about a single 3RR but about the continuous edit warring by user:Scientus over prolonged period of time removing the same information over and over and over and over even against the consensus created on the talk page. hAl (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history there doesn't seem to be a current issue with Scientus (only three blocks of edits in since the October 3rd, in fact), and Scientus's version seems preferable from an encyclopaedic point of view. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What ????? It is encyclopedic to remove (50 times) fully cited information on support for a document eventhough the consensus was reached on the support info on the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML ? Is it encyclopedic to reintroduce incorrect information in the article lead even though this was discussed on the talk page and a lot more accurate information was placed in another section ? Talk:Office_Open_XML. hAl (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the edit war noticeboard. Do you have evidence for a recent edit war? I don't see how it can even be possible based on the number of edits he has made. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha I see: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring this looks like a frivolous response to the report made against hAl. Probably needs action. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the dates, there has been no 3RR violation, the most recent edit is October 3rd. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

HAI blocked for two weeks due to disruptive editing. No violation from Scientus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Mr. Hicks The III (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: roughly this, but diffs provided for each revert


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: a revert  of this edit
 * 5th revert: a revert  of this edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user is not a newbie, and has been blocked for edit warrign many times before ;. Most recently, we have exchanged 3RR warnings here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in teh edit dispte. There has been discussion the article TAlk page, with a three editors opposing Tiamut's edits.

Comments:

Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user's first edits since early August is to report somebody on an article he has never touched? Very sock-like. And "revert" 5 is not a revert, the source used is retained but separated to another sentance for what it actually supports. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If people think I should be blocked for edit-warring for the edits listed above, I accept that decision. While I engaged in substantive talk page discussion, I should have opened a discussion on the disputed text earlier (the first three edits predate my efforts at talk). My past experiences with the editor edit-warring with me led me to shirk a more collaborative approach since it has largely proved unfruitful in the past. That is no excuse however. Nor is the fact that the person filing the report seems to be here to monitor my edits (See previous Edit warring warning from Mr. Hicks the Ill. In that case too, he was not editing the page at the time). I will accept a block for whatever length of time people think is necessary to prevent future disruptions. My apologies to the community for any trouble I have caused. (And apologies to myself for not learning from past mistakes.)  T i a m u t talk 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No action. It seems as though Tiamut is promising to stop warring on this article. We will expect him to seek consensus for any controversial changes from now on. I note that Tiamut was let off a block on September 7, and this forgiveness can't go on too much longer. I do not see anything the matter with Mr Hicks's warnings, or the fact that he made a complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was let off my last block for edit-warring on September 7, 2007, after MangoJuice accepted that I understood that edit-warring is wrong. I do understand that, I am sorry for the lapse, and I appreciate you giving me another chance.  T i a m u t talk 21:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go forth and edit war no more. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:64.222.163.104 reported by User:Jsorens (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: These reversions appear to be an attempt to overturn a consensus reached months ago on the same issue (see talk page link above).

--Jsorens (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No action is necessary at this point. Only three reverts occurred within 24 hours, and that was 8 days ago. I will keep an eye on it, but unless there is continued disruption, this does not warrant a block/protection. Jamie  S93  19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the remedy for the other editors then? May we simply start reverting without comment the disruptive edits?--Jsorens (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we have four reverts by the same editor in a 24-hour period.--Jsorens (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

64.222.163.104 has been blocked for 48 hours for disruptive edit warring (3RR). Jamie  S93  14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the assistance.--Jsorens (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ilyaroz reported by User:Mhym (Result: No vio)
Made 3RR vio on Mark Kac. Also personally attacked me here:. Please help. Thank you. Mhym (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No action seems necessary. Ilyaroz only reverted twice (nearly 2 days ago), and editing activity has since stopped. Both of you seem to be getting a bit reactive, although no personal attacks or disruptive edits are being made. I'm glad that the issue has been brought to your talk page, and please continue that discussion in a calm manner. Since there is no longer any active reverting, I'm closing this report.  Jamie  S93  15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:12.46.128.14 reported by User:24.176.191.234 (Result: 24h)
Page:

12.46.128.14:

I apologize for not being able to put in the links correctly - however user listed above keeps replacing "died" with "gomed out" and has done so at least 4 times on the Al Martino page.

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


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

User has been warned twice by others, I did not warn after reverting last act of vandalism.

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

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

Comments:

User was blocked very quickly. Thank you for taking action rather than slapping me for not doing this perfectly.
 * 12.46.128.14 was given blocked for repeated vandalism (24 hours) by Edgar181. Jamie  S93  19:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Izumidebito reported by User:BenRG (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs:     and many more. Be sure to scroll down to see the second part of the added text. User has been warned several times on their talk page. -- BenRG (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:99.139.220.238 reported by User:TenPoundHammer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

This user, also using the IPs and, has been going back and forth with me on Washington Commons. I have explained in my edit summaries that Wikipedia is not a mall directory, which led to a threat of violence and a block for 99.139.220.179. The most recent IP has also spread to Westfield Southlake (diff), once again reverting my removal of a store list. It is precedent per WP:MALLS that articles should not have lists of current/former stores because such lists violate WP:NOT, which I just explained to this IP. Admittedly, my last revert to Washington Commons was without realizing that it was the same IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: was just blocked for 24 hours by Jéské for very vicious attacks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! reported by User:Carlaude (Result: warning)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Guardians_of_Scotland&action=history

A couple version of [Category:Guardians of Scotland] from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted:


 * Previous version reverted to
 * Same basic version reverted to


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

Diff of attempt my to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (reverted by Mais oui!)

Comments:

This seems like a straight forward misunderstanding of how the category tree is used-- that Mais refuse to deal with-- or willful blindness. He shows himself unwilling to accept that burden of proof for changes lie with those that want to make the change. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've issued a light warning for now. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:80.176.88.21 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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: [diff]

Comments:


 * Protected 3 days. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Discharger12 and User:75.186.141.237 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: all parties warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

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]

Comments: I tried to reach a compromise, but User:Discharger12 keeps resorting to petty edit-warring, and incivil edit summaries.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All involved users, including the OP, warned. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:76.121.146.43 reported by User:Mattg82 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Last page before changes: Inbetween reverts other changes have been made.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link Though didn't quote 3RR rule.

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

Comments:

User keeps changing formation year to 1985 from 1986. Also keeps changing start of international success from late 80s to mid 80s. Or as the user likes to call it mide. Mattg82 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Insufficient disruptive editing to justify taking any actions at the moment. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:


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

The editor is well aware of 3RR having been blocked for this type of disruption.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Having inserted the disputed text here, they have claimed in this edit summary, that this is the stable version, and edit warred to retain the text (diff's listed above). This user has a history of disruption. They have used Socks and have been blocked for such.


