Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive161

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronald Wenonah (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: [link]

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

Comments:

The user;Ronald Wenonah has been committing disruptive editing for some time now, he was blocked on June 9th, 2011 because of it. On June 11th, he was right back to it. I don't believe Ronald got the message last time and I am asking for an extended block.Tirronan (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Tirronan has been reverting properly cited and verifiable edits for around two years(see User talk:Hubertgrove and User talk:TirronanArchive 4,in the section "War of 1812".I am sure there are others.I think that, before blocking me, you should look at these links. The editors in question both seem to have had the same problem: Tirronan dislikes their edits and calls them vandals, says that their properly cited and verifiable edits are incorrect or their own theories, and eventually decide to cease editing on Wikipedia . I am thinking of doing that, but would like to get this properly resolved first. Both aforementioned editors would probably be willing to give evidence if they could be contacted. Please advise.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have reverted Ronald exactly once in the last week and as maybe ascertained by the history of edits, users, Rjensen, Dwalrus, Discool, have all reverted him each giving him reasons why his edits are not reaching a consensus. I have warned him on his talk page before reverting him that his edits were simply repetition of subject matter already covered and that ascertaining a motive of revenge is not encyclopedic, and counter to the current historiography for some time now. Nor have I been the only one to warn him. Once again, attempts to make this some sort of personal vendetta by myself when I was not the one that blocked him seem to be misplaced anger. Neither I, nor any of the editors on the page has been in favor of this addition and Ronald has been repeatedly inserting said addition into the article over and over again without comment. He has been up for this several times and I believe the admin Phillip Bard was the last that I saw on the subject, and again I was not involved.Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron, just to be clear, your intent is to continue to revert the article to your preferred state and ignore the opinions of the four editors reverting you? Kuru (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Ronald Wenonah is wrong to attack the user;Tirronan on this issue. The problem has been apparent to a number of editors and not just to one. Ronald Wenonah has been engaging in disruptive editing for some time now. It has been pointed out to him that part of his edit is already in the article (on annexation and the small size of the US navy) and therefore it is not necessary to repeat it. A large part of his edit is about events that occurred during the American Revolution and it is the view of other editors that it is not appropriate for the War of 1812 article. He insists that because it is in a book on the war by an historian it should be included. I pointed out that this is an article and not a book, therefore the amount of content must be limited. Putting in material on events from 30+ years previously is simply wrong for this article. This is the largest part of his edit. Finally, part of his edit is nothing more than opinion and is not supported by his source. Sadly, since he will not listen to reason something should be done.Dwalrus (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Ronald Wenohan's edits on the War of 1812 article twice, both within a span of two days. In this latest spate of editing, Ronald Wenonah refuses to bring his controversial edit to the War of 1812 article's talk page. When I saw him break 3RR he reverted edits three times between 08:33, 5 June 2011 and 08:15, 6 June 2011, I was motivated to help keep the article in line with current consensus. This is a case in which I had hoped the editor in question would participate in a discussion about his edits, but he has failed to do so, rather he insists on wasting other editors' time in cleaning up after him. —Diiscool (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Wenonah has repeatedly ignored the editors who point out he's not using RS on the topic of American diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The page War of 1812 has a definite American bias, partly due to the fact that the only people editing it seem to be Americans. I would like to add a couple of seperate points of view to the article, and show that,the idea of the US wanting to annex Canada is not just a "minority theory". From what I know of what Canadians think about the war of 1812,it definitely seems that general public opiniion is that the US wanted to annex Canada. Some even think that it was a British victory. So, I think that point of view should be reflected in the war of 1812 page. Dwalrus, who commented above, even said that certain parts of my article were completeley correct(or at least viably supported0. These are the parts that he mentioned:1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris"(that was a quote) Wow. Didn't he attack me for that just above?Why won't he let the information he described as correct stay on the page?Ronald Wenonah (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is centered on current historiography, as supported by both US and Canadian historians. This isn't my choice nor that of the other editors, we don't get to make that choice, the historians do. I personally think the British won that war, but you don't see that on the info box do you? Because MY OPINION DOES NOT MATTER, nor any other editor's opinion either. We report what the mainstream historians write, regardless of if I agree with them or not. That is what it takes to be an honest Wikipedian with an article, we are not here to put our personal opinions into an article. This is what you are missing, if there is a bias then you need to birng it up with the writers of those books, not childrens books nor some minor historian. I have cross checked the facts, and there is not a lot of variation on the facts between any of the major authors US or Canadian. That is why the article is writen as it is. If the historians change their view then so will the article. Misrepresenting ciations, or in one case flat lying about what the citation said to get your edit in, and endlessly pushing an edit over the other editors objections will not work. I invite you to the talk pages to discuss what you want to see and work with us don't try and force an edit through, it is disruptive editing.Tirronan (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Regardless of content issues, Ronald is clearly edit warring against multiple editors. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solopiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued uncommunicative edit warring over the same edit:

• [6]

Previous AN3 cases:

• [7]
• [8]

Warning by Administrator User:2over0 as result of latest AN3: [9]

Comments:

Despite two previous AN3 cases resulting in blocks and warnings, Solopiel has continued to edit war. 2over0 has advised me on his talk page that he can't currently give this attention, and that I should mention it here. (Hohum ^@) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Solopiel's edits seem to be reverted by various other editors right away, also with no edit summary or explanation. This suggests that the issue has been discussed before at a talkpage somewhere and there is consensus to include whatever he is removing. Could you please provide a link to whatever that discussion was? (In any case I think a block will probably be appropriate, I just want to check.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You should see that he has been talked to on his talk page about it, but doesn't respond. (Hohum ^@)

Warned User hasn't edited in 2 days and wasn't even reported until 2 days after his latest revert, so at this point a block would merely be

Page: Bleep censor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrJoshbumstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10] (diff against current: [11])

• 0th revert: [12]
• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
A weird one here. Someone keeps trying to bowlderise every expletive on that article (plus the word Holocaust!). Not exactly a 3RR but although the guy just seems to have some mistaken ideas rather than being malicious, it's been explained a couple of times in the previous reverts that what he's doing is not quite right, with reference to the proper guidelines. He did attempt to explain himself, I think, in the article's talk page but I couldn't quite extract the meaning out of his heterodox spelling conventions.

79.144.86.143 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Yes, I go by IP not user name)

• Declined I understand and sympathize with the concerns of the reporting editor, but the edits have been too intermittent to justify an edit-warring block. I have watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on things. CIreland (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note Updated section title to reflect verdict by CIreland + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd, with a notable degree of arrogance
• 4th revert: [diff]

An active edit warrior making numerous reverts in what appears to have become a slow edit war, insisting on a personal point of view. Has shown a disrespect for using talk pages (keeps posting on personal talk pages instead), and a POV tendency can be underlined by this revert, where the three heritage branches are replaced by one ("Orthodox Slavic") with a disregard to the source provided. All edits continue to push a POV with demographic data insisting on higher (and misinterpreted) figures as shown here. I am currently working to reduce the article in size for a Featured Article candidate in the future, while the user is doing the exact opposite. I've provided a link to an older version before any edit warring occured, though it is not necessarily the same as the current version due to a number of rather minor changes that have been made.

The user has been engaged in the talk page concerning the constant addition of a "capital" province article which does not exist, with the main reason being that the given user thinks two different provinces can be "confused" [20]. Thereafter, instead of addressing the issue at the article talk page, the user does so on my personal talk page [21], this time with a desire not to engage in edit warring. I responded adequately [22], but after only a couple of sentences the user again demonstrated his own idea of which sources are "reliable" and which are not [23]. I have addressed the nature of his edits on his talk page [24], although he managed to twist it into an imagery discussion. A final example of the tendentious edits of the user would be this edit by User:Питър , which placed the 2011 GDP esimates in the infobox [25]; User:Pensionero's last edits claim mine to be a vandalism to the infobox, while what he does is restoring the old data only to have his nationalist intro and POV-ed information back [26]. The fact that the user engages the issue in my personal talk page, and not on the article talk page, as well as his general preferences for source and image material are demonstrative of his personal POV pushing.

