Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive128

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

The editor has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has recently had an indef block removed - so they are well aware of wikipedia rules/blocking procedures/3RR

I have tried to resolve this issue on the user in question's talk page - and requested they get involved in the talk page, however there was no response on their talk page, my talk page or the article talk page - the only response was continued reverts.

Comments:

I have linked to the previous version of the article, however the user's reverts are different reverts - that are removing different information. As far as I am aware different reverts are still considered to be edit warring when made in the same 24hour period on the same article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article's history, you'll find his edits revolve around maligning independence activist Kim Gu for whatever reasons he can come up with that day. Persistent behavior dispite obvious protest from other users leads me to believe he has some sort of chip on his shoulder. Now I've dismissed his warning: "Why not go to the talk page and gain some consensus, if you feel strongly about this?". How convient of him to tell me to reach a consensus when he's the one who keeps adding new (fringe) materials and edits such as this. As for the report itself, I'm kind of confused. Is he planning me take me down with himself? Because he clearly went over his 3rd (4th... 5th...) revert. Akkies (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I added new material, I did not revert. If you consider my edits to be adding fringe material then take it up on the talk page, instead of reverting me. I suggested before I made this report that you discuss it on the article talk page, but you did not respond apart from continuing to revert. I would have preferred to discuss this on a talk page, but you seem to have been hell bent on reverting anything and everything that I tried to contribute towards the article in question. Four reverts in less than 24hours, says it all. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's just another way to continue your ongoing campaign. Refer to your first edit, which is indentical to what you're putting in right now. You seem very commited to this, even using blog sources. Or if that fails, deliberately misinterpreting articles to push such an extremist (unique) viewpoint. The edits are directionless, seemingly slanderous. Don't think you've created some sort of loophole. Akkies (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaaand Sennen has just reverted Aocduio's edit to his version on Kim Gu. Akkies (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I reverted someone on that article, after not touching it for nearly 30 hours is somehow comparable to your 4 reverts in 24 hours? Don't try to change this ANI report into something that it is not - if you wish to discuss the article - go to the article talk page, if you wish to complain about my actions, make a report against me or contact me directly - if you wish to explain why you think you should be allowed to revert four times within a 24hr period - do it here. I am done wasting my time here. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not for me to decide. And my replies are appropriate. All very relevent, needed to defend my actions from deceptive report like this. In fact, your report was unknown to me until EdJohnston gave me the notice. Pretty sly Sennen. Akkies (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected two weeks. This is a long-running dispute about what evaluation (favorable or unfavorable) should be given to Kim Gu, who appears to be a sort of a controversial founding father, and served as President of Korea in 1927. Direct quotes from reliable sources ought to do the job, but people seem to be having some trouble finding sources in English. Protection would require editors to work things out on the talk page. If agreement is reached, ask for unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: HIStory World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mercenary Roadie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

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

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

Comments:
This user is doing a heck of a lot of unexplained reverting. Minimac (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned It is not acceptable to use the undo function on edits without any summary unless it is blatant vandalism. Repeatedly reverting every edit over several days without any explanation is particularly egregious. Any further attempts will result in a block.

talk

) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This user constantly removes images illustrating different epochs from

• 1st revert [12]
• 2nd revert [13]
• 3rd revert [14]
• 4th revert [15]
• 5th revert [16]
• 6th revert [17]
• 7th revert [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.90.47 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Edit-warring continued, and it seems administrator User:Materialscientist deleted the history to cover-up his friend User:Bento00. I hope sysops can see the entire edit history.--79.111.75.165 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone can see the history. –Turian (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He simply deleted the article and moved another article in its place after this edit war report so to erase the history [19]. Also see how User:Bento00 thanked him for the trick [20].--79.111.75.165 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action, incomplete report. I think that the submitter of this report, 79.111.75.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is evading the 31-hour block on 79.111.90.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After your block expires, perhaps you can come back and file a report here in the proper style. It is hard for us to piece together what is troubling you. So far I do not see that you made any effort to communicate with User:Materialscientist or User:Bento00. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Blaxthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dlabtot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Blaxthos): [22]
• 2nd edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Blaxthos): [23]
• 3rd Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Hipocrite): [24]
• 4th Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Turian): [25]
• 5th Edit of My Talk Contribution (User:Dlabtot): [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Note: Upon discovery that my talk content had been edited a second time, I tried to protect my OWN talk content by reverting, a second time, the edit, then proceeded to try to make the recommended Wikipedia notations on the "talk" page. The rapidity of subsequent reverts to incorporate changes to my talk content were simply too rapid to allow me to observe 3RR cautions to the involved editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1. [27] 2. [28] 3. [29]