 * This may be better as an ANI report, but Irvine22 has ranged across many articles connected with Northern Ireland in a disruptive way. About 90% of their edits are reverted.  Its unusual for the editor concerned to formally break the rules as such, but there is an overall pattern of disruption here that needs to be addressed.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * for 1 week for edit-warring. Additionally, Irvine22 informed of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and advised that he is likely to be sanctioned under it. CIreland (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scientus reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 16:51, 16 October 2009 (rm link)
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:59, 16 October 2009 (Undid revision 320295937 by 64.38.198.61 (talk) You need to discuss on talk page)
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:36, 17 October 2009 (Congressional career:  undid 320208723 by user:Trilemma: immidiately dismissing as propaganda is not a reason to remove a sourced account of events)
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 00:56, 17 October 2009  (you sentence is bad english and uses wrong verbs. He did not "refer" because it does not exist (to his, the subject of the sentence). Stop improperly using minor edits.)
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 13:08, 17 October 2009 (Undid revision 320319357 by Trilemma (talk) He wasn't, "halocaust" has been used as a adjective since the 18th century)
 * 6th revert: Current revision as of 14:31, 17 October 2009 (Health care policy debate:  coelesce funding sources. no need for whole P on it)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I had a look at this atricle after it was brought to my attention by a discussion at the BLP noticeboard here and I left 3RR notes on the three editors involved. I was in a disscussion regarding reverting with this editor when he made another revert to the article. I asked him to revert his edit but it was not forthcoming, hence this report. There were other continuous reverts but I have not brought them here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st, not a revert
 * 4th, was misleading and confusing, realized by editor here
 * 6th, not a revert
 * I am not trying to block out other editors


 * There has been alot of inaccurate and biased information added to this page, and user:Trilemma removes stuff without real reason. see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.Scientus (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you think the first edit is not a revert? Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it the removal of another editors good faith addition? Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User Scientus has continued his edit warring mentality on the talkpage and has made another revert to the article here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reported by User:Nepaheshgar (Result: at ANI)
The user has reverted 5-6 time in one day.
 * 1st,
 * 2nd,
 * 3rd,
 * 4th,
 * 5th,

He has been blocked before violating 3rr, so is well aware of the rules.

Thank you--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the user's history, I also request an administration to look here: Can a user threaten another user with a "final warning"? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:IndyObserver reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:45, 11 October 2009  (edit summary: ""Conservative" alone is not adequate given the citations linked, especially the 2004 USA Today source (citation #6): "Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party."")
 * 2) 00:48, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "Excuse me? I'm sorry you don't like what the citation says.")
 * 3) 06:19, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "Please read the citation provided: "Fox is not conservative. They're an extension of the Republican Party." Article text cannot contradict its sources.")
 * 4) 15:38, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "You're going to have to engage in real discussion rather than accuse others of "trolling," sorry.")
 * 5) 20:29, 12 October 2009  (edit summary: "You simply cannot have a citation to an observer which says, and I quote, "Fox is not conservative" for an introduction that says "Fox is conservative."")


 * Diff of warning: 15:42, 12 October 2009

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Stale. IndyObserver has not edited anywhere since 12 October. If someone had promptly answered this report, a warning or block would likely have been issued. If IndyObserver comes back to edit the article in the same style, report again for hopefully quicker action. EdJohnston (talk)
 * IndyObserver resumed editing Fox News Channel on 15 October. If he does not promise to stop edit warring, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free. In the meantime, how about some of you bean-counters actually read what I've provided on the article's talk page and see if perhaps I'm reverting the misrepresentation of that source for a reason? It'd require some actual effort on someone's part (reading and thinking, as opposed to counting to four reverts on your fingers), but do give it a shot. IndyObserver (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, how's it that an editor is allowed to repeatedly revert my edits with insults like this   without so much as a peep from you administrators, but I've got three different people chiding me already? Why's no one jumping all over the other participants in that so-called "edit war," too? Serious question. IndyObserver (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you are the only party involved who violated the Wikipedia site policy WP:3RR, also known as the "The three-revert rule". If another editor had done the same, they too would have been warned and reported here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. People can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy.
 * 22:49, 15 October 2009
 * 16:58, 16 October 2009
 * 18:12, 16 October 2009
 * 18:16, 16 October 2009
 * Clear disruption, blocked 24 hours for Disruptive editing and Edit warring.--Hu12 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The user has continued the same pattern of behavior, despite repeated warnings:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 22:49, 15 October 2009  (edit summary: "Per citation and lack of response on talk.")
 * 2) 16:58, 16 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 320110449 by Soxwon (talk) Complete misrepresentation of a source.")
 * 3) 18:12, 16 October 2009  (edit summary: "Takes two to tango, and you're dancing too.")
 * 4) 18:16, 16 October 2009  (edit summary: "There's a rush when an article is misrepresenting a source it is using in support a statement.")

Additional warnings provided to the user: and.

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Immediatly after block, right back at it;
 * 22:51, 17 October 2009
 * 15:55, 18 October 2009
 * Second block/48hrs--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Captain Occam reported by User:T34CH (Result: 72h block)
Page:

User being reported:

Captain Occam was blocked 3 days ago for edit warring over the exact same change in the article: AN3

(last edit before the block: )

There have been several attempts by various editors to reach a compromise, but Occam keeps reverting to a version he feels was made to be consensus in the past. He has reverted 3 different editors on this sentence in the past 25 hours. After the previous block expired, his second mainspace edit was the first revert below. Here are 4 more reverts by him in the past 25 hours:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * for 72 hours. CIreland (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChinaUpdater reported by User:Who then was a gentleman? (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

I came to the Allied Artists International article due to an edit summary which indicated that there had been a legal threat issued. I had not participated in the article prior to that point, and I still to this point do not know what the correct information should be in the article. One user has been blocked for legal threats. got a 3RR warning (from me), and repeated attempts to explain to him/her why they should go through dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Yet they continued to edit the page to their preferred version (although at this point they've stopped violating WP:BLP with their edits. I warned them that if they continued to revert to their personally preferred version, they would get reported here, and yet they continue the edit war.  They're being reverted by three different editors.  Like I said, I don't know if ChinaUpdater's edits are correct or not, but I do know that they just continue to revert without attempting to resolve the problem through other means.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Article protected by User:Tcncv. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:GreyWyvern reported by User:Luttinger (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (reversion by Luttinger)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (reversion by Luttinger)
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (reversion by Luttinger)
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (reversion by Luttinger)

Diff of edit warring warning:  (actual warning diff)

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not an actual diff), , , ,

I hope that I filled this form correctly and did not perform too many technical errors with links etc... - my appologies for any inconveniences this could cause.