I'll have to remind that the user has already been banned twice on the same grounds.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Bot and a few seconds later, by me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Could you show where I was exactly insisting with my point of view? This edit [28] I reverted 2 times and explained you that as mistake I haven't seen the source and can you exactly show other example of POV editing by me beacause your explanation have strong misleading? The capital province exist: and I am tired of your illiteracy , when you don't know don't insist. The last GDP edits have not been sourced and usually such replacinf of sourced info is considered vandalism. The things you cover is the distutive removal of information which you revert 3 times today and after my block I was never reverting 3 times in 24 hours an administrator could check. User:Pensionero (UTC)

- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pensionero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: 1st today
• 2nd revert: 2nd today
• 3rd revert: 3rd today

The user is actively disruptevely reverting content from few days in the article. Today he reached 3rd in 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pensionero (UTC)

• Declined Neither editor has yet violated the 3-revert-rule. Both editors are encouraged to seek consensus at the talk page and, if necessary, seek wider input by one the methods suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: List of large triptychs by Francis Bacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:18, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Δ (talk) to last version by Tabletop")
2. 12:19, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872097 by Δ (talk)")
3. 12:20, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872250 by Δ (talk)")
4. 12:21, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "you win, reverting")
5. 12:22, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872421 by Δ (talk)")

Repeatedly re-adding non-free files without rationales. —ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And will continue to do so. You mamy's boys unthinking bot like prat, did you even look at the article. Ceoil 12:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you will be blocked. The usage of non-free content requires a

rationale for each. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I may get blocked, but you'l still be wrong. Ceoil 12:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the

non-free content policy it requires rationales for every use of non-free materiel. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• what about listing your own five reverts (with no talk page discussion)? Arm wrestling is no way to convince others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ, a much easier way to go would be to explain to Ceoil, who is actually interested in the subject matter about the need for tweaking and adding to the FUR, instead of this confrontational behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I left a clear reason in my edit summary, which was ignored, and then I left a clear warning on his talk page, which he blindly reverted. Not much else I can do if the user will not listen. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh you mean that? Why not clearly and succinctly state what needs to be done rather than some generic template which actually doesn't. How on earth is anyone supposed to read that template as a constructive message? The aim here is to solve a problem collaboratively, not charge around threatening other users. Clearly art is a subject Ceoil cares about, so maybe some tact would have gone a long way. It looks like Ceoil and Modernist are discussing how to solve the problem now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • • you really cant get much clearer than remove files without a valid rationale for this usage and linking to the guide to write correct rationales. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that Beta/Delta is the King of All Deletionists on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Deletionist my ass, There are cases where I will vehemently defend the usage of non-free content, it just needs to be justified (aka the cover used on Virgin Killer is one of those examples) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Virgin Killer? O mentioning that is a lovely move. Is guilt by association the best you can do, or are you using an extreme example as justification for a crusade. Either is dull. Ceoil 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • • Neither, It was just the first example that came to mind, There are others, but I dont feel like digging around and locating them at the moment. Two others on quick notice are Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Worf. In both cases I will defend the use of non-free content there. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Listen to yourself. I will defend, Then you will be blocked, Not much else I can do. I'm wondering if there is a mind at work here, prob not given the evidence here. Ceoil 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • In that one sentence, he's told us way more than we needed to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Yep. Ceoil 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There's plenty else you can do. One thing is to not edit-war yourself and then hypocritically report someone else for edit-warring. Another is to fix the problem yourself, which would have taken less time than edit-warring over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit war has abated and some of the parties are taking constructive steps to address the situation; as such, administrator action is not necessary at this point. Skomorokh 13:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I've rewritten a few of the Fair use Rationales...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive161
User being reported: 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: 11:36, 11 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 09:36, 12 June 2011
• 3rd revert: 13:05, 12 June 2011
• 4th revert: 13:14, 12 June 2011
• 5th revert: 14:02, 12 June 2011
• 6th revert: 19:57, 12 June 2011
• 7th revert: 20:24, 12 June 2011
• 8th revert: 22:17, 12 June 2011

Note: the first two are by one IP and the last three by another. But based on the article's history I think it's clear there's one individual who's intent on preserving the romanticized tone of the article. (Edit) Also, I checked a few of the IPs that have reverted the article, and noticed that they were all listed on various web sites as available proxies.