Comments:

The obvious question that will come to bear is why I was unwilling to allow my content to be edited in the first place. The reasons are twofold...and I'm not sure which is more important. First, the idea that any editor can arbitrarily edit the content another editor's contribution to a "talk" environment discussion strikes me as bordering on Wikipedia obscenity. Secondly and, perhaps more importantly, my content was assembled to present the views of all contributor's to the RS/N AT THE TIME THE ARCHIVAL SUMMARY WAS APPLIED. User:Blaxthos had contributed NOTHING to either RS/N at that point and could not have impacted the construction of the "archive summary" in ANY manner.

In contention within the talk environment is the validity of the "archival summary" that was applied when ARCHIVED, not when User:Blaxthos arrived into the talk "discussion". As I type, a fourth "editor" is now editing my originally submitted content.

I respectfully request that the original content I submitted to the "talk" page be restored and, somehow, protected from what I feel is overt vandalism of my content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On edit: As User:Dlabtot has now seen fit to edit my original content as well, I have appended his/her username to the petition and will notify. It has also been brought to my attention that copyright considerations may have some bearing on this issue. I will defer further comment on the particulars until such time as all editor's have been afforded adequate time for consideration and input. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion a reverse block should be in order, I mean, Jake has made 5 recent reverts on this talk page which I'm not sure if any of them meet the exceptions to 3RR as he sometimes calls it "vandalism": [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] with the 5th one leading to a threat. Minimac (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an absolute joke of a report. 3 editors making 4 edits cannot violate 3RR; however, one can, and that is precisely what Jake has done. I call for a block on him, to show him that he needs to stop making something out of nothing.

If you are going to include a table of editor opinions on sources, you have no right to deny the addition of other editor opinions on the grounds that you may not like it. You were the one who blew this up into something it should never have become.

WP:GETOVERIT. –Turian (talk)

11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

JakeinJoisey has been single-handedly fillibustering RSN and it's accompanied talk page for a month at this point. He has engaged in edit-warring to prevent others from archiving closed discussions, from adding their opinions to charts of opinions and has been just generally unwilling to lose. Whoever closes this report should certainly consider what steps they could best take to prevent JiJ from further disrupting wikipedia - I suggest a temporary ban from RSN and it's talk page, and a longer ban on linking to WorldNetDaily anywhere on wikipedia. Just a thought! Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the above recommendations. Jake, as every edit page has stated: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You have no copyright. We did not alter the meaning of your content, especially since what was edited was not prose. Jake needs to be blocked to stop his disruptive behavior. –Turian (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation and I have warned the reporting editor to cease being disruptive. Black Kite 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38] (the first in a series of empty edits to make it technically more difficult to undo the previous revert correctly)
• 4th revert: [39] (the second in a series of three empty "reverts")
• 5th revert: [40] (the final empty "revert" to make it more difficult to notice or undo)
• 6th revert: [41]
• 7th revert: [42]
• 8th revert: [43] (the most serious violation so far—it is a deceptive revert, disguised with an "innocent" description and bundled with an unrelated edit to masquerade it as a regular edit and make it easy to overlook)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44], [45] (pre, in the edit summaries), [46] (post, on the user's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
FleetCommand has been violating the Wikipedia etiquette in several different ways:

1. Deceptive tactics, masquerading reverts as regular edits
2. Unwillingness to discuss the issue: despite being asked three times ([48], [49], [50]) to address the points explained on the talk page, he ignores them, never replies on the talk page
3. Giving invalid explanation in his reverts: FleetCommand has been repeatedly explained (both in the edit summaries and on the talk page) that the
   Weasel words guideline is a guideline, not a policy, and most importantly, by definition, refers to attribution (a direct quote from the definition: "On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution."), that is, the verifiability and NPOV policies. Therefore, by definition, his argument that the expression "The player can play files in a variety of formats" violates the weasel words guideline is invalid, as it does not concern attribution at all (we can certainly argue about the wording, content, style, we can ask whether it is vague etc., and I am open to discussion, but it would be a completely different discussion—the original version simply, by definition, does not violate the Wikipedia weasel words guideline, and therefore all his reverts are invalid, as they give a bogus reason in the explanation, and knowingly, because FleetCommand has been repeatedly reminded of it, that's the problem). This is explained in more detail on the talk page
   . FleetCommand has never been able to disprove this obvious and easily provable fact. Instead of replying, he just continues to revert the edits with the same copy&paste "reason", and when he's warned about edit warring, he masks the revert as an unrelated edit.

This behaviour is unacceptable and goes against several Wikipedia guidelines such as Etiquette ("Do not ignore questions - If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate" etc.), Disruptive editing (A disruptive editor: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."), Edit warring (reverting instead discussing, gaming the system via intentional deceit, spreading the reverts just over 24 hours to escape the 3RR, and by knowingly misinterpreting the guidelines). Good faith cannot be assumed anymore. And because FleetCommand has already said, when he unsuccessfully complained to an administrator (the admin said FleetCommand was wrong), that he wanted to "rip me apart", I have to suppose FleetCommand's real motivation is not improving the article. Given all his malicious and deceptive actions, I suppose he is indeed driven by his personal desire to... well, rip me apart.—J. M. (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. Quite apart from the mass reverting (doesn't quite hit 4 in 24 hours, but there are far more over a 48h period), the empty edits and the deceptive edit summaries make it clear that the editor isn't contributing in a collegial manner. Black Kite 11:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]
• 6th revert: [56]

and so on.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58], [59]

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. Black Kite 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Types of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Imagine75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 23:06, 4 April as a previous anon 3RR violator, but it's stale

• 1st revert: 08:28, 5 April
• 2nd revert: 10:56, 5 April
• 3rd revert: 15:48, 5 April
• 4th revert: 23:55, 5 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:14, 5 April

• Note the response at 15:47

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There already appeared to be consensus that the addition had no reliable sources, and limited relevance to the section. My comment of 17:35 may not have been helpful, but it confirmed the previous note that GB fan previous refuted 174.58.137.241 and Imagine75's "arguments" that there was something to be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Note that there were at least 2, and possibly as many as 4, reverts by 174.58.137.241 before the Imagine75 account was created. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. A fifth revert occurred after this report was filed. Black Kite 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

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

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]
• 5th revert: [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66], [67], [68]

Comments:

• Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mosmof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mosmof a user who has commented on this page extensively is adding serious accusations against something which accured nearly 2 years ago, and was debated ad naseum in a debate he lost. There have been no charges nor anything of the like. Torossian's firm was recently named one of the largest in the US but this is whitewashed. Help revert to original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is not a serious 3RR accusation, but I should comment. Both the aformentioned article and
  WP:AGF accusations against anyone who disagrees using specious reasoning that ignore Wikipedia policies. My understanding is that I'm an anti-semite who works for the Lower East Side B.I.D. Judging by the tone, type of edits and language, my guess is that 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs) and 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs) is a reemergence of the above, but I don't think they're being overly disruptive yet. Mosmof (talk
  ) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof is using his continued agenda to slander 5W. There is no reworking other than readding information which was there prior to vandalism. Unaware why the firm being named one of the 15 largest in US shouldnt be present nor why INC magazine wouldnt be not present. Also it should be noted this fight began regarding an issue Mosmof posted in contrast to items he posted years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to "heavy editing" nearly 2 years ago by people who are no longer employed by the company, right ? What is the justification for removing language which says they are 1 of the biggest firms in the US ? Why would that be the case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong forum for continuing content-related discussion, but I should point out that the IP editor wants to insert more detailed information about the firm in the Torossian article. My point is, and has been, that the article should contain information that's about the person and some basic information about the firm, but anything about how awesome the company is should be in the company article, and there's a convenient {{main}} link will help any curious readers. -Mosmof (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually on the way to the IPs page when I saw this, the IP is currently in violation of 3RR on the page. Since he brought this here, it seems like he's knowingly trying to get Mosmof blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It has to be added here because Mosmof ignores direct messages. If the company info suffices, then why does Joe Francis remain ? He's noteable bc of the company he owns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe both of them should be blocked. They seemed to have tried to discuss it on the talk page, while simultaneously reverting each other. –Turian (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You can see me ignoring direct messages here, here and here. Honestly, I haven't kept count of my reverts, and I acknowledge, I may have been revert-happy because of the history of editors associated with the IPs. If I need to be blocked, then I'm okay with that. --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. This article has been the subject of
  WP:COI policy. Creating a registered account would be a good first step, and impeccable behavior would do a lot to earn respect here. The apparent return to promotional editing is not charming and does not give us much reason to extend good faith. Listening for consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes could be a winning strategy. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof again has refused to this page to yet again make edits ? Did not this forum recommend he stay away ? Why did he revisit again ? Can he finally be banned from touching this page ? Please just look @ the facts. You cant say that the fact that Torossian's firm is one of largest isnt relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]
• 5th revert: [74]
• 6th revert: [75]
• 7th revert: [76]
• 8th revert: [77] including removal of source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] [80][81]

