Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive114

User:140.180.12.237 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Mediating)

Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 140.180.12.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] (ongoing discussion)

Comments:

IP user changes consensus definition of marriage to a dictionary definition, edit wars to maintain. Engages in discussion on talk page but will not address the POV in his edits. Also says he "will not let this definition be changed" [8] and will create an account to make more revisions [9]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You should add a warning to the users talk page, so they can follow the links and see what our policy and practices are, so they can attempt to conform to them, and there is a record of the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll mediate this. The editor has agreed to stop reverting. and I've got to say, I'm impressed with their maturity. Hopefully this all goes well! Master of Puppets 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakferwold reported by Skyfiler (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Huang Xianfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Bagui School. Jakferwold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC) This user keep adding external links that violate WP:EL, unreliable sources and removing notability/POV templates.

• Revert comparison ("compare"):

this revision (diff from previous).

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_Xianfan&action=historysubmit&diff=321635903&oldid=321115662
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_Xianfan&action=historysubmit&diff=321955261&oldid=321930141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_Xianfan&action=historysubmit&diff=321964968&oldid=321958857
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bagui_School&action=historysubmit&diff=321902003&oldid=321834391
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bagui_School&action=historysubmit&diff=321956309&oldid=321929711
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bagui_School&action=historysubmit&diff=321966525&oldid=321963898

• Diff of warning:

here

User:Varsovian reported by Jacurek (Result: 24 hours)

Page: London Victory Parade of 1946 ([[Special:EditPage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |edit]] | [[Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/London Victory Parade of 1946 |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/London Victory Parade of 1946 |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16][[17]]

Comments:

User does not appear to be a new editor due to evident experience in editing, however the account is new and user claims to be a new user. Records of questionable behavior are to be noted[[18]][[19]] including false claims [[20]] and threatening comments such as this gloves off comment[[21]].--Jacurek (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave of the 3RR warning actually came after the user's most recent revert. However, the user's general incivility leads to believe he will continue to be disruptive, so I have issued a 24 hour block. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion here). Removing comment as AN3 is not the venue to discuss blocks. Master of Puppets 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review as this is a content dispute that was being handled in the talk pages of the No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron and User:Varsovian had indicated a commitment to resolve issues in a diplomatic manner. I am not sure of the motives of bringing this to another forum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Mauricio Rua article, multiple editors at war, reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Page semi-protected)

Edit war in progress at this page due to a controversy. I have no interest in the issue itself; I got involved on vandal patrol and have lost track of who the vandals are. Suggest semi-protect may be the answer 'till things cool down. Thanks, Jusdafax 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE There have been over 25 edits in a one hour span by multiple editors since my last attempt at reverting. Strongly suggest action be taken asap. Jusdafax 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ‎

• Page has been semi-protected by Ged UK (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bigsuperindia reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Mediating)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

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

1. 16:19, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
2. 16:26, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321957909 by Abecedare (talk)")
3. 16:35, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321958957 by Abecedare (talk)")
4. 17:00, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321960510 by Abecedare (talk)")
5. 17:07, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

See attempts to discuss issue and explain relevant policies at user talk page and article talk page

Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: User has now logged out and is making |same revert as 114.143.92.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can that IP be blocked too and the page semi-protected for some time ? (I am not doing any of this myself since I am "involved") Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: And now the user is back as Rachitadelhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continuing to edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh Over six consecutive reversions (including by the two socks) of three editors now. -SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok potential sock issue here, but I've warned the two user accounts, any further reversions without discussion will result in blocks am actively watching at the moment. ^Khukri 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this is not a possible sock issue. This is admitted socking: see the messages left by IP and sock at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Delhi. Also I am not sure if we need to wait for further reversions, given that the user and his sock has already made 7-10 reverst despite multiple 3RR warnings. At a minimum, the socks need to be indef. blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent continued disruption. Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Think this has calmed now, assuming good faith editor didn't know about sock rules etc, and has started to discuss. I've blocked the sock and User:Bigsuperindia should continue discussion. I'll continue to monitor for a bit. ^Khukri 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I've watchlisted everything, and will watch. Though disapproval has been given about how I handled this so would appreciate others input from those who look after EW issues more frequently than I, and have no problems if different action is required . ^Khukri 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! hey i don't want to mess up anything. i'm trying to bring the facts to light. and i want to help in improving Delhi article. Many things there are just out of order. I hope you guys are not gonna sue me for my free services. :) Bigsuperindia (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:71.182.110.130, User:71.240.245.77, and other related IPs reported by User:Yllosubmarine (Result:Warned)

Page: State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported: 71.182.110.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.240.245.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other related IPs seen on page history

Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] and [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

While this individual, who began editing the article under a series of varying IPs early last month, has not breached 3RR, I still believe that their reversions, as well as their complete avoidance of any sort of discourse on any talk page, proves a serious problem. I refuse to revert the page any further (I have already done so twice), and my repeated attempts to establish a connection with this edit warring anon have been unsuccessful. Their edits to the page are nonconstructive and problematic (see the first IP's talk page for my specific concerns), as another user on the talk page mentioned a month ago, and although I have extended the olive branch several times, I have received nothing in kind. I'm at a loss as to what is the next step. Either way, their uncooperative edit warring is disruptive and detrimental to the article. María (habla conmigo) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Warned the most recent offender. If this keeps going on at this rate, I'd say to request page protection. Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result:Mediating)

• Page: Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As shown in history, three reverts in 24 hours:

• 04:48, October 22, 2009: 3
• 04:26, October 22, 2009: :2
• 11:49, October 21, 2009: 1

For example, Drsmoo's 3rr edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen which compares Atzmon to a Nazi, something clearly questionable under WP:BLP.

Note that Drsmoo was blocked from editing the same article for 3rr in March 2009.

Background: There was so much editing warring of this article - especially over Drsmoo and others adding of poorly sourced, primary sourced or out of context Atzmon quotations which had to be constantly reverted or put in context, that the subject of the article complained, there was an OTRS and the article was locked from April 15 to September 30. As you can see from Drsmoo’s series of edits above, he is again insisting on adding poorly sourced material (defamatory statements from a political organizations web site) and a source that is merely a polemical attack, even if it is from a WP:RS. Instead of working with editors who contest these controversial edits, including by bringing them to WP:BLPN, he insists on reverting deletions of this material and adding even more contested and controversial material, merely justifying his actions on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated new examples of edit warring at this diff:

• • Drsmoo deleted the statement (in the article for more than six months) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." made to a neutral journalist and presented in context and used it instead in a quote a polemicist opinion writer alleges Atzmon said in a debate, without giving any context at all. This is the definition of POV against BLP and an example of extreme edit warring (though to be fair I did bring to WP:RSN).

This vendetta against me is reaching into the hilarious realm, I restored an edit made by two other editors who CarolMoore had asked to help her, as can be seen in the edit history . This wasn't my edit lol. What's even more ironic, is that I was the one to originally added the Gisborne Herald source Ms. Moore is criticizing me for deleting (even thought it was two other editors who changed it) Perhaps Ms. Moore feels she can make herself happy by blatantly lying about me. It hasn't been very successful for her so far. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Drsmoo violated NPOV/BLP by deleting the Socialist Party defense against the Committee's attack on Atzmon and the party. He also removed the reference which contains the defense so the material is now unreferenced, a violation of WP:V. (Unless, to be fair, he wants the whole quote him specifically name Atzmon as the Jew the committee is defending.)
• This diff: Drsmoo removes what the authors say while retaining their references to support his point. See "in context" paragraph of this diff.

---

What is most "ironic", is that the article was locked with the so called "offending" quotes inside. It was locked because admins were tired of the above editor attempting to remove every notable case that perhaps cast the subject in a less than heavenly light. Only to have the above editor immediately resume deleting the relevant notable information upon the article being unlocked. Once again, this is all in the page histories.

As you can clearly see, there was only one revert. The other was to add a line and the third was to remove blatant vandalism. I wish she would stop harassing me. The above editor has unsuccessfully sent various editors messages in their talk pages asking them to "help" her. She posted on the BLP noticeboard, and they sided with me, so now she's going here to attempt to have me banned from the article. Her whole point is that all of Atzmon's anti-semitic statements, and whole articles, should be removed. Somehow, his own words are "defaming" him, even/especially when they are discussed by notable commentators/reporters in reliable sources. Such as the Guardian/The Times. Again you can look at the history of the article, in the talk pages, and on every noticeboard she has posted the same thing on, going from one to the other. Everyone agrees that these sources are notable, and must be in the article.

I am fairly certain that Harassment is against Wikipedia rules. Namely, going to various editors, and telling them to revert my edits (which none of them do) as well as going to noticeboards and saying I should be banned.

Just look at the edit histories, and the article. The whole thing is an apology for the subject, the same sentiment being expressed on the BLP noticeboard, and 90% of the article was written by the above editor. Drsmoo (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo: if you think you have a case against me, complain elsewhere and don't forget anyone can make vague accusations. Proving them with diffs can be much more difficult, especially if there aren't any. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the above editor's claims, Nick Cohen's commentary was supported in the article by every other editor working on it. It was not from a debate, but from an interview Atzmon did with the Gisborne Herald, which is cited in the article. The above editor is the only one who wants Cohen removed, solely on the grounds that she does not agree with this journalist's politics. The commentary was noteworthy, by a noteworthy reporter, in a noteworthy newspaper, [The Guardian]

Similarly, the Socialist Worker's Party statement was that "calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite." This is an ideological, philosophical statement, rather than a specific defense of Atzmon. Drsmoo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This has become too muddled; there's a dispute between editors, it seems. I'll discuss it separately. Right now edit-warring seems to have passed (just don't bring it back). Master of Puppets 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to mediate - my reply on your talk page. However, it is clear when someone has done 3rr.. Evidently I should just have brought everything else to the place recommended by the BLPDispute tag.

Note that I am giving it 24-36 hours to allow others to chime in, but I do feel that Drsmoo's edits continue to be a violation of BLP by an individual who has proved he is obsessed with making the subject look bad - (almost the only article he's edited this year) - triggering an OTRS BLP complaint by Atzmon himsef (according to a category that previously was on bottom of talk page). If Atzmon is paying much attention he'll probably complain again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have been chiming in consistently, particularly after you asked them too on noticeboards, you just keep reverting their edits. Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither editor has complained about my edits, one to increase the amount of neutral info in the paragraph per WP:BLP (there was twice as much negative from biased sources as NPOV from neutral sources) and the other asked for something shorter than the spring draft a few people worked on and I gave it to him. Please join the mediation proposed by Master_of_Puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me to "join the mediation" Master of Puppets and I have been working on this for a while now. And there was nothing POV or biased about the sources, you just removed them because you didn't like them, but they've been restored. The other editors who you ignored have been asked to help as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Reconsider the static reported by User:Atama (Result:Report waived)

Page: Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Reconsider the static (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]
• 5th revert: [35]
• 6th revert: [36]
• 7th revert: [37]
• 8th revert: [38]
• 9th revert: [39]
• 10th revert: [40]
• 11th revert: [41]
• 12th revert: [42]
• 13th revert: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Just see Talk:Vivek Kundra#Recent edits concerning 66.171.128.239 which I haven't even participated in.