Comments:

The essence of the dispute is the following: I became interested in the AWG topic about 6 months ago and started to study it. I discovered that there were essentially two alternative technologies - one based on Cooling Condensation (CC) and the other on Desiccation and Pressure Condensation (DPC). The CC technology has been in use in most AWG products for the last 10-15 years. The DPC technology is more recent and has been in use for about 2 years. I came upon the AWG article in Wikipedia and saw that it described only the CC technology, and that it gave the (wrong) impression that it was the only one used by an AWG. However, DPC based products are already in commercial production and use. So I enhanced the article and added the description of DPC as an alternative technology, with appropriate 3rd party references. I did not remove any of the existing information. GreyWyvern systematically removes my contribution, each time with a different unfounded reason and distortion of Wiki rules. I could not resolve this via the article talk page. Having discussed this technology with several water professionals, it turns out that DPC could displace CC for mid scale solutions, and it offers a breakthrough in resolving the water shortage (since the energy needs for DPC are significantly less than for CC, and most of it can come from green sources and/or residual heat). It is therefore befitting that it be covered by wikipedia. I really do not understand why this is opposed to so fiercely.--Luttinger (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Luttinger. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the administrators so I don't need to do it myself.  I believe the evidence speaks for itself and I don't apologize for any of my actions as I have had the best interests of WP in mind at all times.  The content you were trying to add doubled the size of the article with only a corporate website and a short mention on a Greek newscast as references for large paragraphs, lists and images of hard factual data.  I am not opposed to you making a mention of this new technology on this page, but WP should not be the place where it is documented in minute detail, until it has been proven by more third-party references that it is reliable and practical.  The fact that you visited their factory personally (1) does not allow you to add content to WP without references.  Also, not one of your talk replies has assumed good faith of those who have been reverting your edit; in each one you accuse the reverter as having commercial interests or ulterior motives for deleting your content in what you refer to as "vandalism". I trust the admins will do what is right here and, after the warnings (2, 3)  for violation of WP:OR, WP:RSUE and WP:RS have fallen on deaf ears, enforce a temporary block on your account from editing WP.  You have already tried to create a separate new article for the technology and had the article deleted (Water Extraction from the Atmosphere - new patented technology), and now you are trying to add it to an existing article.  I would say that is evidence that you have a vested interest in seeing this information appear somewhere in WP.  Regards.  GreyWyvern (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ^This. Regardless of how amazing the technology is, how mindblowing, how potentially life-changing, Wikipedia is NOT to be used as a primary news source. Ever. If a topic has insufficient coverage for your needs, the solution is NOT to create a Wikipedia article to increase exposure. Wikipedia is meant to be a reference for people who already know about things. -- King Öomie  13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have corrected some of the links to remove ambiguity in this dispute. GreyWyvern (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:203.171.199.156 reported by User:QueenofBattle (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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: ,

Comments:

User has used the talk page as a forum, and then disruptively reverted two different users, followed by threats to "report" certain users, a threat which the ANON continues here. Now user has filed a retaliatory bad faith report below, while continuing the threats and incivility on my talk page.
 * I changed the header of this report to make clear the war is on the talk page, Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency, and not the article proper. Since the IP has made four reverts, he may deserve a block under either WP:FORUM or WP:3RR. (I don't think restoring a comment that is improper under WP:TALK should be exempt from 3RR). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle reported by User:203.171.199.156 (Result: no action)
Nice attempt QueenofBattle, however you have already been reported so this attempt has no merit, just as your previous threats against me had no merit. Admin should be aware that user QueenofBattle has repeatedly reverted discussion by myself on the inclusing of a subject of "FEMA camps" to the article. The only reason for this seemingly being because user QueenofBattle does not find merit with that inclusion. However her, im assuming user is a girl, idea of what should and shouldn't be included in the article to improve it does not extend to the point of reverting other users comments who disagree with her. Her persistant threats of reporting, first given (without merit on her part) are based on off-topic remarks not attributing to the improvement of the article, to which I had no part in as my comments were in discussion of the automatic dismissal of the subject to the article with comments that do not address why or why not. Ironically being that user QueenofBattle has insulted, against Wikipedia policy, the original user who brought up the subject, breaking the rule she herself insists ive been. Despite warning her that she was reverting my comments against Wikipedia policy, she continued, herself now including the lie that I reverted "3 times", when in fact I included new text underneith my existing comments explain to her she was not allowed to revert against the rules. I assume this issue will be dealt with now that she has filed a false report after threatening me repeatedly for something I did not do. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * Reporting user is the disruptive one. No action taken. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[User:Little grape reported by Captainclegg]] (Result: )
==

Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marc_Sinden&diff=320792624&oldid=320792335
 * 2nd revert: [diff] Little grape has continually removed over 11,000 letters including correctly sourced material
 * 3rd revert: [diff] repeated
 * 4th revert: [diff] repeated

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] 19 October 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marc_Sinden

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

Comments:

Little grape has continually removed sourced material. His claims that the PCC have ruled are already addressed in the article (plus source) but he insists on removing other huge sections of the article that are all properly sourced. He also continually accuses me to the point of harassment of being the subject of the article, which I am not. (Wrong gender & race!) I have issued the 3RR rule warning which he ignored. Captainclegg (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * CaptainClegg's editing patterns appear to suggest that he is Marc Sinden or is closely related. See that article's talk page for more. 'Clegg' (who has previously been blocked for socking Sinden-related articles) has added the false and defamatory statement that Marc Sinden (a bald, nearly sixty, obese man) is the boyfriend of Heather Mills to several articles, despite knowing that all the UK newspapers who printed this (actually, only a London free newspaper appears to have printed it) have withdrawn the allegation and unreservedly apologised to Ms Mills. This editor is even adding claims that Sinden was romantically involved with Jerry Hall, seemingly as part of some strange attempted aggrandisement. Wikipedia is not a PR site; all such puffery needs to be hunted down and replaced with properly sourced data following WP:BLP. Of course there will be giant egos that suffer along the way..... such is life. Little grape (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mdlawmba reported by User:Arx Fortis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (scratch intermediate edit included in next entry)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Mdlawmba continues to argue and revert based on biased opinion from personal experience (against WP:NOR) and refuses to acknowledge verifiable, reliable sources. During the course of adding the info back to the article, I added numerous additional sources including books and magazines.

++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Response: I haven't reverted three times in 24 hours and my two reverts today were reversing his two reverts. Frankly, I'm surprised this is such a conflict. I am not a life-long editor on this page, but I provided substantial reasoning as to why this city should not be listed and why we should not have a list of cities sharing the subject city's very popular nickname, and I provided a reasonable alternative that should have been amicably accepted. As an attempt to gain consensus, I posted a discussion on the topic that was ignored, and my change continued to be reverted unilaterally by the person petitioning. Mdlawmba (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unilaterally"? Ooh, it sounds so sinister. The last three diffs posted by Arx make it obvious you've hit 3 today. Your edits obviously have opponent(s), so discuss it. If you're blocked, you can't very well maintain your version of the article, can you? -- King Öomie  15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally, meaning he *personally* reverted so many times. Please refer to the actual history for the page, an edit to my reversion is not a reversion.