Comments:

Past Arbcom sanctions warning: [82] for tendentious "original research" and aggressive edit-warring.

To my mind user is being disruptive and ignoring WP guidance and policy.--Howelseornotso (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian was edit warring with multiple editors and he continues [83] [84] [85] with new IP's. To clarify, I'm not is the same editor as the IP's.--Howelseornotso (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether Varsovian broke 3RR here, as some of the diffs above are not technically reverts. It also seems that Howelseornotso is edit warring on the same article. A newly registered account, and first thing this account does is edit warring. Even more worrisome are that mysteriously three anon SPA's appeared (69.165.137.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 76.10.167.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.196.131.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) at the article and another article, with the only purpose to revert Varsovian's edits. It seems that sockpuppetry is the problem here, not edit warring. Pantherskin (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Add this ip 69.196.129.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. Not sure whether a range block is possible, otherwise the page should be semi-protected. Pantherskin (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that you are unrelated to these mysterious IP's. In any case you created your account on April 2, and you already know about 3RR, arbcom and correct wiki formatting. So you might or might not be the same editor as the IP's, but you certainly do not look like someone new. Pantherskin (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Suggest following the steps of
  WP:Request for comment. The mysterious IP editors are all from Ontario. Getting this article right seems to require a lot of patience since there are so many conflicting explanations for the Polish non-participation in the parade. Finding more sources would be a worthwhile effort. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354161975

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354238589
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354258963
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354263063
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&oldid=354317849

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

Warned.

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

Comments:

Article is subject to a 1RR rule - mentioned at the top of the talk page. I've tried to engage with the user on both the talk page and their user talk (I've not been directly involved in the edit war myself <UPDATE: I have now>).

I recommend a topic ban for TheDarkLordSeth.

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [86]

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments: This user has been reverting/vandalising continuity of the page and falsely accuses me of vandalism in his edit summary's. Also giving what I belive could construed as him threatening me with a block. I believe that if I try to fix it again he'll make good on his threat, revert again and try and get me blocked before I can report him hereThe C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are not even four reverts, and it does not apply to reverting vandalism. The C of E even acknowledges on his userpage that Northern Ireland does not have a flag, since it does not. He is a fine one to talk about edit summaries, given "rv vandalism". It is also worth looking at what was said to him here, "stop adding flags against policy and/or without achieving consensus. The alternative is that your next block is your last, as far as I'm concerned. We cannot and will not tolerate this single-minded disruption." Despite being told many times, The C of E persists in disruptively adding unofficial and sectarian flags, even though he knows Northern Ireland does not have a flag. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No violation but both need to re-read

talk

) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [96]

Comments:

Please make him stop. -- Taku (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No violation, in fact the reporter has reverted four times to the reportee's three, though it's over a 36 hour period. Content dispute; dispute resolution is

Page: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Under "Claims that the UN is antisemitic", 23:54, March 26, 2010 Emmanuelm added first version of paragraph about EAFORD statement. Zero000 deleted it with valid criticism (this delete is not counted in the list below). Emmanuelm rephrased the text and inserted it 22:13, March 28, 2010 as such:

In March 2010, the statement of an NGO, re-printed as UNHRC publication A/HRC/13/NGO/23, contains accusation of organ theft. This accusation was deemed antisemitic by the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a take-off of the historical calumny of the