Comments:
I am actually on Reconsider the static's side in this content dispute. I make this report reluctantly. You may notice that I myself made two reverts much like they did. But I've stopped at two and won't make any more. I'm only reporting them because of the excessive number of reverts, including the last two after a warning to stop. 13 reverts in a 24 hour period is excessive even if done for the right reasons. -- Atama頭 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As to the other side in this content dispute, 66.171.128.239 was already blocked for disruptive behavior, and I've opened a sockpuppetry case for those opposing Reconsider the static in this edit war. -- Atama頭 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response First of all, I acknowledge the fact that I violated the 3RR rule, my purpose here is not to dispute that. I suppose in this response I will attempt to justify my position by bringing forth situational justification and the case of vandalism by the anonymous IP. It has been argued that the edits that I reverted do not constitute as vandalism. I dispute the claim on the basis that 66.171.128.239 made several edits in which sourced content was removed without the provision of an explaination [45] [46]. The user then went on the repeat the same edits, however an explaination was given "Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" [47]. I think that you would agree that ""Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" hardly constitutes as a valid reason for removing an entire referenced paragrah. I rever the edits and the cycle continues. The removal of sourced content without an explaination definitely constitutes as vandalism, thus I believe my initial reverts can be excused under the notion that 3RR does not apply under the instances of reverting vandalism. I know that I made quite a number of reverts after that, I will now discuss that issue. I do not believe that the explaination given for the removal was adaquate, as others have agreed thus I reverted the edits. I believe that in the event of a contentious edit, it is the person's job to discuss the issue and gain a consensus. The long and ardous discussion under "Regarding Arrest" [48] suggests that no consensus has been made on the underlying issue, thus the edits by 66.171.128.239 is a violation of such editing processes. The actual reason for this edit warring report is the fact that I reverted after my 3RR warninig. My response is that I was reverting socks by a banned user, and thus the notion of "edit warring" does not apply. By the way, the article in question is actually protected due to "Excessive vandalism: repeated removal of sourced material by ips not participating on talk page", which again, reinforces the point I'm trying to make. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama, for reporting someone you agree with; I'm very impressed with that move. Also, I appreciate your tenacity in trying to keep Wikipedia better, Reconsider the static. Next time, try to report this to us early-on (or, if you feel it is blatant vandalism, WP:AIV), so that nobody has to break the 3RR. Thanks! Master of Puppets 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add this to clarify; if this happens again, people most likely won't be as understanding, given this occurrence. Please don't take this as an excuse to edit war! Master of Puppets 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. I will exercise greater care in future. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree reported by User:James Nicol (Result: No vio)

Page: {{Todd Palin}}
User being reported: {{User:Threeafterthree}}

Previous version reverted to: [49]

• 1st revert: [[50]]
• 2nd revert: [[51]]
• 3rd revert: [[52]]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[53]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[54]]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Use talk pages to discuss revert war with editor. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:Mark.T2009

I am the original author & creator of the byford dolphin article back in may 2005, under the username Mark.T, with the help of User:FirstPrinciples to wikify & edit content. We both spent alot of time & effort into research for the article, along with other contributers, to make it what it is today, an informative unknown to the public article, about a controversial offshore incident onboard the diving rig ’Byford Dolphin’ back in nov 1983, which claimed the lives of 5 divers, by a sudden explosive decompression. When the seal clamp conntected on a trunk betwenn the dive bell & dive chamber was opened by one of the dive tenders, by mistake, while the system was still under 9 bar pressure. The purpose of the article is not only to give the public factual information into the incident, but also the truth behind the accident itself, why it happened, what could have prevented the accident. Uncovering the lack of information provided by the investigating commitee, about unlawful dispensations requested by the offshore diving company Comex to the Norwegian oil directorate & granted by them, for safety equipment which would have prevented such an incident. Now for the User:RexxS to accuse me of being a single-purpose account, with the intention of spreading speculations, is unfair & just plain ignorance. Iv’e put alot of effort into this article & don’t care for the content being blanked out by User:RexxS , even after updated references have been submitted as source. Also regarding the template submitted to the talk page, I don’t see how adding a Scuba diving article project, to an offshore saturation diving accident, has anything in common with the article itself, other than self promoting User:RexxS own article work on scuba diving.. (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem I have been under a misapprehension that Mark.T2009 was a novice user. It now seems he's been editing since 2005. User Mark.T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had 50 edits in May 2005, almost all of which were related to the Byford Dolphin incident (the remainder are to 1983#November and Special Boat Service, at the point where those article page histories are revised, although since the Byford Dolphin incident took place in November 1983, I suspect those edits were related as well).

This vexatious complaint confirms the editor's tendentious behaviour regarding the incident. I can sympathise with his desire to see the "truth" about the incident exposed; but somehow he needs to be convinced that Wikipedia is not the place to do this - at least until it has been reported in reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

@ "Mark.T2009". Please refer to WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". Until the information is properly referenced with reliable third party sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. The current referencing style is not acceptable. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both you taking my statements out of context, the information provided, has been wikified & neutral (NPOV) in accordance with wikipedias policy. The information provided regarding the dispensations is sourcable thus should not be removed. (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Slick112 reported by User:Smallbones (Result:IP and user blocked 3 days)

Page: Insider trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Edit warrior User:Slick112, at Insider trading

1. 03:26, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. Consecutive edits 22 October about 2:28
3. 13:08, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid POV vandalism by KEVARON, he is doing the same in the Raj Rajaratnam's page")
4. Consecutive edits
5. 23:37, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "RE added valuable REFERENCED

User:24.186.79.32 apparently the same editor (e.g. same views, same edits, same bad formatting)

1. 13:21, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
2. 17:57, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
3. 17:58, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:16, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "added valuable information about the need for legalizing insider trading")
5. 00:15, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 00:45, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 02:41, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid childish vandalism, stopped deleting contributions that you don't agree with people!!")

I've warned him at both user pages. He's trying to edit-war against about 5 editors (who at a minimum don't like his formatting). Time to put him out of his misery. Smallbones (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now switched to another IP address (obviously same person from edit comment) diff [55]

I've warned him again at User talk:148.4.9.168

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

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

Comments:

This is such a "crank" that nobody has taken him seriously. He's copied a notable but controversial point of view from the article and put it in as the first sentence (above a "US-centric warning box"). Not even vandalism, per se, but awful annoying after 5 or 6 editors have reverted and explained in the edit summary why it can't stay that way. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism of the Raj Rajaratnam page by him has led to him being reported by me to the ANI as well [56]. I would respectfully request banning on both the account and the IP address as well. Kerr avon (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont agree that that his edits are persistant vandalism with respect to Raj Rajaratnam. Looks like if when an editor adds information with reliable material that is making the article from a propganad and POV pushing one into a neutral tone one then you cannot say that he is pov pushing and vandalizing.Taprobanus (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also adding Raj Rajaratnam to the See also section of Insider trading by user user:Kerr avon may be violating WP:BLP which seems to have contributed to the edit warring. Admins need to look at all sources for this conflict involving Raj Rajaratnam article. Let's all go back to writing a encylopedia not use this for personal grudges based on our place of origin and ethinic identities.Taprobanus (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully reject any violation of BLP on my part. Raj Rajratnam's close connections to the LTTE are well reported in the mainstream media. He is even being sued in the USA for funding a terrorist organisation. user Slick112's edits have all shown a lack of respect, POV pushing, adding irrelevant information, and removing cited information against Rajaratnam. The article was semi protected due to his vandalism and it looks like it will have to be done again. I am not the only editor he has edit warred with. Sine he is a SPA his edits are biased and he should be banned.Kerr avon (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled why this is taking so long The violations at insider trading to me seem crystal clear, just take a minute at the page's history and the violations should jump out at you. Nobody is actually edit warring against User:Slick112, but when 6 unrelated editors revert obvious bad edits and then he reverts back it looks like he is edit warring against the community. The most recent blatant errors he is making are personal attacks in his edit summaries, that is "stop deleting facts that you disagree with,smallballs" apparently aimed at me, and "stop deleting facts that you disagree with, Grandma" apparently aimed at User:Epstein's Mother. As far as I know edits at Raj Rajaratnam have nothing to do with the edits at Insider trading.

Just to be clear - I think a 24 hour block would get the point across that he needs to try to understand some of Wikipedia's basic rules. Smallbones (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still going with 24.186.79.32 diff - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean that 24.186.79.32 is still edit warring (it wasn't clear at first reading). In any case, thanks for reverting back to a reasonable version, making you the 7th editor to have reverted him. But what will happen when he reverts back one more time? Smallbones (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Really sorry that it took this long, guys. I'm usually around here to check out reports, but I'm fairly busy during weekdays so I can't always get around to doing these. Anyway, I've blocked both the IP and user for disregarding warnings and edit-warring. Sorry for the delay again! Master of Puppets 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed impatient. This is maybe the only place on Wikipedia that seems to work automatically (the half dozen or fewer times I've used it), so maybe my impatience was really a compliment on how well you do the work! Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back - unbelievable! diff This time as IP User:148.4.9.180 . Smallbones (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:James Nicol reported by User:J (Result: 31h)

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

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

• initial edit: original change
• 1st revert: revert one
• 2nd revert: revert two
• 3rd revert: revert three
• 4th revert: revert four

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see lengthy discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin

Comments:
Editor was aware that numerous editors and administrators believed his similar edits at Sarah Palin to be problematic per wp:blp. Given the facts, it appears clear he pursued the same matter at Todd Palin in an attempt to circumvent the consensus against his edits at Sarah Palin, wp:blp notwithstanding. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 08:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WLU reported by Feeline (Result: DR urged)

Page: The Courage to Heal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]

• Editing away my stuff instead of reverting: [61]
• Removing my POV tag: [62]
• Removing my POV tag again: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
I would like to note that I am not the first user that WLU has treated in this way. I am just the only one who's put up a fight so far. Here are some earlier reversions, for which I can find no justification: [66] [67].

Thanks.Feeline (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Declined There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mark.T2009 reported by User:RexxS (Result: )

Page: Byford Dolphin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mark.T2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

• 1st revert: 24 October 2009
• 2nd revert: 24 October 2009
• 3rd revert: 24 October 2009
• 4th revert: 26 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 24 October 2009, 24 October 2009

Diff of attempts to explain sourcing policies: User talk:Mark.T200, response to comment left on my talk page

Comments:

Mark.T2009 is a single-purpose account with the sole intention of adding speculation about a cover up of the Byford Dolphin incident. The unsourced paragraph in question has been inserted by IPs and removed by editors several times during the article's history. Both the IP's (e.g. 81.184.74.198 (talk · contribs) and Mark.T2009 have also removed {{cn}}, {{who}} and {{weasel}} templates from the text. The paragraph has been removed over a period by Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs), DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs), Reconsider the static (talk · contribs) and myself, RexxS (talk · contribs). Mark.T2009 has consistently added external links as "References", despite my taking the time to show him how to use them to cite text (see this diff). Mark.T2009 has now taken it upon himself to remove a Wikiproject assessment template from the article. I have tried to engage the editor in discussion both on his talk page and the article talk page, but most recently have been templated and accused of "taking an arrogant stance". I now feel that I have exhausted my good faith with this editor's actions on the article. I request an administrator step in to resolve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the above arguments, I don't think it is necessary to file an AN3 report. AN3 is likely to result in a block, which will further agitate the editor and decrease the chances of future cooperation. Support full protection until consensus. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am almost tempted to agree that an AN3 report should not be not necessary. If this were merely a content dispute, it could be solved by WP:3O or even an RfC. However, once Mark.T2009 personalised the issue, I felt that his behaviour was worthy of scrutiny. Since he has now admitted that he has been an editor since 2005, there is no longer the excuse that he didn't know any better. The best outcome for Wikipedia would be an indef for Mark.T2009 and semi-protection for the article to stop him from causing further disruption as an IP. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your testing the limits here RexxS, abusing your authority as moderator in my view, your false accusations are based on personal dislike. Im not the one that has personalised the issue or vandalised article paragraphs by blanking them out, despite being sourced. You have shown nothing more than than discontent & disapproval, with my contribution to wikipedia. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not true Mark. Wikipedia has no moderators and I have no more authority than any other normal editor, other than I seem to have a better understanding of our policies than you have displayed. The paragraph in question makes claims that are not supported by a reliable source - the website you offer just doesn't meet the minimum standard for Wikipedia, and you have been told that by several editors. Removing such content is not vandalism. Let me make this clear: I don't dislike you; I do dislike your insistence on inserting controversial material without reliable sources; I dislike even more your personalisation of my involvement in the page. As far as the material you wish to insert is concerned, I have little doubt it is true. Personally I'd be happy to see a cover-up exposed. But in this case, my personal opinion counts for the same as yours: nothing. The only thing that counts is being able to cite the text to a reliable source. If you could be persuaded to see that what you are doing is a breach of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, I'd happily work with you to improve the article within the bounds of what is possible here - I'd happily retract my request for you to be banned, but at the moment I can see no recognition on your part that you may not have a correct understanding of what WP:RS and WP:V require from all our editors. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an understanding og wikipedias policies & I don't need to ratify them to you, nor retract a comment with a quote: text struck out. which lead to you requesting a ban oddly enough, wouldn't you admit it's your stubborn character, that has lead to much rant & biased opinions by yourself latelty, including the use of sarcasm to ridicule me in the face of others, through your edits. I don't care for you to blank out my comments at your talk page either, now that is a sceptical act in itself. You contridict alot of statements, through action it seems. Im not content with your article edits either, You blank a paragraph, then make the use of excessive 'citation needed' templates, then blank again, even though it's sourced multiple times, then you hastly claim the source is no good. Now for you to blank out valuable information, that has stayed perfectly intact for almost 5 years now, that to me & i shall use your own term here, disgusting. I strongly feel, that the investigation paragraph, should stay intact, until the current sources has been reviewed by other editors, and then decide if the sources are verifiable. If your so persitent & objectional, at least give it some decent research, before making impulsive decisions. Until then, stick to the 'citation needed' template. (talk 22:36 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated any appreciation of what constitutes a reliable source. Until you have grasped that, my objection stands. The paragraph has been removed many times by multiple editors in those 5 years, precisely because it was wholly unsourced. It was not until three days ago that you added a link to a book that was written in Norwegian and had an ISBN that didn't work. Today you offered a website as a source. If you now think http://www.pioneerdivers.org/ is a reliable source for that paragraph, then please seek confirmation at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The burden of proof always lies with the editor inserting material, and that's another principle you have failed to grasp. As for my talk page, I left the insulting templates and the "arrogant" comment that you placed for a couple of days to give you time to reconsider and remove them. It is a convention on Wikipedia that one is free to re-arrange or remove unwanted content from one's own talk page. It's nothing sceptical, it's merely my preference not to have your insults staying there any longer - whether you care for that or not. You ought to care more about the obvious insult of slapping several templates on my talk page after I had explained the point of WP:DTTR to you. I am an editor in good standing with 4000+ edits and featured content and you knew you were being deliberately provocative in your actions. Your editing style is extra-ordinarily confrontational and every time I have attempted to compromise or find common ground, you have taken that to accuse me of 'contradiction' - please supply a diff if you are going to level that accusation.