Mdlawmba (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur) (prev)  09:28, 19 October 2009 Mdlawmba (talk | contribs) (53,977 bytes) (Undid revision 320796051 by Arx Fortis (talk) this is not personal experience as stated per discussion) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 08:59, 19 October 2009 Arx Fortis (talk | contribs) (55,269 bytes) (once again, personal experience DOES NOT trump the many quoted sources...Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research (see WP:NOR)) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (prev) 07:49, 19 October 2009 Mdlawmba (talk | contribs) (53,977 bytes) (→1900s to present) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (prev) 07:47, 19 October 2009 Mdlawmba (talk | contribs) (54,009 bytes) (See discussion before changing) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (prev) 23:38, 18 October 2009 Arx Fortis (talk | contribs) (55,269 bytes) (→1900s to present) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (prev) 23:29, 18 October 2009 Arx Fortis (talk | contribs) (54,579 bytes) (a solid list of citations, including magazines and books, supporting the use of this name for New Orleans) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (prev) 23:01, 18 October 2009 Arx Fortis (talk | contribs) (53,517 bytes) (sources trump personal bias) (undo)


 * It should be pointed out that the content existed in the article for some time before Mdlawmba removed it, hence resulting in the current edit war. To characterize my edits as unilateral is quite hypocritical.  By definition, his own edits are "unilateral."  Regardless, this is a clear case of a Mdlawmba ignoring clear, concise citations in favor of personal bias. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what 'unilateral' means. I was pointing out that its use here is redundant, as it's only the two of you here. See link 3 4 and 5- all mass deletes, all immediately after an edit by Arx. That's not editing your own reversion- that's REVERTING AN EDIT. You're BOTH nearing block territory, actually, so find a way to work it out that doesn't involve editing the article itself until you agree. I'm beyond disinterested in WP:WIKILAWYERing. -- King Öomie  17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of "block territory" which is why I have not reverted the current version of the article and brought the issue here. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My second reversion at 7:49 was my adding my compromise statement "also used by several other southern cities" with no other changes. I'll assume it was a good faith error that the link made it appear to be a reversion by skipping the 7:47 change.    Nonetheless, I'll continue to monitor the talk page and hopefully we can get some third-party opinions as to whether this should be a list or just a statement that other cities use the term. Have a great day gentlemen. Mdlawmba (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the issue at hand is that Mdlawmba is choosing to ignore numerous reliable, verifiable sources supporting an assertion for 2 stated reasons: 1. He/she lived in NOLA for 35 years and never heard it called Paris of the South. (This is clearly original research.) 2.  He/she performed a Google Search (of questionable validity) and found "only" 40-something references.  (Google searches can easily be crafted to support ones stance.)   Neither of these reasons justify ignoring the many |sources that were cited. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reported by User:BluefieldWV (Result: Agreed as not needed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The editor has been warned about the 5 reverts on the article in 24 hours. Violations include reinsertion of contentions (see talk page) material that has been argued is a violation of BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nr 4 is not a revert, but i have to admit that i did break 3RR by mistake, and would self-revert if i could. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm? The warning seems to have been added later than the note here? (not that it matters, since i am aware of 3RR - its just poor form) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above mentioned party has not continued reverting the article, so I dont see a need for sanctioning them. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That kind of statement will earn you a lot of respect around here BluefieldWV. Thank you. --BozMo talk 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy (talk) reported by Mr Unsigned Anon (Result:1 week block )
Page:

User being reported:

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: 

Comments:

Im in conflict with him already unfortunatly

Result: Blocked for 1 week. This kind of edit warring is not welcome here. --BozMo talk 11:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20 reported by User:Erebedhel (Result:No action )
Page:
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User being reported: Time reported: 08:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Paraphrase prevents plagiarism. Potosi and Oruro are mentioned as Bolivian cities in the introduction. Please avoid having personal agendas to promote specific point of views in the article.")
 * 2) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Birthplace theories */ Removed overstatements and incorrect usage of information from sources.")
 * 3) 22:07, 19 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Birthplace theories */ Removed information that has nothing to do with the paragraph.")
 * 4) 01:00, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Re-inserted deleted material that was replaced with nationalistic Bolivian bias. Please do not include non-neutral material in order to favor specific points of views.")
 * 5) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "It a Propaganda campaign. Edited sentence that had no sense and added information of UNECO that was deleted. I'll be watching this article once again.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user in order to do the first reversion wrote this in the talk page in a disrespectful way mocking about my user name, obviously offended I can accept that but still I tried to explain that my changes were based in the same source used before and that I only amplified what it said to achieve a NPOV, and the diff of my contribution is.

Comments:

This user has been harassing me long enough, he never let me add a single word in the article and he has been insulting my country in the talk page several times   it can be seen that the only reason why this user is controlling the article preventing that Bolivian editors work on it is because he has an agenda and it's not the first time he does that we both got into the same 3RR problem two weeks ago yet I learned and decided to try to forget the frustration and continue editing other parts of the article but he thinks he has some sort of authority over me and continues deleting everything I do.

To avoid making this comment longer I'll just explain some of his reversions number 1, he obviously never read WP:SYN and he thinks that to avoid plagiarism is correct to say "more likely" when the source clearly says "there is a very slight similarity". Number 4 is completely ridiculous because he calls non-neutral when if one reviews what he deleted was what the UNESCO and the Real Academia Española had to say about this matter. And the number 5 is perhaps the most suspicious because after the user probably counting his reversions casually this other account enters to continue reverting my contributions. This is harassment.

—  Erebedhel  -  Talk  08:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Response
Proof of Malicious Pro-Bolivia Editing by User Erebedele


 * I haven't broken the 3RR at all; and I haven't been involved in an edit war. That "5th" edit isn't even my edit. This user keeps attempting to put Bolivian POV and bias into the article, as can be seen in the following edits he made:


 * In this edit he purposely uses a source incorrectly by adding information that is not present in that source. Furthemore, he adds overstatements in parenthesis that further promote his POV.
 * In this edit he claims to be an "Accurate Introduction," he further promotes Bolivian POV at the expense of deleting a neutral statement that explains the dance's popularity in other nations.
 * In this edit now he adds into the article, "the Bolivian government detected a intentionality of the neighboring countries of Peru and Chile to claim as theirs typical dances of Bolivia." WTF? Seriously? How is that not a clear bias in favor of Bolivia? I can't believe this person even dared to include this in the article and then come here and attempt to accuse me of doing the controversial "edit warring."
 * Finally, in this edit he arbitrarily removes an image in order to include the picture of the Bolivian "Carnaval de Oruro," and he purposely puts Peru as having the dance in "1918" and Bolivia in "1904" in order to further promote his POV. If you read the introduction to the article, it is explained that the earliest "Diablada" was danced in Peru in "1576" (Not "1918").
 * I think that this user, Erebedele, should be the one blocked for edit warring; for he is the one that is including controversial information that is not even accurate.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20's Response to alleged 3RR Breaking

I completely deny breaking the 3RR or engaging in an edit war at this point. The only TWO (2) 24-hour "reverts" I made were:


 * 3. 22:07, 19 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Birthplace theories */ Removed information that has nothing to do with the paragraph.")
 * 4. 01:00, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Re-inserted deleted material that was replaced with nationalistic Bolivian bias. Please do not include non-neutral material in order to favor specific points of views.")