Jewish blood libel" ^[1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:

The argument is spelled out in the talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be at the

Human Rights Council receives large numbers of submissions from NGOs and publishes them in the agendas for its meetings. For the meeting ended recently, there were 139 such submissions [99]. All of them were published with a disclaimer stating that they are being presented unedited according to the rules of procedure. (Here (click on the "E" of A/HRC/13/NGO/111) is an example of a submission by the pro-Israeli NGO UN Watch making charges against various Islamic countries; see the disclaimers on the front page.) One of the submissions this time was from a little-known NGO called EAFORD, which included a charge that Israel harvests body organs of Palestinians. This is an obnoxious charge, and if someone wants to write an article on EAFORD it should be mentioned there. However, Emmanuelm wants it to be on this page in a form that many readers will take as meaning that the UN itself made charges about body part harvesting, and shows no interest in mentioning the disclaimer published with it. EAFORD's charge was not raised at the HRC meeting at all, according to the on-line video minutes, and as far as anyone has claimed no UN organ has ever made any sort of statement in support of EAFORD's charge. Also, the quote from CJC that Emmanuelm wants to include is a (justified) attack on the EAFORD claim; why does it belong in an article on the UN? The only real claim against the UN in the given source (a newspaper polemic) is an argument that they should censor submissions. Maybe that issue is one that deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but much more material than this minor incident would be needed. Zero^talk

04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Zero for mentioning UN Watch. [Hillel] Neuer told The Jerusalem Post that the UNHRC in the past has asked UN Watch to change the language in documents that UN Watch plans to submit, including in this session where UNHRC asked UN Watch to edit their words with reference to Iran and Libya. If UN Watch can’t use the word “regime” when talking about Iran, then one would think that a “blood libel” would be unacceptable, Neuer said.[2]. This is precisely the nature of the accusation against the UN in the National Post article. The antisemitism & CJC part is there merely to explain why they want the UN to censors this kind of text; antisemitism is condemned by several UNGA resolutions.

Now, I sense that you are changing your mind on the acceptability of this item in the article. The spirit of WP is to edit rather than delete. You might want to insert your version in the paragraph called "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism", along with other documented incidents. You see, the article already contains "more material than this minor incident".

As for where this edit war should be arbitrated, I am no expert. You may move it where you wish. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Article is part of the ARBMAC restriction. --Tadija^taking 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija you are not allowed to edit Kosovo-related articles for 2 weeks[100] or to make any edits related to them. [101] [102] [103] This report is a violation of your restriction. For the record this is not a revert-war case as kedadi was reverting a user who was pov-pushing and now retired shouting and insulting admins. [104][105]. Also if you read the 3RR article you'll see that the point of 3RR is to prevent damage to encyclopedia not to punish users, now there is no disruption because Shanticm has retired and therefore no need for any action is needed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is related only to article-space, not this one. And it is unrelated what i am, and what other user is. --Tadija^taking 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That applies to all areas as defined by the policy. You aren't allowed to edit areas related to the Balkans or make any edits related to them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. "he may not edit pages in article-space related to the Balkans". I agreed on that, so i know. --Tadija^taking 09:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That applies to all areas so you're violating your restriction.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadija is absolutely correct. He is allowed to edit talk and project pages and whatever else, as long as he does not edit the articles themselves. I've been watching him to make sure he sticks to the restriction, and he has, which is a credit to him. --Deskana (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, if it's an article-only restriction.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There seems to be no disruption caused by Shanticm as he left [106][107] wikipedia by insulting users, so we should close this case.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kedadi hasn't made another revert since the warning he was given so I'm taking no action. If he reverts again, by all means re-report it. Pop by my talk page if you want should he revert - I'll be around most of the day. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: March 27

• 1st revert: 10:20, 28 March 2010
• 2nd revert: 10:23, 28 March 2010
• 3rd revert: 10:29, 28 March 2010
• 4th revert: 10:59, 28 March 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion was a bit scattered and mostly not on article talk [109] [110] Knoerrepes did not take part in any discussion regarding the article.