I am indeed stubborn about one thing: content on wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, and I won't give ground on that. The {{cn}} templates I placed were solely to indicate the points that need citation. To simply place at the end of the References section a link to book written in Norwegian and now to a WP:SPS website simply isn't good enough. The onus is on you, when inserting material, to ensure that is cited from reliable sources. You have to do the decent research, not synthesise a fringe theory and attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your views. No matter how much truth is there, without verifiability it has no place in Wikipedia. Until you can accept that, I remain of the opinion that Wikipedia would be better off without you. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop contradicting facts with your biased claims, stop pointing out policies through your rants. Come to terms with the truth of your disregard & lack of consent and neutrality for another authors sourced material, and let a third party take a closer look at the sources, without making your own hasty decisions & blanking out paragraphs without third party consent. (talk 02:00 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my contributions biased. Perhaps you could supply a diff to back-up your assertion? Similarly for my "disregard & lack of consent and neutrality for another authors sourced material"? I'm afraid you'll have to accept that no editor requires consent to remove material that is not supported by a reliable source.

I agree fully that a third opinion is needed here, as you seem unwilling to consider what I have said to you. Consequently, I have requested at WP:RSN that another editor take a closer look at the sources. I hope I have made the request in a sufficiently neutral manner for you. Are you willing to abide by what conclusions are reached there? --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User: William M. Connolley reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: protected )

Page: Nuclear winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

User has been very difficult on the talk page and edit summaries like “ok; death by 1000 cuts then. as before” are certainly not constructive and adds to an already contentious interaction. WVBluefield (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've both been edit-warring and I'm sure you've violated 3RR as well. I've page protected for 48 hours, get some outside opinions. Moreschi (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I havent violated 3RR, Connolley has been completely unreasonable on the talk page and rude in his interactions. He needs to be held to the same standard as every other editor. WVBluefield (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[77] [78] [79] [80]. I recommend closer perusal of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. Moreschi (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are including consecutive edits, which does not count. So, I ask again, if Connolley isn’t to be held to the same standards as any other editor here, why should any of us follow the rules? his unwillingness to have any kind of meaningful discussion, along with snide edit summaries and talk page comments is whats driving this edit war. WVBluefield (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very arguably I should have blocked you both for revert-warring: I was never going to only block WC just because you managed to arguably squeeze in one less revert. What would you prefer? That you both get blocked? Or that I protect the page and allow you to discuss properly. Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you haven’t noticed, but I have been discussing the article, Connolly hasn’t. That the issue here, its not the reverts but the underlying behavior and administrators willingness to let some editors slide while coming down like tens tons of shit on others.

I would also appreciate you recognizing your mistake that I did not make 4 reverts. WVBluefield (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Neither of you has shown any willingness to compromise, and the only other commentator on the talkpage has been largely hostile to your positions. And yes, you did make 4 reverts, just one of them technically might not count for 3RR purposes. unfortunately for you, making 3.5 reverts is still enough to convince me that you were edit warring. Moreschi (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, I deliberate did not reintroduce the KGB information because I was waiting advice on how to proceed either through a RFC or RFM. And, no, I did not make 4 reverts as multiple subsequent changes do not count. The rules apply to all of us, or none of us. Calling me dense, and asking me what I am smoking does nothing but make reasonable discussion impossible. WVBluefield (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WVB has 4R, but (impolitely, and despite repeated requests) refuses to mark his reverts as such. . He can't spell either. I have 4R too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Usdemocrat reported by User:Floquenbeam (Result:Usdemocrat blocked for one week by Master of Puppets )

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• 5th revert: [86]
• 6th revert: [87]
• 7th revert: [88]
• 8th revert: [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] (between 5th and 6th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: User talk:Usdemocrat

Comments:

Unsourced controversial information, won't discuss. Has ignored comments and warnings on user talk page, except to say "censorship" on article talk page. This isn't a BLP, but per WP:LIBEL this kind of thing should be reverted on sight, so I believe User:DCEdwards1966, User:Someguy1221, and I should not be sanctioned, nor the page protected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:65.29.104.210 reported by User:Majoreditor (Result: 24h)

Page: Gregory of Nyssa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additionally, the IP editor is currently edit-warring at other articles.

User being reported: 65.29.104.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP editor notified by multiple editors of disruptive behavior and asked to discuss controversial edits. The IP has refused to discuss. IP hs been notified of 3RR and edit warring.

Edit warring diffs:

[91] [92] [93] [94]

I can't seem to get this guy to stop and talk. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crum375 reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: No vio )

Page: Animal rights and the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Crum375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96]
• 2nd revert: [97]
• 3rd revert: [98] (revert of [99])
• 4th revert: [100] (revert of [101] and [102])
• Also repeated commenting out of my edits, with the effect of reverting: [103], [104]

After I attempted to discuss at the talk page, with no response:

• 5th revert: [105] (revert of [106])
• 6th revert: [107] (revert of [108])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:

--Tryptofish (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was edit warring or 3RR violation. See the discussion here. Both Tryptofish and I were working trying to find a more neutral version, and I think the current version is fairly neutral. There was no persistent focus on any one issue, just a normal editing process while trying to find a good neutral balance point. Also, the 'warning' was posted by Trypto well after my last edit on this article. Crum375 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the lead version before our edits, and here is the current one. Note how it started out fairly one-sided (anti AR), while it is now balanced, presenting both sides and ending with a quote from a writer who is middle of the road on this issue. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Declined While it could have been preferable if both editors had arrived at a consensus version on the talk page or article subpage, the edits and the corresponding edit-summaries do seem to be part of regular editing and an attempt to reach a neutral version. A block based on naive revert counting would be unjustified. Please try to discuss the issue on talk page. I will protect the page (wrong version guaranteed!), if either of you think it will help. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think it's necessary, as I think the current version is already fairly neutral. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Great. Experienced editors like Tryptofish, User:Jon513, you etc should really be able resolve this without blunt "admin intervention". Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the more conciliatory tone now taken by the other editor, but as for "Also, the 'warning' was posted by Trypto well after my last edit on this article.", I clearly commented on the talk page well before those last edits, and the notice on user talk was made simultaneously with the report here. But if, as Crum now says at the article talk, we will work cooperatively now, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked 55h )

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115] (United Kingdom of GB & NI)
• 5th revert: [116]
• 6th revert: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User blocked for 3RR before, discussion ongoing on his page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Radiopathy apparently does not want "United Kingdom" listed on the George Orwell infobox, removing it several times and using the alternate "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island" once. He refers to his reversions as "rv sarcasm" [119] and "rv disruptive edit" [120]. When engaged in discussion on his talk page, he threatened the other editor with an ANI report if they didn't stop. [121] Dayewalker (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR does not apply when reverting a disruptive editor.

Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this person has been warned repeatedly about his disruptions at UK articles and has made it clear that he's going to continue. His block log speaks for itself.

And the one who was threatened with AN/I was me; please know all the facts before taking an action like this. Radiopathy •talk• 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 55 hours 3RR has a few narrow exceptions (obvious vandalism, BLP vios and copyvios); reverting alleged disruptive editors is not an exception. Please use talk pages instead next time, and report at ANI etc if you think the other editor(s) are being disruptive. Other editors should also be mindful not to make repeated reverts, even short of 3RR violation. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:98.235.186.116 reported by User:Alowishous (Result: Semi 24 hrs)

Page: Marvel_Super_Hero_Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.235.186.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126] I tried the warning but screwed it up. Others have tried talking to the guy though. See Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Comments:
As far as I can tell, it looks like 98.235.186.116 is upset that the Rumorbuster site is up there and keeps deleting it or replacing it with his proboards forum, only to get upset when that's deleted. I'd like to think that all parties involved want a peaceful solution they just can't settle on one. Alowishous (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page for 24 hours. Hopefully some discussion will come of that. — Jake Wartenberg 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone, looks like it didn't work. [128] Looks to me that as soon as he noticed it was unprotected, he just deleted the link again. Did a quick poke but doesn't look like he tried to explain anything. Asdf now (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now a new IP is involved User:71.199.246.246. Quick research on the forum that gets removed shows its one of the moderators. [129] and [130] "Why would a bot prevent this link from being posted? The forum IS the most definitive source for information on SHS." is all he'll say. Still no talk from the IPs inserting the link, although on their forum they suggest evil forces control XLinkBot and have convinced it that proboards is bad. This is sick. They are just cutesy toys. Why fight? Tomson elite (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Less than an hour after being reverted, User:71.199.246.246 brings it back saying its definitive and old. Old is subjective, and having looked at it, it doesn't add anything to the article. Furthermore, the moderators at the site are now confirming that they're the ones deleting the other site and replacing it with theirs. [[131]], [[132]], [[133]]

If I revert their edits, they'll just put them back in. There needs to be some way to end this craziness.Tomson elite (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:hcjbhistorian reported by User:Kelly A. Siebecke (Result: Both 24h)

Page: HCJB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: World Radio Missionary Fellowship, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: hcjbhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134] Previous version reverted to: [135]

• 1st revert: [136]
• 2nd revert: [137]
• 3rd revert: [138]
• 4th revert: [139]
• 1st revert: [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:
I have tried everything with this user - welcoming, explaining, providing links to articles on POV, NPOV, NPOV Tutorial, polite, but firm warning and explanations, and finally the 3RR warning. Nothing works - very frustrating - hope you can resolve this ASAP. I'm done with it for the night. Thanks. <SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)>

Unfortunately both of you violated 3RR and were edit warring. After the second reversion, if you realised that this was turning into an edit war you should have went to a relevant noticeboard to request community input and assistance, or possibly requested page protection. Unfortunately you seemed to have got caught up in the heat of the moment and also edit warred to the point of breaching 3RR during a genuine content dispute, as it's clear the other editor wasn't purposefully vandalising, which would have been an excuse for your breach. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yusuf.Abdullah reported by User:Zencv (Result: 24h)

Page: Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yusuf.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

• 1st revert: [144]
• 2nd revert: [145]
• 3rd revert: [146]
• 4th revert: [147]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
This user keeps on adding highly contentious inflammatory materials without providing any reliable sources. The edits contain original research, unreferenced sections and also non English political propaganda material like this. I politely warned him here and here and here and also advised in talk page. But the user keeps on reverting without providing any rationale and is not willing to participate in any discussion or to understand why his edits are objectionable Zencv ^Whisper 09:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 10:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:196.209.31.89 reported by User:UncleDouggie (Result: Stale)

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 196.209.31.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149] This diff shows one remaining change that the user had repeatedly taken out and then started repeatedly putting back in while taking out something more objectionable due to limitations of the undo function.