Proof of Consensus for prior Version (Which MarshalN20 has been attempting to keep despite the constant vandalism done to the page)


 * : "I think the current verasion as of 6 october is acceptable." (Statement made by User:Dentren).

Proof that MarshalN20 attempted to deal with this problem through the talk page


 * : I started this talk page section in order to discuss the problems. Despite what the user claims, there was no "personal attacks" done on him as the whole section focused on the edits he had made and not on the user account. However, instead of discussing the matter, the user simply stated: "I do not wish to argue and I won't do it...me and my country are being insulted for telling the truth".

I don't have to "allow" Erebedele to add information; and he constantly personally attacks me

This user constantly accuses me of "ownership," which is a complete lie. This user has included plenty of information that has not been deleted. The only information that I have "reverted" is the one that completely shows bias. MOREOVER, whenever I do these changes I explain them in the "Edit Summary" in order to avoid conflicts. I feel deeply insulted and bothered by this user constantly accusing me of ownership; and I also feel deeply insulted and bothered by this user constantly accusing me of having a "Sock Puppet" in another user called "Uknown_Lupas". These are two clear examples of personal attacks, and I'm tired of that.

I really hope an administrator can resolve this problem. I repeat once again: I haven't broken the "3RR," I have attempted to discuss things peacefully in the talk page, and I have simply been attempting to prevent biased, non-POV, and FAKE information from being included in an article. I repeat FAKE because this user has a tendency to include information that is not present in the sources (along with overstatements), which is something I already demonstrated in one of the above explanations.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On a reasonable look I agree with MarshalN20 that there was no 3RR (at least I cannot find prior similar text to which he was reverting in two cases). There is edit warring but also complication that quite a few edits by Erebedele are not grammatical. I think on the correctness of the edits I am slightly inclined to MN20 being more correct. There is also a decided lack of civility and signs of temper on both sides. --BozMo talk 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I ask anyone who is reading this to first read carefully these two documents about the Diablada:
 * UNESCO
 * Real Academia Española (Google translated from Spanish
 * Instead this user considers that the last 3 paragraphs of this newspaper (translated  proves his POV and completely cancels the sources I listed above.
 * I consider there is basis enough to think about the possibility that this is a traditional dance from the city of Oruro, Bolivia and I have the right to explain that yet I can't add a single word without this user deleting them, clear proof that all my contributions are being censored and deleted is comparing my first edit with the last there are only little words variations and all my work of yesterday was destroyed by this user.


 * In response to MarshalN20's "Proof of Malicious Pro-Bolivia Editing by User Erebedele" (which is offensive my user name is Erebedhel)
 * he claims that I "adding information that is not present in that source" when I just expanded what the source really said it can be seen in the source itself on page 227, is it wrong to do that? no if I detect that an editor hides information from sources I think it's a correct way to just expand what the source says to show that there was a intentionality to hide information.
 * I already showed that these aren't "non-neutral" sources those are well respected international organizations and I consider I have the right to quote them.
 * it's an official document taken from the library of the UNESCO what's wrong with that?
 * I already discussed that and explained that the image there, does not correspond to the dance because in the website from where it was taken it does not mention such thing nor in the description of it in Commons. And also I used a Peruvian journal written by a well respected Peruvian historian who quoted the newspaper Los Andes of February 2nd 1918 when the first Diablada dancers came from Bolivia and Pedro Pablo Corrales taught the Peruvian squad for the first time this dance in Peru page 35. and the Chilean information corresponds to the Chilean website MemoriaChilena.cl  talking about a similar event in 1956 when the dance was taught in Chile by the Diablada Ferroviaria from Oruro (Bolivia). I don't think that any of my editions are unjustified I'm just quoting and casually I know perfectly well that I never used a single Bolivian source all my sources are from Peru, Chile and international organizations, why am I being censored?


 * Furthermore I'm appealing here to the real intention of the WP:3RR rule "any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached" because this person is offending me I gave him 2 weeks to work in the article in peace I'm asking the same, I just want to have the time to redact it well, add new sources and verify that this user didn't lie or hide information from the sources. Thank you.--  Erebedhel  -  Talk  18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I accept there was no 3RR but there is uncivil edit warring going on. May I suggest that you both try WP:Mediation as a next step. --BozMo talk 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind having a WP:Mediation thing at all, as I am sure that it would come to the basic conclusions three users (me, Unknown_Lupos, and Dentren) have been constantly supporting: Bring in all information regarding the dance into the article. User Erebelede can add whatever he wants into the article just as long as it is backed up by the sources (no unecessary overstatements) and does not purposely impose pro-Bolivian POV into the article. Up to this point, this user has added next to nothing to the article. Instead, he has been actively deleting and changing material already presented in the article in order to fit his particular POV. Is that constructive editing under Wikipedia standards? I don't think so.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Floydian reported by User:PhilthyBear (Result: no violation at this time)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 12:23, 20 October 2009 Floydian (talk | contribs) (105,511 bytes)
 * 05:12, 20 October 2009 Floydian (talk | contribs) (105,511 bytes)
 * 19:10, 19 October 2009 Floydian (talk | contribs) (105,511 bytes)

User:Floydian has become a dictator and cyner bully in the Toronto article. PhilthyBear (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

== User:Domer48 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: Decline for now. Since the matter is now being discussed at ANI a block would be punitive at this point. Further reverts should lead to immediate block.) ==

. : Time reported: 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 13:38, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 320806767 by 84.203.64.235 (talk)")
 * 2) 13:44, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "RV trolling, the sentence makes perfect sence")
 * 3) 13:47, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Trolling admin,")
 * 4) 14:02, 20 October 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Rv further vandalism by trolling admin. Removal of Attributions and referenced text")


 * Diff of warning: here

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was replacing referenced text which was removed without discussion. I have raised the actions of the reporting editor here at ANI. Removing text which is sourced and referenced without discussion is vandalism. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, vandalism consists of edits which unambiguously and intentionally reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. This was not vandalism. --John (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that there is a related noticeboard discussion ongoing. user: J  aka justen (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Declined for now. Since the matter is now under discussion, a block would be punitive, rather than preventive, at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:AbdullahKhaleeji7 reported by User:Nableezy (Result:24hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:36, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320937549 by Fjmustak (talk)")
 * 2nd revert: 04:13, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320942484 by Nableezy (talk)")
 * 3rd revert: 04:33, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320945925 by Xevorim (talk)")
 * 4th revert: 04:38, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320946392 by 98.248.33.198 (talk)")
 * 5th revert: 04:53, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320947500 by 98.248.33.198 (talk)")
 * 6th revert: 05:19, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320950662 by Gimmetrow (talk)")
 * 7th revert: 15:30, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 320962227 by Xevorim (talk)")
 * 8th revert: 16:16, 20 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321021241 by Nableezy (talk)")
 * 9th revert:16:34, 20 October 2009 rv of this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Arab people

Comments:

The user was blocked earlier for edit-warring. An admin talked with him and asked that he not continue edit-warring and instead use the talk page and lifted the block. The talk page of the article shows agreement that the gallery should not be in the article. After the block was lifted the user continued edit-warring, with an additional 3 reverts following the block.