Comments:
Description: Repeated page blanking. All the original reverts are within 40 minutes. As can be seen from the dates this case is a bit old. This is because in hopes that this person will reconsider and give up edit warring on this article, he was not reported earlier. Unfortunately this has not happened and he continues his blanking repeatedly ever since, just a few additional examples [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. It is notable that this blanking leaves over 40 from the over 100 sources in the article, and most of the content is deleted as well. This mass removal of sourced information is extremely disruptive in addition to the original 4 reverts within 40 minutes, so I would ask that an admin look at the situation here and stop the disruption. It is also clear that there is no consensus for this move and ignoring the BRD cycle he continues to blank the article. It is also notable that Knorrepoes's recent contribution history shows, he has not a single edit to any talk page or user talk page recently it's all reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Warned. It's simply too long after (around 30 hours) the last revert to act here and even then the 3RR violation goes back over a week. I've given him a warning and another undiscussed revert will end in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Milton Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: J.R. Hercules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

J.R. Hercules makes some changes, some of which are OK, some of which I object to.

here is the edit in question, his previous were just rewording/reorganization

March 25th:

• J.R. Hercules makes some changes: [116]
• I object to one addition in particular: [117]
• he re-adds with slight changes: [118]
• re-adds again [119]
• and again [120]

April 8

• 1st revert: [121]
• 2nd revert: [122]
• 3rd revert: [123]
• 4th revert: [124]
• 5th revert: [125]
• 6th revert: [126]
• 7th revert: [127]

A friendly note on his talk page explaining some of my concerns: [128] A reminder that he is over the 3 revert rule (march 25th) [129] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130] april 8

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131] me [132] user:Rjensen

Comments:

I have tried to work with this editor via edit summaries, on the talk page, and on his talk page. He has ignored the substance of my arguments and accused me of breaking some policy [133]. Further, when I warned him about his 3 revert violation his response was to (erroneously) tag me with the same 3rr template [134] despite the fact that I have not violated the 3rr rule. I am more than willing to work with this editor, but he has to make an effort to actually resolve our differences via talk, rather than simply charging ahead with edits he knows will be contentious. Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 31 hours for 3RR violation. Editor re-adds the same passage many times even after the need for getting consensus has been explained. He formally violated 3RR on 8 April. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Lithuanian language (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kazimier Lachnovič (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

• 1th revert: 2010-04-07T18:20:47
• 2rd revert: 2010-04-07T20:16:10
• 3nd revert: 2010-04-08T10:41:48
• 4st revert: 2010-04-08T16:43:03

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Comments:
For the past weeks user:Kazimier Lachnovič‘s only “contributions” are exclusively reverts on multiply pages. Already several articles are affected by his weeks’ long edit warring (Lithuanian language as well). The previous clear warning to stop edit warring failed to stop such practice. M.K. (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 72h for edit-warring. In the month of April, the editor has made 14 reverts; he almost never participates on talk pages. This appears to be a nationalist dispute in Eastern Europe. The article is within the scope of
  WP:DIGWUREN, which allows admins to impose discretionary sanctions if needed. The block may be lifted if the editor will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [137]

• 1st revert: [138]
• 2nd revert: [139]
• 3rd revert: [140]
• 4th revert: [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142] [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Eudemis Talk:Russell Crowe

Comments:This editor continues to add the name of a non-notable individual, which was removed per

Wildhartlivie has reverted my initial edit that was properly sourced multiple times and I have, at length, sought to explain the accuracy issues involved on the talk page, a discussion which I also initiated. He has now taken to reverted my sourcing of unsourced material in the article as well. I would encourage anyone so interested to review his unique perspectives on wikipedia concepts here. [144] His objection to naming an individual at the center of a highly publicized controversy with the subject of the article makes absolutely no sense where the individual's name appears in countless media articles online. The fact that he's named everywhere. [145][146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] doesn't make an impression on Wildhartlivie. His misinterpretation of the requirement for notability I have explained several times without success. The problem is one of ownership where editors attempt to control all content. This is much more likely to happen with celebrity articles. Again, I would encourage anyone to review the talk page. Eudemis (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My "misinterpretation" of notability is not a misinterpretation at all. It is factually based in

canvassing in this manner [153] [154] [155] [156] and the ad hominem attacks he makes on me in those posts. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 04:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected. Protected by

talk

) 03:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Ramat Shlomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Accipio Mitis Frux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

1. 18:16, 8 April 2010 (edit summary: "Edited Intro: The 2nd and 3rd sentences were repeated in the "Political Status" section. This information should only be in one section.")
2. 01:19, 9 April 2010 (edit summary: "Edited Intro: I explained the political hype which caused a stir in March 2009 with Biden, etc.")
3. 13:23, 9 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 354938416 by Nableezy (talk)")
4. 13:26, 9 April 2010 (edit summary: "Erased "however" and changed "opponents of Israel" to "Israel's critics"")
5. 14:06, 9 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 354943882 by Sean.hoyland (talk) (See discussion--my changes are all well sourced and clearly improve the article.)")