5 reverts in the last 24 hours and many more before that:

• 1st revert: [150]
• 2nd revert: [151]
• 3rd revert: [152]
• 4th revert: [153]
• 5th revert: [154]

Warnings have been given to the user by others. See User talk:196.209.31.89.

Nothing has taken place on the article talk page.

Comments:
I am uninvolved in the dispute – It was flagged as a risk by WP:WikiGuard and appears to be a real edit war. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale User stopped after warning. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

• 1st revert: [156]
• 2nd revert: [157]
• 3rd revert: [158]
• 4th revert: [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments: This is probably a very minor issue when it comes to this noticeboard, however, I have asked the editor to reach consensus in the past prior to reverting my edits, however, so far my efforts to discuss his edits have gone unanswered. It maybe better that we go via WP:3O to resolve the issue presented here; however, if Xnacional has so far not been willing to discuss their edits, I am thus seeking other avenues of support. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale User stopped after warning. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wkiwoman reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [162]

• 1st revert: [163]
• 2nd revert: [164]
• 3rd revert: [165]
• 4th revert: [166]
• 5th revert: [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168] (note that this is only the latest of several warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169] (not a diff but a link to an RfC discussion section, one of several sections dedicated to this topic on the article's Talk page)

Comments:This editor has been edit warring against consensus for many days now, even after the article was briefly protected. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: 5th revert: [170]. Two protections later, with every single editor except Wkiwoman agreeing that her insertions were WP:SYN at best and apparently factually inaccurate, Wkiwoman is still edit warring against the consensus. Tim Song (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

6th and 7th. Tim Song (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected fully by another admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree reported by Marlin1975 (talk) (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fox_News_Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC 1st 2nd 3rd

The info he delated was old info that I was updating due to incorrect link and bad information. The information was in the talk page and I added what I did. He did not TALK but just removed it. He also removed the 3RR warning and link to this, several times.

• Diff of warning: here

--Marlin1975 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems calm now, actively use dispute resolution if needed. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User Marlin1975 has readded the contested material. I won't revert for now. Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Allstar13 reported by pinchet (talk) (Result: Already blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

UFC 108 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Allstar13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 03:17, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:48, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 18:31, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:40, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:47, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 18:52, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 18:59, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 19:06, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 19:29, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—pinchet (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note User blocked already, no need for action. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth reported by User:Moogwrench (Result: See comment)

Page: International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: RicoCorinth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reverts detailed with comparable diffs

Revert #1:

• Original Edit at 03:51, 27 October 2009,
• My revert #1 at 22:54, 27 October 2009,
• Rico's Revert #1 at 23:06, 27 October 2009.

Revert #2 and 3:

• Original Edit for example at 22:56, 26 October 2009,
• Rico Revert #2 at 05:02, 28 October 2009, of another of my edits,
• My revert #2 him at 06:35, 28 October 2009,
• Rico reverted again #3 at 13:35, 28 October 2009.

Revert #4

• Original Edit at 19:12, 28 October 2009,
• My substantive edit at 20:31, 28 October 2009,
• Rico's revert #4 at 20:34, 28 October 2009.

All in the space of about 21 hours.

Reverts (summary)

• 1st revert: [171]
• 2nd revert: [172]
• 3rd revert: [173]
• 4th revert: [174]

Warnings:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175], which he then reverted/deleted from his talk page.

I also warned him on the Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup with diff [176] and he acccused me of WikiBullying at diff [177]

Discussion

There has been a lot of discussion, between him and me, and him and others. There has been extensive commentary not only from me, but from other users supporting consensus away from his edits. There are too many to go over. When he reverts, he usually just says rv, or rrv, in the edit summary.

Comments:

This user is angry with my because we were involved in an edit war last week. Both of us reverted more than 4 times, but he is a more experienced user, whereas I just began regular editing this month (10 of October). The admin chose to protect instead of block either of us, but I believe that he is still angry at me and for this reason is trying to do constant destructive edits and tags to my edits since then. He continues to accuse me of edit warring even though I have tried to discuss with him these various issues.

He has constantly become personal, using derogatorily:

• "extremely tendentious edit warrior" - in edit summary
• "coup denier/apologist or sympathizer" - with such in discussion
• "liar" - Title of new section in discussion page entitled "Lie in the article" talking about my edit.

Other editors have reverted him during the last 24 (listed here) and in the past few days (not listed here).

• Revert by Rd232 at 13:43, 28 October 2009
• Revert by Ed Wood's Wig at 19:06, 28 October 2009

No one but him has reverted me since the conclusion of the old edit war in relation to this article.

Moogwrench (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wasn't I informed of this report? -- Rico 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moogwrench is canvassing on the article talk page, where he wrote me, "Just look at the edit war administrator notice that I put up if you have any more questions about the reverts."[178] -- Rico 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, like I said, look up at the "Warnings" section for the diffs of my warnings about this report. Moogwrench (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 1st alleged revert:
Is the summary removal of properly used dispute tags, abuse of tags vandalism or avoidant vandalism? That is what Moogwrench did,[179] and that is what I reverted. Template:Verify credibility states, "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." I did that here and here. The results were inconclusive. -- Rico 00:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See section entitled "Warnings" for the warning information.

As to "vandalism" charge, the diff in question [180] had the following edit summary: "Revert on tag for credibility. IPS is a WP:RS for relevant info, cited by UN and other GOs and NGOs, a large news organization with editorial oversight. Review WP:RS before tag again please." Is this vandalism?

Furthermore, you did not discuss before applying the template. You applied the template here at 00:54, 27 October 2009, 16 hours before you discussed it in in here at 16:40, 27 October 2009. You waited almost a whole day after applying the template to talk about it here at 23:12, 27 October 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs)

Regarding the second alleged revert:

This concerns an entirely different matter.

Moogwrench tried to put this into the main article four times within 24 hours,[181][182] but other editors (not me), stopped him.

I put up an RfC on it, and I am content to let it run its course. I have left this edit alone, pending the outcome of that RfC.

Moogwrench's edit is in the article. This is the last time he added it (the last of countless times). -- Rico 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rico: Why are you talking about the old edit war? Are you trying to confuse the admin that adjudicates this? Everyone, including one admin, has backed up my edit in its new spot. I have never been reverted by anyone else for trying to add this content to this article specifically. One of the ones who reverted me in the other article, User:Cathar11, suggested that I place the information in the new article. I did so. After 10 days, no one complained except for you. No one has reverted the addition but you. You have been reverted by two other users (one an admin) besides me. Cathar11 even did a minor edit on the sentence and did not revert it.Moogwrench (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the third alleged revert:

This was the day after the second revert, and -- as I've said -- the content remains in the article because I've left it there, pending an outcome of the RfC I added to the talk page.

I am willing to wait for, and abide by, the consensus of the community.

For the time being, Moogwrench has -- once again -- succeeded in getting POV content into a Wikipedia article, via edit warring. -- Rico 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The date stamps on the diffs for Rico's 4 reverts says it all. Also, one only need look at the history of International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup and its discussion page to see that my edit was backed up by Ed Wood's Wig, Rd232 (an admin), and Simonm223 and that I have only done 3 edits in total over the last 24 hours: 2 reverts, and 1 substantive edit. And yet he has called me the POVpusher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the fourth alleged revert:

This is a third entirely distinct matter -- although related, because -- once again, Moogwrench summarily deleted a properly used dispute tag[183]. This time I was questioning whether Congress was a reliable source. We've been discussing this for eons.

Template:Verify credibility states, "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question."

It is clear that there was no consensus for removal of the tag, because Simonm223 restored it too.[184] -- Rico 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Simonm223did revert Ed Wood's Wig here, but notice what he said in his edit summary: Considering that the org distanced themselves from the report I'd say it's only reliable as a source for the opinion of the author. I think this should be included but in the appropriate context only.

So I decided to try to be helpful to Ed and reword the content to state that Norma Gutierrez was the author and that it was her opinion, so that the tag could be removed (opinions can be RS's for their authors). I also tried to clear up the confusion over "ouster." Which is what I did.

Note my edit and its summary: Substantive edit: how does this reword work: gutierrez is listed as the author of opinion, removed credible tag, and dichotomy of (removal=constitutional, expatriation=not) is included. Good? I was asking for feedback on the rewording to alleviate the other editors concerns.

Instead of discussing the new wording, you did a summary revert with the following helpful commentary in your edit summary: rvv. I was non-plussed, because you just reverted something that you had wanted clarified. And I wanted to give you the opportunity to take back your 4th revert and maybe discuss it a bit.

Even if you think something is a good idea, or the other person is POVpusher, or you have a really big disagreement about content or sources, that doesn't excuse you from following the rules. You engage in a lot of WP:Wikilawyering but it can't hide the fact that you reverted 4 times in one 24-hour period and you didn't even discuss or even give a good edit summary for some of your reverts. Moogwrench (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "he then reverted/deleted from his talk page."

The Wikipedia:User page guideline states, "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." -- Rico 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you complained that I hadn't warned you above--"Why wasn't I informed of this report?", when it was obvious that I had, and you deleted it. In fact, you called it WikiBullying when I warned you on the main talk page.Moogwrench (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "I also warned him on the Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup":

Moogwrench should never have done that. He had already warned me on my talk page, writing, "revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation."[185]

The International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup talk page is for improvements to the article.

It looks like an attack on an editor, at best, and biased canvassing -- perhaps campaigning -- at worst.

I haven't done a revert since his warning. -- Rico 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening you, I was giving you a chance to fix it yourself before reporting you. But you didn't look at it that way (you basically dissed me and said that you hadn't done 4 reverts and misidentified Ed Wood's Wig and his revert as me and mine - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup&diff=322601424&oldid=322586543 was his), and I felt that I had tried my best to resolve it with you before coming here. You are an experienced Wikipedian (since 2004 your page says) and so tell me: is 4 reverts OK if you feel you are right? Moogwrench (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "he acccused me of WikiBullying":

Moogwrench threatened me on my talk page, writing, "revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation."[186]

I didn't even understand where he was coming from, because I'd only put back the Verify credibility dispute tag -- questioning whether Congress was a reliable source -- one time. When I saw that he'd also warned me on the article talk page, I asked him what he was talking about.[187]

Moogwrench informed me that an editor could be in violation of 3RR, "whether or not the same material is involved,"[188] something I didn't know. (Note the link to this noticeboard he added.)

However, even if I "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," reverting myself wouldn't change that. And since it wouldn't change that fact, Moogwrench was telling me to delete a legitimate dispute tag he's summarily deleted -- (even though there was obviously no consensus for its deletion, because Simonm223 restored it too[189]) -- and threatening me that he would take action against me if I didn't. He was arguing, in essence, that I couldn't reverse abuse of tags vandalism, or avoidant vandalism -- and that I had to revert myself, even though that wouldn't change the "perform[ance of] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." That's WikiBullying.

It looks like all he wanted was the legitimate Vc dispute tag removed, and he wanted me to remove it for him, and then he could file this report anyway. -- Rico 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said under your fourth revert response, Simonm223 put the tag back after Ed Wood's Wig had removed it because he was worried about attributing to LLoC the views of Norma Gutierrez. I fixed that, so most likely that had resolved Simonm223's concern, and so the credibility tag could go because the content was now attributed to Norma Gutierrez. However, you summarily reverted that without even thinking about what Simonm223 had wrote in his edit summary

You keep calling my edits vandalism. Here is what WP:Vandalism has to say:

"Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." How could you determine if my edit wasn't made in good faith if you didn't even read Simonm223's summary and see how I had tried to address his concerns. Moogwrench (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "There has been a lot of discussion, between him and me, and him and others":

There has also been discussion between Moogwrench and others.

I love the slanted way Moogwrench puts things.

Moogwrench writes that I revert, but when referring to when Moogwrench reverts me, Moogwrench writes that I've "been reverted" (leaving Moogwrench out of the equation).[190] -- Rico 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, above I styled my reverts as "My revert #1", etc. So I do take ownership for them. Moogwrench (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "There has been extensive commentary not only from me, but from other users supporting consensus away from his edits":

I haven't seen that.