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24hrs for Disruptive editing and Vandalism. Continued edit warring despite being given a second chance, including vandalism to this noticeboard--Hu12 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory reported by HyperCapitalist (talk) (Result: )
. : Time reported: 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 00:51, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* White House Communications Director */ Okay, I missed that earlier, but you are ignoring the earlier conversation about how that was not needed, most importantly you can't erase the quote.")
 * 2) 00:57, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* White House Communications Director */  Makes it more clear then "criticized".")
 * 3) 01:29, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* White House Communications Director */ Editor keeps deleting the full quote on the exact subject matter of the paragraph.")
 * 4) 01:31, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* White House Communications Director */ accidentally added it twice. corrected.")
 * 5) 01:57, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* White House Communications Director */")


 * Diff of warning: here

User:Eckeman reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comment User:Eckeman appears to be also editing as, adding the same disputed material back to the page this morning without comment.
 * Eckeman and the IP (since it is clearly the same person) have both been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Jamie  S93  17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:76.181.42.127 reported by User:GlassCobra (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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: User talk:GlassCobra

Comments: IP edit warring on List of Gothic rock bands; I instructed him/her to take his argument to the article's talk page. The IP's only edits to the talk page have been to try to add the disputed band to a list of bands previously discussed as not falling under this genre in order to mislead other editors, see. I myself have reached 3 reverts and do not intend to revert any further, as per WP:3RR. Glass  Cobra  19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 24 hours. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits on the article and the talk page are both still standing. As I mentioned in the thread on my talk page, I care little about whether the band is actually listed on the page or not, but the talk page edit is definitely misleading and should not remain. I hesitate to revert any more in this situation, but if someone wouldn't mind reverting the IP's latest edit to the talk page (and possibly the article as well), I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Glass  Cobra  20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's special that GlassCobra isn't blocked too. Cute, even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.45.155 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for block evasion, but in any case, GC recognized that he had made three reverts and accordingly stopped. Blocking him would not be appropriate. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Floydian reported by Verbal (Result: Dealt with by Master of Puppets)
. : Time reported: 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * Version reverted to: by Floydian at 06:09, 19 October 2009


 * 1) 16:31, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 321155901 by Eubulides (talk) undo removal of well sourced information that was removed by logical fallacy")
 * 2) 16:36, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 321157478 by Eubulides (talk) not an excuse to outright remove the source. Add a citation needed to "1938", or remove "Prior to 1938"")
 * 3) 16:53, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 321220539 by Verbal (talk) Don't start this kabal. The information is factual and is being removed based on something that is irrelevent to what it sources.")
 * 4) 17:39, 21 October 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 321229177 by Verbal (talk) per talk page. Read it and stop reverting, this is the status quo.")

Note also the abuse directed at other editors on the talk page, including "the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website" and "read the bloody talk page". The above edits amount to three reverts, but in such short a time and with the way the user is engaging competitively on the talk page, and the general ownership issues, I feel admin action is required. — <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note this response to the 3RR warning: diff
 * Looks like Master of Puppets is dealing with that, no further action. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Floydian broke WP:3RR again today. Should I post diffs? Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - you can actually just put those on my talk page if you would like, I might see it faster. Or here. Up to you. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These are all on Oct 22 after Master of Puppets stepped in:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:173.66.66.49 reported by User:JeffJonez (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Black Mesa (video game)

User being reported:

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:.

Comments:

This anon user has always made the same edit, adding a particular date as a release date without providing a citation, has not provided any sources for date, or engaged in conversation at all. Dispute resolution seems hopeless without some kind of response. Thanks! - JeffJonez (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Kenosis reported by User:71.184.177.11 (Result:Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The issue here is edit warring and attempts to control the content of the article using "scorched earth policies", through the deletion of mainstream material in favor of minority opinions.

I attempted to add the following "colored text" - I am correcting a typo of the addition in the link below -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=320885364&oldid=320884974

Kenosis and another editor called SaltyBoatr are acting in concert to delete the new material and control the article content. Per his talk page SaltyBoatr seems to keep a constant low level "edit war" going with other editors which at times boils over into 3RR violations.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

revert by SaltyBoatr

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=320931180&oldid=320891179

I understand that the above may not meet the requirements of 3RR or "edit war" but it frankly disgusts me to find that a dissenting report to the US Constitution Ratification Convention of Pennsylvania published by the 23 dissenters to that ratification is now referenced as the "ramblings of a single embittered eccentric" due to the actions of this duo.

Adding what looks like evidence that Kenosis and SaltyBoatr are the same person - if so - this more then meets the requirements of a 3RR violation and editing under multile ID's is a violation in and of itself. Below is a message left for Kenosis left by myself and I find SaltyBoatr responding to it as if he is Kenosis. Currently Kenosis/SaltyBoatr has filled in the gap between my question to Knosis ID and the response by SaltyBoatr ID with intent to hide the connection. He probably noticed he responded under the wrong ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=321208025&oldid=321206918

What is this source? Who wrote it? It looks like a hodgepodge of blurbs about antifederalists in PA pulled from somewhere, but I'd be interested to know by whom and from where this stuff was culled. As to the article text w.r.t. the Pennsylvania minority, presently it reads as follows:

"Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a one-man Pennsylvania "minority report" published after the ratifying convention [cited to Uviller and Merkel who in turn cite to other RSs, with selected quotation from the "minority report"]."

At least until this discrepancy is sorted out, I would advocate changing the text of that passage to something like:

" Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a Pennsylvania anti-federalist "minority report" published after the state's constitutional convention: [followed by selected quotation from the "minority report"]

Just to be cautious here, I'd recommend a citation to Uviller and Merkel, and another WP:RS representative of the position that the minority consisted of, what was it?, twenty-something participants/signers, whether they were in fact part of the convention or not. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

I will be deleting all Uviller and Merker material once this article is unprotected as they engage in HISTORICAL REVISIONISM - forbidden by wiki policies - and SLANDER - also forbidden by wikipedia policies.96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am capable of looking, and I looked. You are using primary sources, and that isn't allowed per policy WP:NOR. We must use reliable third party published sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per his talk page SaltyBoatd has engaged in constant low level edit wars for years and been punished a number of times. If he is now using multiple ID's (and it looks like he is) to evade edit war and 3RR policies he should be permanently banned.96.237.123.191 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For ease of reference

Question to Kenosis - Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

Responded to by SaltyBoatr - I am capable of looking, and I looked.