In each of these diffs the user has removed from the lead that this settlement is located across the Green Line and is considered an Israeli settlement. The user has also responded to the edit warring notice sent to him by sending the same notice to others and re-reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ramat_Shlomo#Overall.2C_fairly_biased.2C_anti-Israel_page

Comments:

nableezy - 14:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here! You reverted a whole bunch of edits without posting to my talk page or the discussion, and then when I contacted you to discuss any issues directly, you go ahead and report me. Why didn't you just say the issue was that the Green Line statement was erased from the lead!? Seems like you want me off this page for some reason. However, I have the right to edit this page in a clean, sourced fashion, as I've done. Also, why do you have the exclusive right to give edit warring warnings? I can warn people as well, and I'm completely offended that you would cite me for that.

I've gone ahead and put the Green Line information you so desperately want in the lead. Next time, be specific about the issue or just add it in, as opposed to reverting it to less developed version of the article. And don't report people without really trying to work out specific issues. This is not cool. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I did. I retained many of your changes to the body, some of them were inappropriate so I reverted those. I also reverted your changes to lead where you removed the most notable aspect of this place and instead inserted some recent news. And reverting 5 times is "not cool". nableezy - 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't revert five times! And I deliberately inserted what I felt are the "most notable" aspects of this page in the lead. If you felt that your green line issues were more notable, you could have added them to the introduction, and we could have avoided this whole war. That's how you improve a page--you add and expand to sourced contributions. If you are an experience wikipedian you should know that reverting a large number of sourced edits is going to cause a stir. You feel that something should stay in the lead? Fine. This is not the way to go about it though. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 5 reverts listed above. And I did add the Green Line info, you repeatedly removed it. nableezy - 15:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Please could an admin officially notify Accipio Mitis Frux of the discretionary sanctions covering this topic and log it. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Now that Accipio has been notified by Malik Shabazz of the
  WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions, I suggest that no further admin action may be needed unless he continues to revert. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 20:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Democratic Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:49, 9 April 2010 (edit summary: "The party's major positions, such as abortion, homosexuality, universal health care, progressive taxation, and gun control are all considered to be center-left/liberal. The party is not centrist.")
2. 00:08, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "*rageface* Their platorm is center-left/liberal, not centrist. If you keep adding this, I'll add 'Centrist' to the Republican page as well.")
3. 00:14, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "Name me 3 centrist positions; the party, as is, is liberal, not centrist.")
4. 00:22, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355048711 by UberCryxic (talk) Invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; these edits made by those two are not improving WP.")
5. 00:28, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355050013 by The Four Deuces (talk) You get consensus.")

• Diff of warning: 00:19, 10 April 2010

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert an edit three times; I only did it four. Also, I was preventing what is viewed where I live, the United States, as faulty information. I guess it is up to you to decide if what I did was wrong, however. TN05 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 03:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [159]

• 1st revert: [160]
• 2nd revert: [161]
• 3rd revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Comments:

I am one of the other editors who have reverted Npendleton/207.172.146.226 and confirm everything said above by epicAdam. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll call this Stale for now, since there has been no edit warring in the past 24 hours. Drop me a note on my talk page if the edit warring resumes and I'll take another look.

talk

) 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Npendleton's Comment:This page involves the largest known on-going repealing of rights and disenfranchisement of United States Citizens, with 600,000 citizens impacted. This paged lacked most of the NPOV facts, clear and summarized questions, timeline, such as why were DC citizens, individual, state and access to Federal Rights alienated by Congress, acting as the State Government, and why DC citizens have asked for some or all rights be restored to them.