What I have seen has been extensive reverting of Moogwrench's edits, ever since Moogwrench started editing the Honduran coup articles.[191] Moogwrench has responded to those reverts, almost without exception, with edit warring -- often violating BRD, and winning via tendentious editing. In fact, that's all Moogwrench has been doing on the Honduran coup articles, edit warring.

Almost all of Moogwrench edits, since he started editing, are part of edit wars.

By contrast, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, I made thousands of edits, and I've never been blocked. -- Rico 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are just a few of those commentaries supporting my edits of content and sources that I suppose you "haven't seen:

• I stand by my reasoning above for why this is notable and relevant - with the caveats I mentioned. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Change "appears" to "claims" and it'd be ok. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• That's not a lie. That line in the last sentence does not make the opinion that the removal of Zelaya unconstitutional, just the use of the military. Nice try, though. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• This bears mention, but maybe some of the detail could go elsewhere, eg Honduras – United States relations. Rd232 talk 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to be any real argument that they aren't reliable in the disputatious TL,DR above. We have a useful and halfway decent article on them. They're a real press service, 6th largest in the world, they have their own niche, outlook and focus. … .John Z (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs)

Regarding, "When he reverts, he usually just says rv, or rrv, in the edit summary."

I've never written either of those things in an edit summary.

I have written, "rvv", but that's been in response to Moogwrench's summary removal of validly used dispute tags -- where there's been neither consensus, nor resolution of the dispute. I'm not sure if that's called abuse of tags vandalism or avoidant vandalism these days. We used to call it "Improper use of dispute tags"[192]:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
[…]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.

-- Rico 03:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My point, I am sorry if I got it wrong 'rrv' instead of 'rvv', is that you didn't provide any helpful discussion info or indication that you were addressing the previous edit before reverting it. Ideally you should discuss instead of reverting and violating WP:3RR.Moogwrench (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "This user is angry":

This is a lie.

When Moogwrench threatened to report me here, I laughed out loud several times.

Moogwrench is the most tendentious editor I've ever come across in Wikipedia.

The very thought of him reporting me here made me laugh.

Since, "the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption," I didn't think Moogwrench would have the chutzpah to come here and report me. The very thought of it made me laugh.

Anybody that makes me laugh is okay in my book.

It's very hard to be angry when you're laughing. -- Rico 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you should take note that this page is not to be used to continue a dispute. You've both made your case, please stop cluttering the page with further arguments. An admin will be along to examine the case. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Moogwrench (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "we were involved in an edit war last week":

When I first came across Moogwrench, he was involved in an edit war with other editors -- not me -- and had tried to add the same content (which had been previously deleted) to the main coup article four times in less than 24 hours.[193]

He's been dedicating all his editing to edit wars ever since. -- Rico 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "I just began regular editing this month (10 of October)":

I think that Moogwrench has made it abundantly clear that he is no newbie.

How many newbies abbreviate, Most Interested Persons, "MIPs"? (See last sentence of edit in this diff.) -- Rico 04:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "The admin chose to protect instead of block either of us, but I believe that he is still angry at me":

Why would I be? I was the editor that asked that the article be protected.[194]

Note my edit summary, when I deleted the report I'd put here on Moogwrench.[195] -- Rico 04:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "for this reason is trying to do constant destructive edits and tags to my edits since then":

I've made my reasons for my edits abundantly clear, in extensive discussions on the talk pages.

I've tagged Inter Press Service and Congress, {{Verify credibility}} -- because good faith attempts to verify the reliability of Inter Press Service (which I've never heard of), and Congress, have been inconclusive. Editors have suggested that neither of them is.

One would have to be a mind reader to know that I've made edits, or tagged Moogwrench's content, for some other reason.

Unless Moogwrench is a mind reader, I'd prefer that he assume good faith, rather than impugning motives to me. -- Rico 05:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "He continues to accuse me of edit warring":

[196][197] -- Rico 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "He has constantly become personal, using derogatorily":

Moogwrench wrote me, "I would actually like editors, and not pedantic edit warriors, to look over my work."[198]

One who comes into equity must come with clean hands. -- Rico 05:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, " 'liar' - Title of new section in discussion page entitled 'Lie in the article' talking about my edit":

I have never called Moogwrench a "liar", and I'm surprised he would disingenuously put "liar" in quotes, as if I had.

I was not talking about Moogwrench's edit.

I was writing about content in the article that Moogwrench calls, his. (Freudian slip?) -- Rico 06:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "Other editors have reverted him during the last 24 (listed here) and in the past few days (not listed here)":

"Other editors have reverted Moogwrench during the last 24 hours (listed here) and in the past few days (listed here and here). -- Rico 06:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "Revert by Rd232 at 13:43, 28 October 2009":

After I saw that, I added an RfC to the talk page. (Before that, Moogwrench had no other editor agreeing with him.) I have not removed the content since then and am content to allow the RfC to run its course over the next thirty days.

The content remains in the article. As usual, Moogwrench has gotten his way via tendentious editing and edit warring.

Everything has to be the way Moogwrench says. -- Rico 06:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "Revert by Ed Wood's Wig at 19:06, 28 October 2009":

Ed Wood's Wig has denied on the article talk pages again and again and again that there ever was a coup in Honduras.[199]:Ed Wood's Wig has been repeatedly warned that the article talk pages are not forums,[200] because Ed Wood's Wig never backs up his claims with reliable sources.[201]

Ed Wood's Wig is just uncivil beyond belief, so I am not surprised to see a coup denier align with a coup apologist and summarily delete a valid dispute tag. -- Rico 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, "No one but him has reverted me since the conclusion of the old edit war in relation to this article":

That's not true.[202] -- Rico 06:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Moogwrench keeps trying to paint himself as being with consensus, but the results of the RfC I added to the talk page are leaning towards agreeing with me.

JRSP agreed with me.[203] -- Rico 07:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This page is not to continue or rehash content disputes, which is what this is. If you cannot work together through discussion then you are advised to seek dispute resolution. Should that fail, or in the mean time, you may wish to request page protection at WP:RFPP. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on
• War on Drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mbhiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time reported: 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 22:26, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* United States domestic policy */ Add back conspiracy allegation involving Liddy, as per the discussion on the Talks page.")
2. 22:30, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 322622804 by Mbhiii; You're simply not reading.. (TW)")
3. 22:35, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 322623636 by Mbhiii; You didn't read the last one by Squicks.. (TW)")
4. 23:13, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 322624481 by Mbhiii; 1st Obama isn't a controversial policy; 2nd, it is allowed, for example, if a noted hisorian turned up evidence of him being born outside the US.... (TW)")

• Diff of warning: here (and he's warned the other warrior, below, so he should be aware of it)

Comments: See other report, as well.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I'm having issue with the 1st revert at 22:26 to establish a 3RR vio; regardless it's clearly disruptive edit warring. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:70.8.184.242 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

War on Drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 70.8.184.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
• Time reported: 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 22:29, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322622804 by Mbhiii (talk) The discussion ended with removing it")
2. 22:31, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322623636 by Mbhiii (talk) I read the comments by you and your IP address")
3. 22:38, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "the problem is BLP here, its one guy making a claim. Imagine the Obama article if this is allowed everywhere")
4. 23:15, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 322630672 by Mbhiii (talk) but the problem is about BLP - this is one guy making a claim about a living person")

• Diff of warning: here

Comment: See also above report. Although I agree with this editor that it shouldn't be here, it's not obviously a WP:BLP violation, so it's subject to WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja²⁴⁷ 09:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result:no vio)

Page: The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205]
• 3rd revert: [206]
• 4th revert: [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]

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

Comments:
I would like to note here that I am not edit warring as Radiopathy wrongly construes. Rod never reverted me, he was reverting vandalism to the article, and my edit was simply caught in the cross-fire. I of course restored it, after which RP reverted me claiming there was consensus for having it as it was(when in reality there was not). I checked the article talk page and the history, nowhere was the linking of the country discussed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to state that the first revert isn't even a revert. That was my first edit to the article, therefore there is no way it can be counted as a revert. With regards to what I have said, it is then obvious that I have not broken 3RR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Long term pattern of making controversial edits to articles which I have involvement with; he has already been warned about this. Editor insists on adding "United Kingdom" to articles involving UK countries, claiming WP:MOS, when there is nothing at MoS nor any informal precedent for this. Radiopathy •talk• 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes my edits controversial? That you, a single editor disagrees with them? I don't think so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All that said, I'm not going to revert further, after doing a little research regarding liverpool, I don't think it's necessary to link to the UK.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note As it stands, I count three reverts. Let's end this now please before it becomes a proper violation of 3RR. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't let this become a forum for your guys' personal dispute. As for a 3RR violation, there is none - Rodhullandemu mistakenly reverted Daedalus969 (Rodhullandemu's edit summary points at reverting previous vandalism, not Daedalus969). Even if Rodhullandemu had deliberately reverted Daedalus969, Daedalus would have only made 3 reverts. So yeah, agree with Nja247. Cheers, Master of Puppets 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Note about User:Radiopathy About 40 hours back I blocked Radiopathy (talk · contribs) for edit-warring at George Orwell in response to the above EW report. After the user posted an unblock message promising to "I'll handle content disputes according to policy, and will take the contentious articles and editors off my watchlist.", which they later changed to a retired notice I offered to unblock them early. Following an email exchange I did unblock the user early, assuming good faith. Unfortunately the user has almost immediately resumed edit-warring about the exact same issue (UK vs England) that led to the block, albeit at a different set of articles and without breaking the technical 3RR limit. Can other admins comment whether this warrants a:

• reinstatement of the earlier or longer block,
• a 1RR or other limit, to prevent further edit-warring,

or suggest any other preventive measure. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a 1R limit and a stern word. I'm not a fan of blocking, so I'd rather go with that. Master of Puppets 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A 1RR limit is more likely to be effective, since the earlier two EW blocks don't seem to have made a difference so far. Do you know how such a limit is usually formalized and instituted ? Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing the talk page of the user in question is generally enough. Just define the terms and repercussions. Also, make sure to specify that the limitation is in effect immediately, not when they reply - some users will not reply and then later claim they didn't see your edit. Master of Puppets 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MoonHoaxBat reported by User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Result: Stale)

Page: 350.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: Moonhoaxbat is the third account created by the same person. See this ANI discussion for further details. If you include the other accounts, Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs) and Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs), Moonhoaxbot has reverted eight times.

• 1st revert: [209]
• 2nd revert: [210]
• 3rd revert: [211]
• 4th revert: [212]
• 5th revert: [213]
• 6th revert: [214]
• 7th revert: [215]
• 8th revert: [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ANI link, talk pages of all three accounts, and Talk:350.org.

APK because, he says, it's true 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

I've left this user good advice.[218] Please be patient, per WP:BITE. They started here on the wrong foot and I'm trying to coax them in a better direction. It would really help if people applied less pressure and were friendlier. If I'm mistaken, we'll see soon enough, and the editor will trouble you no longer. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Our comments on this matter passed at the same time, so disregard below. I would delete it, but I don't know if that's allowed.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) FWIW, I am very friendly towards productive, new users. I'm also rather confused by your statement, "It would really help if people applied less pressure and were friendlier.", after you blocked his/her first account. But that's neither here nor there. APK because, he says, it's true 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. I was asked to create a second username by admins because the first one was unintentionally offensive. I did so. That one wasn't good enough, so I made a third. I created the last two accounts at the request of admins.

I would urge everyone to look at the 350.org Talk and History pages. I asked other users to take a break from taking out verifiable, notable, sourced information. I did this to prevent an edit war. See User:Dr.enh's talk page to see that two other editors are collaborating in reverting my edits, "persevering" being their term. I have asked repeatedly that we take a step back to prevent an edit war. But I am in a tough position when two editors who openly state their POV get around the 3RR rule by teaming up. They do not explain their edits on the edit page. I could have reported them for vandalism but did not. I want this info to remain until a consensus is formed.