SaltyBoatr was not part of that thread previous to his response to that question.96.237.129.184 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - yes - Kenosis does not respond to material placed there.

Comments:


 * Article protected, plus this is stale. Master of Puppets  05:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lambanog reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result:Resolved)
Page: Talk:Joseph Estrada

User being reported:

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:

(Note: This is the section in Tambayan Philippines. No discussion was available in article talk page itself-it was all edit war)

Comments: Lambanog's behaviour in dealing with me, JL 09, Sky Harbor, GraYoshi2x, and Howard The Duck have been nothing short of abrasive. User has been slapped with three tpv warnings and a 3rr but insists on pruning the talk page in the name of clarity but is actually destroying the order of the threads. User's line of reasoning falls along the area of "I didn't do anything wrong, try pointing out where you think I did go wrong" as if he expects to be spoonfed. User has been advised to simply archive the comments as many of them are over two years old, but has refused to listen. All of his edits since 09:13 20 October have been focused on the article talk page. I recommend a temporary block for him to take a cool-off period. At the same time, restore the talk page prior to his wholesale editing. --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lambanog's Response:


 * I am relatively new here so am somewhat surprised after reading the relevant pages just now at the precipitant action to block me. I was only made aware of this 3RR business slightly before Eaglestorm's just initiated action and had to look up the subject.  In my defense I will note a number of things:
 * From my perspective this all happened pretty fast. Looking at the timestamps it seems that in my ignorance I may have reverted the page in question enough times to trigger the edit war condition before I was warned of the consequences of doing so.  Last revision I see doing is at 13:52, 20 October 2009. 1  The serious warnings regarding 3RR I received came later at around 14:55, 20 October 2009 and 15:16, 20 October 2009.  I was in dialogue with those disagreeing with me from right after I first saw the first warning. 2 3 While there is no discussion on the article talk page itself, I was invited by JL 09 on my user page to participate in the discussion at Tambayan Philippines so that is where, in good faith, I attempted to discuss the issues raised against my edit. I feel if the article talk page was the appropriate place to discuss the issue I should have been invited there.  Criticizing me for not discussing the issue there as Eaglestorm does in the above complaint is disingenuous. This rush to take action to block me and the reasons given for it therefore strike me as premature and honestly a bit annoying since I wasn't even informed it was initiated and I had to find this page on my own, but since it has been started already I would welcome a conclusive adjudication.  Note the discussion at Tambayan Philippines had been archived and effectively closed by Eaglestorm leaving no alternative active established venue to discuss and possibly resolve the issue.
 * I did not violate the guidelines for which I was initially accused. It has been implied that I've changed someone's words to mean something they didn't originally mean.  False, I have done no such thing.  I have reformatted the talk page because it was messy and so as to improve clarity but I did not alter anyone's posts with the intent to change meaning and do not believe I have done so.  I have requested the complainants to show where I have done so and have not received a reply.  In the discussion at Tambayan Philippines, Sky Harbor cited a section of WP:TPO that allows me to make such changes that I remember reading previously.  I took that as support for my position. Those accusing me of improper conduct despite apparently being active longer do not appear to know the guidelines.  Can I be faulted for thinking I had the liberty to make such changes when the guidelines indicate I can? Be bold it says more than once in those help pages.  So I have been.  Apparently this is what it gets you.
 * I have been recommended for blocking because I supposedly reformatted the talk pages improperly, not showing due respect to users comments, and insisting on my revision triggering an edit war. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the revision that was being pushed as a replacement actually deletes those user comments I merely rearranged and is thus far worse.   This has contributed to my insistence on my own revision.  I read in the above complaint about "archiving".  Don't know what that's about, if it is relevant, and no one has bothered to say anything about it to me despite Eaglestorm's statement above.
 * The reason this entire brouhaha has been kicked up is because of a revision by GraYoshi2x and his comments accusing me in the following words "what are you doing modifying other people's comments? I'm fine with removing the spam but DO NOT try to skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions".  A close examination of my revision will show this is a false, misleading, and malicious accusation.  I earlier restored some comments he had deleted in the article on crispy fried chicken and can only presume he took umbrage at it and thought to retaliate.  GraYoshi2x also seems to have a predisposition to erase everything he does not think fits instead of simply tagging things needing revision and has drawn comment from other users for it. 4  Because GraYoshi2x's edit removes comments by other users I consider GraYoshi2x's edit vandalism and submit that my reversion of it should not be counted towards the 3RR.  I can only call it unfortunate that JL 09, Eaglestorm, and Howard The Duck took the bait and in my view did not verify the accusations by checking the revisions carefully before assuming bad faith and improper conduct on my part.


 * I trust that after a careful review of the facts and evidence I will be vindicated. 5 edits: fixed hyperlinks and further additions. Lambanog (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How does a whole section on how I did such-and-such on completely unrelated articles have anything to do with your modifying of others' comments? You don't defend your own actions by insulting others instead. And regardless of whether or not what you did was correct, you still violated 3RR.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From the definitions at the top of this page: "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism" (emphasis mine). Lambanog (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? Even the most unhelpful-looking edit is not vandalism, as long as it was made in good faith. Read WP:VAND for the actual definition of vandalism. Edits that you disagree with are certainly not.  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment on my edit: "DO NOT try to skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions". Please cite the relevant parts of my edit where I "skew and destroy the original meaning of the discussions".  While you are at it, please explain what brought you to that particular page at that particular time. Lambanog (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you even getting at; I don't even know how this relates to what I said above...? From the looks of it, you're trying to hold some type of mock trial, which is not the way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia. I simply happened to be there; it's the internet after all.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyways, this discussion isn't leading anywhere and the facts are straightforward; you reverted an edit more than 3 times on a page, all of which were not cases of clear-cut vandalism. If you want to resolve a dispute, then head that-a-way. And with that said, I'm out of here.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lambanog, even though you reverted your edits, you did revert all other edits done by editors thrice at the same day. And that covers 3RR. JL 09  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q? <sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c|undefined 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has gone stale, and Lambanog has been warned appropriately, so I'll archive this. Don't edit war again, please. Master of Puppets  05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dimama reported by User:Enric_Naval (Result:resolved)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Ikwerre Ikwerre language

For Ikwerre
 * prods the page as giberish
 * makes his edit:
 * 1st revert: "Tagging Ikwerres as Igbos is gross misinformation and not approved by the Ogbakor Ikwerre"
 * 2nd revert:
 * I expand with sources


 * 3rd revert: "Please kindly let the Ikwerres be and mind your own business"
 * 4th revert:

For Ikwerre language
 * makes his edit:
 * 1st revert: "Tagging Ikwerres as Igbos is gross misinformation and not approved by the Ogbakor Ikwerre"
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * I expand with sources


 * 4th revert:
 * Another user expands with more sources


 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV pushing that Ikwerre don't have any relationship to Igbo despite scholar sources saying otherwise.