I added these NPOV facts. "SMP0328." uses long, vague, incomplete and water down language, and selective over summary, and repeated deletion to protect "SMP0328."'s POV. Deleters tactics include summarily discounting all NPOV facts.

No one has identified one NPOV fact (that I provided) as factually inaccurate.

Deletion of the NPOV facts about key questions of US Constitutional Rights by "SMP0328." and others is shockingly bad. (I am also humored that this user use a "." at the end of their user name to demonstrate how easy it is cut off discussion.) I have asked on the Discussion page which NPOV fact bothers these busy deleters of history. Not one person that has deleted the NPOV facts I contributed has challenged a point in the material I submitted.

Challenging one bit of POV astroturf such as:

SMP0328. version "The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to the states, which the District is not."

one might consider inserting correct and but vague language of Congressional behavior and lengthy process into the article

"Congress, partitioned ("Cession"ed) Maryland to establish the District of Columbia. Because Congress alone interprets "Exclusive" under Article One, Section 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution, Congress alone repealed and alienated voting rights and congressional voting representation for the Citizens of this District."

Any constructive input on the NPOV facts and removing POV astroturf? How do we assure NPOV is applied?Npendleton (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a word or two in Npendleton's comment above might be NPOV. I said "might". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Three things: (1) I didn't write that article, so don't attribute everything in it to me; (2) This issue is certainly not "stale", for Npendleton has again readded his NPOV violating material; and (3) Having reliable sourcing for what you say does not mean what you say doesn't violate NPOV. If reliable sourcing was sufficient for complying with NPOV, then NPOV would be redundant. SMP0328. (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't even really know where to begin with this editor. Based on this user's edit summaries, I can only imagine that this user has no intention of acting in good faith and is simply taunting the editors with whom he or she disagrees. The talk page discussion very quickly turned into this user's own philosophical diatribe. Over a period of several days, four individual editors, including myself, have reverted this user's edits; there is clearly no consensus for this user's changes. Despite Npendleton's claims to the contrary, it is not the responsibility of other users to accommodate an individual whose edits are unsourced, poorly written, tangentially related to the article topic, and violate a NPOV. -

epicAdam^(talk

) 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Kharkiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.113.128.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [166]

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]

Comments:

This IP address only contributes to the article Kharkiv, and appears to be reverting without discussion on the talk page. Minimac (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected. Protected by

talk

) 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Michael Cera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 95.178.135.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]
• 5th revert: [177]
• 6th revert: [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [180]

Comments:

• The birthdate information the user is attempting to add is so blatantly incorrect, per multiple sources, that this might well be a case of simple vandalism. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [181]

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]
• 5th revert: [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

Comments:

• I see 5 blocks of edits in the diffs provided but I don't see how these are all reverts. Factomancer, please could you provide, for each diff, the version which is being reverted to. CIreland (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Declined It is unclear whether the diffs given are reverts and the reporting editor has ignored a request to clarify the report. CIreland (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192] (not really an issue, included mostly to indicate Renejs still active on page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193] (warned of ANI notification) Past warnings: [194] & [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], & [201]

Comments:

I initially reported Renejs to the ANI [202], but while admins said that something should be done, they refrained from taking action as they didn't feel familiar with the subject. Since then Renejs has continued to edit war in accordance with his WP:SPA POV. Please help. Eugene (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected. Please use the Talk page to work out a compromise on the wording. If agreement is reached, ask for unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Christopher Ashlee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 207.237.230.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205] (reverts text i added explaining a citation)
• 3rd revert: [206] (reverts another editor)
• 4th revert: [207]
• 5th revert: [208]
• 6th revert: [209]
• 7th revert: [210]
• 8th revert: [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Comments

The IP has just come off a 55 hour block for disruptive editing and is also being looked at for possible sockpuppetry and block evasion (two very similar IP addresses are currently on a one year block for trolling, but the SPI hasn't returned any sort of verdict yet. just suspicions).

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Rusty Trombone, for reference. Jack Merridew 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And when that SPI resolves itself, I trust you'll strike the above comment and address the issue at hand. Know who else likes to take focus off matters and place them where they're not appropriate? Delicious carb. Jack, have you ever had a sock puppet yourself? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Had a sockpuppet? I am a sockpuppet ;)

—Sincerely,

Sockpuppet Jack Merridew

18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)