Please also note the RfC I opened as evidence of good faith. Thanks,--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, you are already blocked from editing with your other accounts. The block applies to this one as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Look back at the blocks! I was told that I should create a new account. I am doing what the admin asked. Do you have another method of editing again when the reason you were blocked was your username? I could have just created a new account and never let on that I was the previous poster. So much for honesty... --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

At the ANI discussion, Jehochman said he indefinitely blocked your account "for (a) disruption, (b) importing a real world conflict into Wikipedia WP:BATTLE, and (c) derisive username combined with a campaign to attack and disparage other users due to their political views." APK because, he says, it's true 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring that Jehochman was the one who told me to reopen two new accounts. He is also supporting me now. Look at what he said on my Talk page as soon as this current username was opened. If he wanted to keep blocking me, he would have done so, not encouraged me to keep editing.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin above requested that I delete the revert. I immediately tried to do so, but another editor was editing at the same time and I got an edit conflict warning. Again, I am a new editor and trying to act in good faith. Banning me for 3RR when I tried to revert the R is not right.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I request another administrator decline this. I'm trying to teach a new editor how to get along. Blocking them at this point when they've already agreed to stop edit warring is pointless. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Stale Nja²⁴⁷ 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Stale)

• Three-revert rule violation on

350.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 00:08, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
2. 00:52, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
3. 22:07, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Idetestlunarbats (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
4. 00:07, 29 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by MoonHoaxBat (talk) to last version by Ratel")

3RR warning: 01:16, August 5, 2009

Comment: Only a technical 3RR violation, but it's still edit warring, and if coordination was done with User:Dr.enh, it becomes more serious. I'd prefer that he not be blocked, but it might be considered in conjunction with the one above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

These reverts are to a page into which a smear was being inserted by a suspected scibaby sock, who inserted it ~7+ times under your very nose, Arthur Rubin, while you stood by approvingly, and did nothing (the page is on your watchlist). Now, despite a long history of being blocked for edit warring yourself, and an ongoing dispute with me that I have raised with admin EdJohnston, you are reporting me here on a technicality. The question of your involvement with that page needs to be raised, given your clear Libertarian ideological dislike of the organisation in question (we all know you ran as a candidate for the Libertarian Party, unsuccessfully). Why are you editing the encyclopedia to push a philosophical barrow, and not to improve the encyclopedia? Can Wikipedia afford sysops like this? ► RATEL ◄ 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. What is the evidence this is SciBaby? Post at WP:SPI. Don't leave hanging accusations. I like to block socks of banned users, but need some evidence first.
2. It takes at least two to wdit war. Just stop.
3. Strike your personal attacks. Your comment is not fair to Arthur.

Admins, no blocks here. Please just warn. Jehochman ^Talk 08:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My evidence that it is scibaby is that scibaby has been dogging my edits for several months now, and I've seen about 20 socks of his blocked on pages I edit. It is also clear from this person's edits that despite protestations of ignorance of how wp works, he is well aware of how to edit, shooting to noticeboards without a pause, using reversion, indentation, policy-quoting and numbering seamlessly, etc. I'm not trying to edit war anyone, but simply trying to stop the encyclopedia being used to smear Bill McKibben and 350.org with an entirely unrelated event. I wish someone would ask Arthur Rubin to edit articles outside the global warming scope. It's deeply damaging for WP to have strongly opinionated sysops editing articles like this. It should be noted that over 97% of practising climatologists regard anthropogenic global warming as real, and that means that scientists who believe otherwise are actually mavericks and wp:fringe applies. Rubin is not a scientist but subscribes to a skeptical viewpoint that allies him with a tiny minority of scientists in the applicable field. Therefore he should not be editing climate related pages, especially as he does so with attitude. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Check my editing log. Do you see the number of errors I've made? Lots. I'm not an expert Wiki user. If I had been on here for months, do you think I'd be asking about elementary things? I had to ask what a scibaby was. I must politely protest that you are wrong. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people doing wikiwar with Ratel on the 350 article. Things got a little too heated on all sides, especially with the reverts. Although I wished that he would have waited until consensus had developed before reverting out info, I would ask that the admins let it slide. I think everyone was honestly trying to do right by the readers.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale Nja²⁴⁷ 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:F zanghed reported by User:Kmsiever (Result: Declined)

Page: Brooks, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: F zanghed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [219]
• 2nd revert: [220]
• 3rd revert: [221]
• 4th revert: [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223], see also [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:

• Declined Not a blatant case of edit warring. Please use talk pages to engage in discussion, and if that fails dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:86.166.171.76 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Stale)

Page: Mary McAleese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.166.171.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [228]
• 3rd revert: [229]
• 4th revert: [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have opened a thread asking for an explanation here.

Comments:
The IP has blanked their page of the warnings and appears to be goading another editor who has reverted him on the same article. BigDunc 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP has about four edits in total and has been warned and never welcomed, the first edit from this IP was at 20.10 this 3RR report was made at 20.31, I don't think this IP has been given any chance or assistance. I have added a welcome template with some links and suggested they have a read before continuing editing.Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no attempt of any kind to discuss with the IP before this report was made. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the accusations of goading by this IP are totally baseless, could we please have a link to support the accusation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Things have settled down at that article. The IP has 'apparently' left. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale No current issue as user seems to have settled after receiving a proper warning. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Ratel (Result: Protected)

Page: 350.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [232]

1. revert 1
2. revert 2
3. revert 3
4. revert 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
Rubin has a long history of TEND on this article and has been blocked for edit warring many times before. He's also stalked me to various pages. I've approached EdJohnston about desysopping him. This is not admin material. ► RATEL ◄ 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

THe complainant had technically violated 3RR on this article less than 24 hours ago. As an admin had requrested that the new editor who also violated 3RR in the reverse direction be given some slack, I also recommended against a block, but it should be noted that he, also, is repeating his contentious edits. The claim of attempting to resolve the issue seems — questionable, at best. It looks to me as if he were attempting to goad the new editor who opened the RfC; at least, that seems to be the effect. Intentions are difficult to determine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You claim I technically violated 3rr on the article in the section above, but by my count I did not do so at all. The rule is 24 hrs right? I did not break that rule, whereas you did. ► RATEL ◄ 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears my miscounted. If I hadn't misinterpreted your offer of compromise (which you still shouldn't have implemented without indication of consensus from the batty editor or an uninvolved editor), as not being a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, I probably would have kept better count.

Quoting my report above:

1. 00:08, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
2. 00:52, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
3. 22:07, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Idetestlunarbats (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
4. 00:07, 29 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by MoonHoaxBat (talk) to last version by Ratel")

4 reverts in less than 24 hours (although only about 23 hours 59 minutes). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that we could all figure out a compromise to put this issue to sleep. No one is going to get everything they want. I don't see the point in banning people over something that got a little too heated but was in the service of the reader. I'm new here, so I don't mean to speak out of turn, but I'd suggest that we drop all this 3RR business for now and move on.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally, protecting the article is considered to prevent further (direct) edit wars. If I had reverted through the protection, that would be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Come on gents, you know the drill. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Left of Palin reported by User:CactusWriter (Result: 31h)

Page: Susan Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Left of Palin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [234]

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240]

Comments:
Multiple requests were made here, here and here to this user to respond to the unexplained reversions. An ANI report was made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need a brief review which resulted in concerns of sockpuppetry here. The User's fourth revert today comes after all this, still ignoring the requests to discuss. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Opening SPI also. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Testosterone vs diabetes reported by User:Nutriveg (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Diabetes mellitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Testosterone vs diabetes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sometimes as 158.194.65.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 158.194.199.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [241]

• 1st revert: [242]
• 2nd revert: [243]
• 3rd revert: [244]
• 4th revert: [245]
• 5th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Talk:Diabetes_mellitus#Testosterone and cortisol and later User_talk:Nutriveg#Why so much vandalism

Comments:
He's readding problematic sources that don't support his claims, sometimes making some small article changes at the same time .

See also [248]. Thanks. --Nutriveg (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I had also reported this user, not realizing he had already been reported. I've merged my comments into this report and removed my duplicate report.

Direct evidence of connection between the user and the two IPs:

• see this edit where the IP 158.194.199.13 replaces a {{UnsignedIP}} tag on a comment by IP 158.194.65.44 with the signature of user "Testosterone vs diabetes".
• see this edit there user "Testosterone vs diabetes" replaces the signature of IP 158.194.199.13 with his own signature.

See also related issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Testosterone vs diabetes.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I too had added a report. The only thing I would like to add are the other relevant talk page sections:

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Testosterone censorship
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Why so much vandalism about testosterone?
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Why Wikipedia makes censorship about diabetes and testosterone?

Wperdue (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• After reviewing the disputed user contributions, I agree with editors above. I tried to compromise on the Diabetes mellitus page, where I came for a third opinion, but it seems he took my attempts at good faith and reach a reasonable middle ground as a "green light" for his soapbox and conspiracy theories, and this is unacceptable. There is something of interest in the links he provides, but the editor's behaviour is unacceptable and difficult to control. --Cyclopia^talk 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The report was a bit stale by now, but I have gone ahead and blocked the user account because the disruption has been going on for a few days, and because of the IP socking. Let me know if he persists in using other IP socks, and I can semi-protect the page. Cyclopia, can you please ensure that the "something of interest in the links he provides" is included in the article, to whatever depth it deserves ? Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Will try, no problem. Why this request? --Cyclopia^talk 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because I haven't looked at the content issue and you as the 30 responder would have a better idea idea of if/how it should be handled. Basically, passing the buck. :-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bband11th reported by User:QueenofBattle (Result: No revert since warning )

Page: 2009 USC Trojans football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bband11th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [249]

• 1st revert: [250]
• 2nd revert: [251]
• 3rd revert: [252]
• 4th revert: [253]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [255]

Comments:

The reverting hapended a bit too quickly to discuss on the article's talk page, but I did attempt to discuss it on the user's talk page, as per the diff above. The user merely deleted my attempt, and deleted the 3RR warning. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stale No revert since 3RR warning. Now may be a good time to discuss the issue on the article talk page and develop consensus for inclusion/exclusion. Will add a warning to the user page. Abecedare (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bradfordparkavenue reported by User:Jayen466 (Result: 31h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [256] 18:06, 28 October 2009

• 1st revert: [257] 23:08, 28 October 2009
• 2nd revert: [258] 03:52, 29 October 2009
• 3rd revert: [259] 19:05, 29 October 2009
• 4th revert: [260] 20:02, 29 October 2009

Prior warnings:

• User_talk:Bradfordparkavenue#Edit_warring_over_tags_at_Robert_Twigger
• User_talk:Bradfordparkavenue#Removal_of_cleanup_templates

JN466 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, this IP appears to have been used to evade the block at 23:20, 30 October 2009: [261] (Note editor's fondness for the term panjandrum [262]) JN466 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • I agree that it's an IP sock, but since it is somewhat stale I'll leave the IP unblocked for now. If there is further disruptions let me know on my talk page and I'll block this/future IP, and/or semi-protect the article. Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man reported by User:98.251.117.125 (Result: No vio)

Page: Talk:Richard_Gere (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Richard_Gere|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [263]
• 2nd revert: [264]
• 3rd revert: [265]
• 4th revert: [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned him in the comments to my restorations: [267] I warned him on his talk page, twice: [268], [269]. User Cyclopia warned him on his talkpage, but he deleted that warning and called the user a "moron" [270] he then proceeded to send ME a message threatening me with 3RR [271] despite the fact that I had only restored his reversions and had added additional information in my second restoration. He has not responded to any of my posts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This dispute is on a talkpage itself, I have tried to contact the user on his personal talkpage to resolve this, as I have documented above, but he has not responded to me and has only responded to the other user who tried to talk to him by deleting his/her warning and calling him/her a moron.