User only communicates through edit summaries, and he has only used edit summaries in three ocassions (I posted them in the revert list) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He reverted again both articles 4 hours after being notified of this complaint. He has left no edit summary and he hasn't made any comment in any talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped reverting and has posted about his concerns on Talk:Ikwerre. It looks like he's pretty new to Wikipedia. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to have resolved itself. If the user continues to edit-war, please bring this back. Cheers, Master of Puppets  05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:99.135.170.179 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

Editor BigDunc is removing each and every reference from the article. He is replacing it, word for word, with the entire section from this work published just last year..

BigDunc's removal of all article references and repeated insertion of stolen, plagiarized prose is unsupportable, period.99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note the collusion on BigDunc's talk page between all of the the principals here - and lack of any Talk page use to support basis for either removing all references or justification for retaining plagiarized text.15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.170.179 (talk)
 * Wikigaming by group reversion without comment, collusion, and wanton disregard for principles of discussion, copyright, RS and verifiability are unacceptable. This effort to ban an editor rather than address an issue is an affront to every member. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the book robbed the material from wikipedia the section the IP claims is plagerised was created in 2004 and the book was published 4 years later. BigDunc  15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is copyrighted, and states that "The contents of the book were extracted from Webster's Online". And what of the wholesale reversion of Ref's?99.135.170.179 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reliance on poor refs. is at least consistent. RashersTierney (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That ref has been removed - but Webster's is not generally considered in and of itself a poor ref. I guess this section has become the Talk page for the article then? - It's a shame, the other page is utterly devoid of comment and full of space.16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.170.179 (talk)
 * You add the bad ref and then remove an non-contended statement claiming it depends on the ref? This is just blatant disruptive editing on your part. How long more is this nonsense to be tolerated?RashersTierney (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was nothing disruptive about responding to an editors concern by removing a questionable ref. If you feel the questionably plagiarized text belongs simply rewrite it and replace it. Perhaps you might even consider discussing it on the talk page.99.135.170.179 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you well know, you removed more than the disputed ref. and your disingenuousness and feigned willingness to engage is far from convincing. RashersTierney (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am more than willing to discuss, research, write and reconsider - as I have demonstrated. If you object to removing of the possibly circuitous ref or questionably plagiarized material please specify your concerns or link to citation - preferably at the still dormant Talk page. Your vague assertions are not directly addressable.99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the IP is edit warring on this page now. BigDunc  16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And also here. BigDunc  17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP concerned is edit warring across several articles. They are breaking the 1RR restriction via The Troubles, they are not following WP:BRD but simply using the edit summary to assert their POV.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Fozz here 1RR is no longer enforced just depends on the admin that comes along cant find the section on the Arb page were it was dicussed, haven't really got the time to look over the archives. But as stated it is no longer Arb enforceable as it was outside of their remit as far as I remember. BigDunc  18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've brought my concerns about the inappropriateness of removing each edit, reference or comma from this article with vague edit summaries and no discussion attempts on talk to AN/I....-99.135.170.179 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that you are happy to engage here and at ANI, but have not taken your proposals (or the concerns of other editors) to the talk page.-- Snowded TALK  06:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find it at all curious, but indicative of a pattern of persistent disruption, time-wasting and disingenuous cries of 'foul'! RashersTierney (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Article now has direct oversight from Administrator user:Elonka. Apparently several of the involved editors, and the general subject area, are part of an ArbCom discussion found here:  - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A block would not be appropriate at this time, since the edit-warring is not recent. However, it should also be noted that it has since been discovered that the anon has already been blocked under related IPs (see list at User talk:99.135.170.179), and has not responded favorably to requests to edit while logged in.  A discussion about this is ongoing at WT:SOCK.  If there is further edit-warring by this individual (on any IP), it would be helpful to the reviewing administrators if whoever files the report, could indicate that there is a history of edit-warring and blocks on other accounts. --Elonka 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Default013 reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result:indef blocked)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Time reported: 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 23:24, 21 October 2009
 * 2) 04:38, 22 October 2009
 * 3) 06:08, 22 October 2009
 * 4) 06:35, 22 October 2009


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have not reverted the page 3 times, I reverted it twice following an attempt by this person to remove clearly substantive additions. You can see in the history what they were, that they are substantive and referenced and also that I attempted to speak with this person on the talk page. He responds by saying "conservatism in the united states is an oxymoron". He is clearly an activist editor.

Link to my counter warning for him. As you may notice on the talk page, it is I who made the last post. He has gone onto a strange tangent comparing American politics to that of UK politics, of which this article is clearly not about. --default (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: This editor has now been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea why somebody didn't close this sooner. Anyway, resolved. Master of Puppets  05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:86.134.94.194 and User:80.177.99.30 reported by User:Pyrrhus16 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

First edit to page:

Subsequent reverts by user:
 * There is that many that I'll just give a link to the article history.

Edit warring / 3RR warnings: See here

Comments:

This user, using two separate IPs, has repeatedly reverted (around 20 times since July) the actions of numerous editors at the Earth Song article. He has reverted my edits, restoring in the process factually incorrect information, grammatical errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. This user has not once used the talk page for discussion, despite numerous and continual pleas to do so. He has been warned numerous times, but fails to heed them. His disruptive behaviour cannot continue to be met with warnings. I feel that a block or article semi-protection is the only way to stop the unconstructive edits of this user.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IP hopping, so I've semi-protected the article. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pbergen1 reported by User:Yilloslime (Result:Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:06, October 23, 2009
 * 2nd revert: 16:21, October 23, 2009 (as IP 142.244.181.31)
 * 3rd revert: 17:20, October 23, 2009
 * 4th revert: 22:57, October 23, 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (19:56, 23 October 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has been advised (via an edit summary) to discuss his/her edits on the talk page, but, alas, no such discussion has taken place. Some discussion has taken place here though.

Comments:

User:142.244.181.31 is User:Pbergen1: User:Jsudafax advises Pbergen1 to "put your cited information back up" and 142.244.181.3 replies "Not sure exactly what you mean by my cited information"

Yilloslime T<sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;"> C  23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned the user. I'll also see about the IP issue. Master of Puppets  05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IP: 71.230.32.53 reported by User:Marek69 (Result:24 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP blocked for 24 hrs. —  Jake   Wartenberg  05:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)