Comments:

I was trying to add to a serious discussion here about overall wikipedia policy, specifically regarding BLP guidelines, and sufficiency of sources. Crotchety Old Man clearly disagrees with the position I have taken as is evident from his previous posts on the subject. Rather than responding to me, he saw fit to simply delete my post. From looking at his history he clearly knows the wikipedia guidelines, but thinks he can avoid them: he claims that he is justified in deleting my post because it violates BLP. Note that not only did I clearly not violate any BLP or inappropriate discussion guidelines as he claimed, but this is not a BLP but a discussion page. Also please note that he's too clever by half by waiting just over 24 hours for his 4th revert. It's clear he knows the technical standard for the 3RR rule, but thinks he can skirt it. In any event he has engaged in edit warring, and I feel his violation deserves particular attention as he is merely trying to quash opposition to his position on a talk page. Please take whatever action you see as appropriate. Thank you! 98.251.117.125 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse the summary above. Crotchety Old Man deleted a template+personal message I added on his talk page calling me a "moron" in the edit summary [272]. While he's entitled to delete whatever from his own talk page, the edit summary is not exactly WP:CIVIL, even if I don't care much. The deletion pattern above is however very much concerning. --Cyclopia^talk 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• No violation/Stale. A single revert today (and that was six hours ago), the remainder were two days since. The user didn't wait "just over 24 hours", that's just false - the reverts were 40 hours apart. This isn't great, but it's something that belongs at WP:WQA if anywhere. Also, we should have a very low tolerance for unnecessary BLP-skirting at this article - the issue in question doesn't belong in the article since it's clearly false. I also note without comment that the IP editor is surprisingly well-read on the minutiae of Wikipedia policy from their very first edit. Black Kite 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. The problem is not the 3RR, I think. The problem is that he is repeatedly deleting completely legit and on-topic comments on an article talk page -violating WP:TPO, handwaving BLP when there's no such concern -the deleted comment is not vandalistic or libelous by any standard. --Cyclopia^talk 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is still the wrong venue. WP:ANI may be a better place to raise this. Black Kite 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. --Cyclopia^talk 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Black Kite: Thank you for your quick response. I will look into filing my complaint there if he continues to delete my posts. (I really did try to do my homework on the wikipedia rules to make sure I was in the right here). You noted that this was a "stale" controversy; for future reference, when should I have brought this to the admins' attention? Should I have continued to restore his reverts for a longer period of time and then reported if he continued, or should I have reported him after the 3rd consecutive revert? (I was concerned with running afowl of the 3RR and edit warring prohibitions myself). Cyclopia: Thanks for lending your support in this matter, I'm a frequent user of wikipedia but this was my first serious contribution to the site and I was worried I wouldn't be taken seriously because I hadn't set up an account yet. Much appreciated. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it reprehensible and downright pathetic that I was not notified of this discussion. I expect a little more from the experienced editors. (Not you, IP - you clearly have no clue what's going on). Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The gerbil junk is a BLP violation. BLP violations are not allowed in either the articles OR the talk pages. Reverting BLP violations overrides the 3-revert rule. Although I would argue that reverting only part of it defeats the point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is a clear history of incivility from Crotchety Old Man just gathered from his edit summaries on his user talkpage, but, as pointed out that's an ANI issue. Re the Edit-warring, he can't seem to decide on his reason for reversion: first it was
  • argument is dead, then it was
  • (read the rest of the talk page. this issue has been resolved. gerbil mentions dont belong in the article, so no further discussion neccessary. thanks IP, followed by
  • Per BLP., then,
  • (rv per BLP. don't re-add unless you have an original thought to bring to the already-dead argument.), finally
  • (per TPO, delete material not relevant to improving the article. thanks for linking that!)
• This means that at least 3 of his reversions weren't based on BLP arguments, and that should be enough for a warning.
• Furthermore the BLP argument is highly controversial: Nobody is suggesting that Richard Gere stuck a Gerbil up his ass, Everybody is suggesting that there's a false rumour about it, and with 83 book references, 5 movies and tv show references, and references to it by Richard Gere and Sylvester Stallone, there is now a rediculous amount of good references about this false rumour and that does not a BLP violation make. Rfwoolf (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus to keep the gerbil crap out of the article, as a BLP violation. Furthermore, your buddy WebHamster (now indeffed) overplayed his hand, and made a separate article about the gerbil incident, which was quickly eradicated by an admin, as a BLP violation. I can understand that you're embarrassed to have hitched your horse to the wrong wagon, and are on the wrong side of the argument, but please accept when you are dead wrong on a topic. Move on with life. It's better for everyone that way. Unless any new, relevant, primary sources come out on the topic, there's absolutely no reason to keep any new discussion on the gerbil issue on the Richard Gere talk page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to delete relevant comments to the talk page, too. We're not talking of the gerbil any more, Crotchety. We are talking of you deleting talk page material by other editors and using incivil edit summaries. But that's more of a material for AN/I than for this page.--Cyclopia^talk 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety has reverted six times now. The "other" parties reverting back total 3 other parties. Right now he's outnumbered. He should make no further reversions unless he gets another party to do it. While that won't solve the problem, it alleviates the situation where one editor reverts 6 times. It aint right, and even the BLP violation falls flat because then the entire talk page is a BLP violation; Crotchety should delete the entire talk page otherwise he is singling out a single user's comments. BLP violation or not, he's singling someone out: he should apply his self-righteousness evenly. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make an effort at applying some logic to the situation. The edit in question is the first since the whole gerbil issue was summarily smacked down as a BLP violation. Again, I understand your frustration. You put a lot of wasted time and effort into finding "sources", only to be embarrassed when an admin deleted the page WebHamster created. You'll feel better if you just move on. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, by suggesting someone else do the revert, you basically admit that you know you're in the wrong. Baby steps! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the issue has not been "smacked down": there was some weak consensus that it shouldn't appear in the article, and discussion didn't move on. This doesn't mean that someone cannot bring the issue back, if done properly. That's what the IP editor did, and it was by no mean a BLP violation (heck, it doesn't even cite what is the legend being talked about!).

Second, Rfwoolf suggestion is that, if you feel that deleting such content from talk page is legit, you should find editors deleting it, in addition to you. Which is not happening -quite the opposite in fact.

The point is: One thing is consensus about the content. Another is deleting relevant and civil comments from a talk page. If you persist, this matter, along with your persistent incivility pattern in edit summaries, is going to ANI as soon as I have time. --Cyclopia^talk 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you file an ANI report, make sure you let me know via my talk page. I'd hate for you to make the same dumb mistake twice. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For sure you will be noticed -why twice? I didn't file anything about you before. --Cyclopia^talk 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety: "I find it reprehensible and downright pathetic that I was not notified of this discussion. I expect a little more from the experienced editors. (Not you, IP - you clearly have no clue what's going on)." I'm not sure what part of my message on your talkpage that said "This is your final warning: if you continue to revert posts just because you disagree with the poster I will report you for rules violations." or the other warnings from other editors or the warning in the comments to the restorations were unclear. If you simply did not read people's comments before deleted them and called them names then that is your problem my friend.

Again, I welcome your comments on the page if you still want to discuss the issue, and if not, there is no one forcing you to read it; if the matter is settled in your mind and you don't want to be excluded from the discussion, then exclude yourself, keeping in mind that there are new people coming to wikipedia every day with differing opinions who would like to engage each other in a civil matter. Thank you. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

TokenPassport reported by Verbal (Result: 31h )

• Three-revert rule violation on

English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TokenPassport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 11:54, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323078417 by (talk) That's not a reason. My edit is more accurate, has better grammar, and is true and neutral.")
2. 12:05, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "Did anyone even watch the cited video? I just did. The individualistic nature of the comment raises the question whether the fact has any value in this article, but I've left it as it is.")
3. 12:45, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "I thought of suggesting a comprimise of "right-wing" but it's still wrong. It's not political and there's consensus on that. I could argue that they are left-wing as they oppose fascist ideologies.")
4. 12:49, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323092165 by (talk). Clearly then the source is unreliable and should be removed. Not everything that's written down is true.")
5. 12:51, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323093143 by Leaky caldron (talk). Why? You just proved that the source was invalid. Give a reason.")
6. 13:13, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "No it isn't. This is about a citation which hadn'teven been discussed before. That citation is clearly rubbish. Just look at it. It has no place here, nor at the Guardian. It's like citing Jan Moir.")
7. 13:18, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "For goodness sake. Will people stop pushing undo. I've left "far-right" along with as my superior grammar and clarity. Undoing diverse edits for the sake of two words is against Wiki-policy.")
8. 13:21, 31 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323095615 by (talk). Please state why you believe this source to be valid given the evidence. Just an excuse to push your political agenda isn't it?")

• Warning: User Talk:TokenPassport#EDL

Not all the edits are total reverts, but they are partial reverts, against policy and consensus, and there are four clear total reverts. Verbal chat 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note it is also likely that this editor is also 86.2.96.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Verbal chat 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• 31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drmargi and User:HelloAnnyong reported by User:Roman888 (Result: Very stale and not a violation anyway)

Page: Talk:Kitchen Nightmares (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kitchen Nightmares|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

DrMargi

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]
• 5th revert: [277]
• 6th revert: [278]

Further more there is a history of edit warring from this individual, not only on this page but on the other pages Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares

HelloAnnyong

• 1st revert: [279]
• 2nd revert: [280]
• 3rd revert: [281]
• 4th revert: [282]
• 5th revert: [283]

This matter has been discussed at length regarding the removal of the restaurant updates - Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Reinstating_the_Updates. They continuously remove any updates and notes according to their whims and fancy. I believe this matter should be brought to arbitration and all further updates should be frozen on that page after the updates have been reinstated. Even an important panel member and editor has chimed in and stated that the updates should be reinstated provided they are properly referenced - User:Wizardman

I am hoping for some quick action to this matter and hope it will be resolved finally. Roman888 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• no action dates back to 25 October, users are reverting in line with consensus against random IPs and the reporting editor - see talkpage. Black Kite 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kotniski reported by User:SlimVirgin (result: see below)

Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Version reverted to: 10:42 Oct 29, which said, "Policies describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are primarily advisory," and removed "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to."
• 1st revert: 17:59 Oct 30, removed "Policies describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are primarily advisory," and restored, "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to.
• Another version reverted to: 13:27 Oct 31, Kotnisiki added, "New editors need not worry about familiarizing themselves with all these pages – others will point you towards them should the need arise."
• 2nd revert 13:52 Oct 31, restored "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to." Also restored "New editors need not worry about familiarizing themselves with all these pages" etc.
• 3rd revert 14:42 Oct 31, restored "Wikipedia does not have hard-and-fast rules, but editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, except where there is a good reason not to," and "New editors need not worry about familiarizing themselves with all these pages" etc
• 4th revert 14:58 Oct 31, removed " Policies describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are advisory."

Comments

Kotniski has been reverting against several editors to restore his own wording and remove theirs. I asked him here to revert himself because he had violated 3RR, but he declined. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree the last one was a revert - it was just trying to be constructive, changing the wording, not removing anything. Would have thought I deserved to be told about this thread though, even though my last talk-page response was rather impolite (since apologized). Anyway, I hope this matter (whatever it was) is now resolved.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• No action somewhat stale now, and not a straightforward 3RR case. I believe the issue has now been resolved. Black Kite 21:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ao9 reported by User:Notedgrant (Result: 31h)

Page: Great Pyramid of Giza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ao9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [284]

• 1st revert: [285]
• 2nd revert: [286]
• 3rd revert: [287]
• 4th revert: [288]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [290]

Comments:
User was warned twice. I'd block him but I'm one of the people reverting his uncited and OR edit. He's at 7R Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

--NotedGrant Talk 17:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. This is an old report but I am issuing a block as the violation was so spurious, in order that the editor may be tempted not to do it again. Black Kite 21:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr reported by 96.237.129.194 (Result: Wrong venue)

Page: Second Amendment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kenosis/SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: [291]

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323083386&oldid=323050127
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323113576&oldid=323095451
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323159838&oldid=323159569

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr seem to be the same person - who takes turns using the two sockpuppets to get his way on edits. Many if not most of those edits involve POV push. The one currently gong on involves slander of a historical figure (Robert Whitehill) who is considered by some to be the father of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. He is the first person to have authored a document proposing amendments to the US Constitution, with a number of those proposals making it into the US Bill of Rights.

SaltyBoatr has dug up this quote "Yet this "minority report" turns out, on closer inspection, to reflect no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric " which amounts to only to POV push of a miniscule opinion, historical revisionism but also SLANDER of an important historical figure.

My belief that Kenosis/SaltyBoatr are the same person is based on the fact that they take turns doing the same thing and most importantly SaltyBoatr has responded to a question directed to Kenosis as if he was Kenosis.

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

As shown on the link above, I post a message (bottom of page) to Kenosis asking

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

Salty Boatr, who was not a part of the thread before this responds with

I am capable of looking, and I looked

Now why would SaltyBoatr respond to a question directed at Kenosis as if he was Kenosis?

Am I dreaming or does it look like he was a bit confused which sockpuppet he was using at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SaltyBoatr&diff=323165813&oldid=322822205 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenosis#You_are_being_reported_for_edit_warring

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

Tried to resolve, but SaltyBoatr/Kenosis refuses to discuss. I included the bio of Robert Whitehill from 4 different sources here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323038791&oldid=322468843 Kenoss/SaltyBoatr has yet to respond bt has made 3 reverts (see above)) to restore slanderous material to the article.

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

Comments:

BTW:I made a complaint against Kenosis/SaltyBoatr about two weeks ago and nobody did anything about the complain. Master of Puppets killed it for being stale with no action taken.96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong venue No 3rr violation - WP:SPI is the place to complain if you believe that the two editors are the same person. Black Kite 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop (Result: Protected)

Can someone urgently take a look at Battle of Konotop? Many editors are now clearly over 3RR. Offliner (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Article protected. Black Kite 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seal hunt (Result: Malformed, no violation)

User:U5K0 is in violation of WP:3RR. The page is currently protected, but it is unfortunate that this user is allowed to violate WP:3RR, then seek page protection.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. I made 2 reverts in a 24h period (thouh I made more changes) to the article in question. My 1st revert was justified since the statement in dispute was not referenced (it had references but they contained no relevant information). My second revert was a mistake on my part. I hadn't noticed that the above contributor had added new references but once I did, I looked at them and returned a statement acording to one of the new references (I don't have access to the Economist article since I'm not a premium subscriber there). I also did not seek page protection. In fact I asked the user who protected the page if it was really necesarry since the dispute had been allmost resolved (as far as the article was conserned).--U5K0 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• No violation and article is now protected. Black Kite 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite, but the article was protected before you got there. So, thanks for nothing, literally. There were three reversions made. It is very clear from the edit log. Too bad the page was protected after U5K0's THIRD reversion, at HIS urging. Typical nonsensical behaviour by lazy Wiki admins.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel on Involuntary_euthanasia (result: No vio)

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

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

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [295]
• 5th revert: [296]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [297]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [298]
• [299]
• [300]
• But Ratel just deletes and has not answered yet what is his point.

Comments:

• As Ratel said in the definition of involuntary euthanasia, it is refered to the Netherlands as the only country where involuntary euthanasia is allowed on new born infants. It is a fact that there, at the Netherlands: In the Netherlands, euthanasia has not be decriminalized nor legalized by any means but it is illegal and defined in the Criminal Code as murder, although under certain conditions, the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person.[301]. Why does Ratel delete that fact and presume bad faith and doesn't answer in the discussion page? 190.27.99.171 (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the reporting IP has broken 3RR numerous times on the page and was so disruptive on the page Action T4 a few months ago that the page had to be given a very long semi-protect. ► RATEL ◄ 05:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No vio. 4 reverts outside the 24 hour period, but more importantly Ratel is reverting contributions that aren't written in legible English (i.e. [302]). Whilst this isn't vandalism per se, it still should not attract sanctions for edit-warring. Black Kite 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:A Nobody (Result: No action, with a warning to be given)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [303]

• 1st revert: 17:56, 31 October 2009. "Undid revision 323134392 by Artw (talk) abuse of process yes, but no canvassing. Please justify on talk" (removes {{not a ballot}}) [304]
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 31 October 2009 "Undid revision 323136259 by Artw (talk) rvt, no justification given here or elsewhere" (removes {{not a ballot}}) [305]
• 3rd revert: 17:38, 1 November 2009 Revert A Nobody "There has been no canvassing, and no justification has been provided on talk" [306]
• 4th revert: 20:04, 1 November 2009 (removes {{not a ballot}}) "Undid revision 323321748 by Cbl62 (talk) No evidence of canvassing or justification for this tag has been provided" (removes {{not a ballot}}) [307]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Verbal#Human_disguise and here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments:

• Based on this warning, other edit warring appears to be going on elsewhere as well. No idea if related to the above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• According to the archives, [309] today is the 5th time Verbal has been reported, last time Verbal apologized for a 3rr violation and was not blocked.User:Verbal reported by User:Mitsube (Result: No action) Ikip (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, looking into the matter a bit deeper, it turns out that of the 4 previous reports, 3 were dismissed as not being in violation of 3RR, and the last one was indeed a breach, for which as you said Verbal apolgized and wasn't sanctioned.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I will restore the template, but it would be great if someone could justify it. It looks like it's aimed squarely at me, without any justification. Verbal chat 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,who might you be? Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's a not-logged-in User:Verbal, who I note has self-reverted his last edit. I'm not going to close this one though, as I commented in the AfD. Black Kite 20:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting your last edit when you realise your are in the do-do does not cut it for me. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, as per policy, self-revert is exactly one of the things to do to get him off the WP:3RR hook.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was me above, I fixed the sig. It's a bit odd because I was logged in. I honestly only thought I'd removed it twice recently. I would love for it to be justfied, as its placement seems to be a directly aimed at my notification of everyone who participated at the previous AfD of this AfD. There is also some possible process abouse in teh creation of this article, and several users with a personal vendetta. But nevermind, it'll probably be deleted anyway despite my attempts to help fix the article. Verbal chat 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the self revert is a get of the hook option, but if a user is repeatedly edit warring on multiple articles then a self revert is of little value. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The fourth revert of the template followed after I left a note on Verbal's talk page cautioning him against removing it for a fourth time. He ignored my note and proceeded to delete it for a fourth time. In light of my warning, I'm not sure how he can say he only believed he had removed it twice recently. My prior note to Verbal is here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of your own conduct on this matter, I would suggest you drop the matter altogether.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what conduct are you referring to with respect to Cb162? Unomi (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this: [310][311][312]. After being issued a warning not to reinsert the same material a fourth time, Clb62 it seems just couldn't leave it alone. What's tyhe old expression? "It takes two to tango"? --Ramdrake (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is considerable difference between Cb162 user becoming frustrated with the lack of communication on a user talk page and Verbal reverting against at least 3 different users regarding a template encouraging people to argue from policy. I hope you would agree. Unomi (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want the discussion to be sidetracked, but I believe anyone reading the diffs will see that I was simply attempting to have a civil discussion with Verbal. I acknowledge his right to remove my comments from his talk page and said so in the referenced diff. I did not start this discussion and do not want to be the cause of it being sidetracked. Accordingly, I will refrain from further comment unless someone has a question for me. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some tit for tat warning notes.. that is not the issue here, the issue is Verbals repeated edit warring behaviour on multiple articles, that is the reason he has been to this board five times now, as he continually edit wars around and when he is reported he reverts or just stops on the edge of 4 reverts and gets away with it by reverting or claiming some kind of previous consensus, and then takes himself off and continues in the same way. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(And sorry for the drama) As I said before, 3 of the 4 preceding reports came back with a result of No violation. Therefore, you can't hold them against him.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read my comments....just above yours? Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has also done it at English Defence League. He says there is consensus and is not the only one but it doesn't mean edit warring is OK. Just for the sake of transparency, I completely disagree with what is currently in.

• [313] "Reverted 1 edit by TokenPassport; Revert editwarring, policy and consensus is against you"
• [314] "Reverted 1 edit by TokenPassport; Rvt editwarring and removal of well sourced information, etc."
• [315] "restore consensus lead (TokenPassport has been blocked)"

You could argue that he was reverting disruptive edits but the third change reverted work by other editors trying to work with the contentious material and he just sent it back to what he saw as the acceptable status quo which isn't really collaborative editing.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That isn't the issue here, and I've only had one block for editwarring which was due to an admitted misunderstanding of BLP policy on my part - I reverted tags into the article, whereas I should have removed the problem content. I did not continue in the case where I did go above 3 reverts that you have referred to, and here I thought the four edits was over the last week. Each time I've asked for a justification, and none has been forthcoming, and Artw has been told at ANI before that this isn't canvassing (this is all a bit off topic though). I have been annoyed by the tag, which Artw placed in order to WP:BAIT me, and I shouldn't have responded. I should have asked for justification and put a note underneath the tag. Off2riorob seems to also be referring above to recent edits on English Defense League, which are supported by consensus, where a lot of editors have had spirited disagreements recently, including himself, about the wording of the lead and whether "far right" should be included (per every RS). I don't see the relevance to this issue here, though. Bottom line, I shouldn't have removed the tag - but those placing it should be willing to defend their actions. Also, the comments removed from my talk were duplicates of a conversation at another page - I saw no need to duplicate and split the conversation. Verbal chat 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh this is entertaining, lots of old friends showing up here.Thanks for your unrelated input Cptnono. Verbal chat 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that neither case seems to be a technical violation, though I realise it isn't a right, etc. I don't see a problem with the third EDL revert, but please correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't read 3RR policy for a while and it might have changed. Verbal chat 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick note. Someone edited my initial report to make it appear that Verbal reverted me. Anyway, in this edit, he is not reverting my comment, but rather Artw from earlier. Anyway, I do not want to myself go back and forth with whoever changed my initial report. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Verbal is saying he hasn't read 3RR recently, he continually quotes policy as if he had written it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering Verbal, would you consider editing under a 1RR restriction? Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on here, but we might as well have it all out in the open: 2 bouts of recent edit-warring on live template with no attempt to open dialogue on the talk page, and then finally claiming no consensus despite having been reverted by multiple editors. Unomi (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ahem. This isn't the forum for a general discussion of a user's conduct. If it isn't relevant to this report, don't post it here. Black Kite 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Verbals claim that the tag had not been discussed or that no reason for it's presence has been given is simply incorrect - a reason was given in the edit summary and comments have been made in the AfD regarding it by myself and others. In fact on one occassion Verbal has gone as far as deleting comments regarding it[316]. He appears to be fishing for an explicit declaration that his behaviour on the thread is the reason for the tags presence - which, yes, is pretty much the case, and users other than myself have made it pretty clear. Which is all besides the point, since nothing he has offered up is sufficient excuse for his edit warring. Artw (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if an Administrator would take a decision regarding this report then there would be less drama, at least when William M. Connolley worked this board you knew where you were, what we have now is a miss match of different admins applying differing attitudes and letting reports go stale, editors are starting to see this board as an easy option. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made exactly that point at WP:AN, and I have asked someone to close this one at WP:ANI, since I am semi-involved. I do try to work this board as much as I can, but I am not as regular an editor as WMC was. Black Kite 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Closing comment Verbal was edit warring over the tag on the AfD page, but we are well into discussion of the merits of the tag and a block would not be helpful. Obviously protecting the page isn't an option (and wouldn't be relevant unless editors continued to war over the contents). I'm left with a limited set of 'tools' to deal with the exact issue at hand and the discussion above has largely devolved into general carping about the editor in question. I strongly suggest that both sides simply drop the tag issue--nobody really cares what those tags say at the top of the discussion page. Barring that, discussion can occur on the afd talk page, but I suspect that both sides would be wasting their time. Obviously a warning makes nobody happy, but the job of this board isn't to make people happy, it is to stop edit warring. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.126.139.193‎ (Result: Blocked 31h)

User is warring and close to violating 3RR on SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3. User has made personal attacks against myself and at least one other person, and is severely lacking in civility. I tried a few times to calm him/her down and user just blanks his/her talk. The problem is introduction of a date of release for the game and using a blog as a WP:RS. User has responded with "fucking idiot in 2 edit summaries that I noticed. Can someone help? - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• blocked for 31h. Note - you will get a quicker response at WP:AIV usually, which would have been a correct venue due to the abusive edit summaries. Black Kite 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Pshh I didn't even get a chance to let him know first. Thanks - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 69.215.5.92 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: 72h / sock indef)

Page: Talk:Mary Beth Buchanan (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mary Beth Buchanan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.215.5.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: Jacob2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (is continuing the same edits)

Previous version reverted to: [317]

• 1st revert: [318]
• 2nd revert: [319]
• 3rd revert: [320]
• 4th revert: [321]
• 5th revert: [322]
• 6th revert: [323]
• 7th revert: [324]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326]

Comments:

IP has received 7+ warnings on talk page (including two level-4 warnings) They have deleted and ignored these.Marek.69 ^talk 03:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe he has now opened an account, User:Jacob2727 which he is using to continue his behaviour. Marek.69 ^talk 03:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for continuing to edit war while blocked. Jacob2727 sock was blocked indefinintely by another admin. --slakr^\ talk / 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)