• 122.224.79.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [30]
• 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [31]
• 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [32]
• 115.78.224.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
Someone appears to have been protecting the over-the-top language in

Should this be considered an irony or a joke? The person who accused me of edit warring is the one who started it [35]. I would also advise anyone to read through this discussion before taking further action. The one thing he is right about is that this computer has an open proxy port that I've been working on, but am currently unable to close. I don't have much else to add, except to check through the article's edit history and judge for yourself.

Edit: Another thing this person likes to do is calling different IPs the same person, which we are not. However, I would suggest the administrators to check which account/s the IP reporting me here is linked to. I have a feeling it's someone who's been editing that article before, probably on the same day. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you could say I 'started it' in that I made a change you didn't like, removing silly romantic language about how drifters lead lives that are "completely free and fulfilling," and then had the audacity to object to your revert of my changes as 'vandalism'. But as you have reverted similar changes by other editors before, from a variety of proxies, it'd be more accurate to call this an ongoing pattern of disruption on your part. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And to reply to your addition to your comment, I'll say the same thing I said on the article's talk page: It's unlikely enough that multiple editors would all be watching and reverting this article to keep the romantic language in place using the same tactics and the same edit summaries, but it's even less believable that every one of those editors would happen to be using an open proxy. You can accuse me of being whoever you'd like to (although I would have nothing to gain by intentionally logging out to make this report, as admins frequently pay less attention to IPs than they do registered users). But I actually have evidence of your misuse of multiple IP addresses. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected Both IPs are edit warring. I would semi-protect, but Dayewalker is also-involved, so I am fully protecting it. You guys now have 1 week to work out a consensus at the article's talk page; if an agreement is reached before 1 week is up, I can lift the protection early. If anyone continues reverting after consensus is established they may be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I am not edit warring. I have reverted that page twice - three times if you count the consecutive, unique edits I made reverting different parts of the article with the other IP reverting me in between two of them, which I didn't even realize. Unless you consider a change a new editor makes without realizing (due to the lack of talk page discussion) that it's been made and reverted before as a 'revert'? Either way, I stopped hours ago and have since made only one edit, with new changes that I hoped would help work towards some sort of agreement, using citation needed tags rather than removing the disputed content, since the other anon was not willing to budge on his romantic language, even though he wasn't willing to explain why it was so important that it remain (it was, of course, reverted wholesale.) Meanwhile the other editor has reverted no less than eight times. And you've just protected the page with his preferred version in place. I guess that's the way to 'win' a content dispute? Just revert over and over against four other editors and hope that your version happens to be the one in place when someone finally protects the article?

Based on the other editor's behavior on the page, I see no chance of productive discussion - he won't even address the neutrality issue, much less attempt to form a consensus about it. What you have here is someone using multiple IP proxies to enforce his romantic ideal of a self-sufficient, non-conformist drifter and whitewash the reality of often marginalized people who are frequently mentally ill or have crippling substance abuse problems. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did edit war. Edit warring is still edit warring even if you haven't reached three reverts; please read

WP:3RR

carefully.

As for which version of the page happened to be up when I applied protection, that was immaterial; please see

WP:PREFER

. Administrators generally just protect the current version; that doesn't mean that the current version is the one being "supported", and it is not going to be around forever (the faster you people work out a consensus at the talk page, the faster the consensus version of the article can be implemented and the protection removed.

As for the content issues, to be perfectly honest I don't care. The edit warring noticeboard is not a place to ascertain whose edits are right or wrong; it's a place to ascertain whose behavior has been disruptive. The content issue is immaterial here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]

The above constitutes 4 RR in a 24 hour period on June 6th, but he continues with many more reverts up until the present (June 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

This appears to be a serial edit warrior, going by all the block notices for 4RR already on his talkpage... Pity he hasn't learned anything from those blocks and still refuses to discuss whatsoever, only revert, revert, revert a section that had been previously hashed-out and agreed upon by multiple editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the citation needed tags without adding reliable sources. The rest is a simply reformat placing all hypothesis as a list. I didn't remove anything. Editors are free to edit changes to it.Analyzer99 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months Clearly edit warring against multiple editors, and already has a lengthy history of blocks for edit warring. Willing to lift block early if editor agrees to participate in discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#An_NPOV_issue

Comments:

User LedRush has been edit-warring against several other editors to restore the NPOV tag to this article. I removed the tag (once) on June 4 as a result of the seeming consensus at this now-archived discussion. This seems like a futile battle for this user to be carrying on. The user has been around and is familiar with 3RR and our policies. John (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake in one of my edits and deleted both the NPOV tag part and the date. Another editor fixed my mistake and accidentally added the wrong date (June instead of March). [49] I fixed his good-faith attempt to fix my accidental post. I did not revert him or edit his work. Therefore, I have three reversions in a 24-hour period. I have continually been discussing the matter on the talk page, but I promise not to edit the tag again until consensus to remove or add it has been reached.LedRush (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the "consensus" was reached in 24 hours, and immediately afterwards there was a strong backlash of people with specific issues with the article (here[50] and here[51], including comments by Jimbo Wales saying the article is better, but still hasn't addressed the POV issues first raised in March). Of course, that wouldn't excuse breaking the 3RR if I had in fact done so.LedRush (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question[52] was a partial revert of this edit[53] where you disagreed with the editor's correction of the date, thus a clear revert technically seen.

talk

) 12:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

John's findings appear correct - four reverts, not three. SuperMarioMan 13:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the same link that John included in his original report.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that one of my edits above is not a reversion of another editor or his work for the reasons above, I have not edited the article in the last day or so and have promised not to edit the tag until a resolution is made. Additionally, I did not edit after having received the warnings on my talk page (including the the polite warning I received from another editor and the later, template warning that John gave me minutes before he reported me - both which seem to jibe with my interpretation that I had made only 3 reverts, and John's which warns that if I would continue to revert I may be subject to a block) and I have been participating in the talk page discussion. I will furthermore promise not to edit the article at all for another 3 days from now and limit myself to 2 reversions per 24-hour period for a month so that if there is a disputed edit like this one, it shouldn't be an issue. I had no intent to edit war in the past and have no intent to edit war in the future, so these restrictions should serve as a good reminder of that.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Report is stale anyway and it's very unlikely you get blocked and with your promise (and I'm sure you'll keep it) even less likely since it wouldn't serve any purpose anymore.

talk

) 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Bottlenose dolphin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.89.62.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Comments:
User is inserting unsourced material into the article, and an original analogy comparing the animals to the Jews during the Holocaust. I've asked them to discuss it on the talk page [60] [61] twice, and was ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Above users never attempted to post on the talk page their reasons for deletion, in fact citing only in edit notation no reason other than personal opinion of what "original research" is and personal bias/belief as to the end-user(my) intentions were. Please refer to the talk page of the aforementioned article for further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User is clearly edit warring. Technically Stemonitis is also edit warring, although I am only warning him because in this case he was restoring the consensus version and the onus was on the IP to get consensus for his edits before restoring them. (On top of that, the content under dispute borders on ridiculous anyway, to the point that I have my suspicions it's trolling.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 16:33, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:46, June 11, 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 14:31, June 12, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --contradictory statements in Lede")
4. 18:38, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 15:36, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page for previous revision --contradiction in lede")
6. 19:00, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "not edit warring --my last comment on talk page dealing with this edit has just been ignored.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: 4 reverts in 24 hours, and 6 in total, including one immediately after seeing EW warning on his talk page, article talk page, and in edit summary. One of the four is from an ip address he's self-identified as in talk page comments, such as here. He's also warring over a POV tag being included in the article, outside of the diffs provided above.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jayron32 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanetama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63] (reverted [64])
• 2nd revert: [65] (reverted [66])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67] (after 1st revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments: User repeatedly restoring own edits without any comment or edit summary, never responded to edit warring warning left at talk page. I know it doesn't surpass 3RR, but user's unwillingness to engage in discussion and intentional restoration of edits that he knows are under dispute clearly constitute edit warring, which per

• Comment Have you attempted to resolve the issue directly with the editor before issuing a warning and reporting them? + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• 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. FASTILY ^(TALK)
  21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Mahasti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juustine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

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

Comments: Thanks to the bot for notifying the defendant. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Off note, but yes, it's here to help ^-^ + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: User has stopped a few hours ago, and I've left them a friendly, non-templated message explaining exactly what to do and why to do it. imo this case doesn't need a block, just someone willing to help this new user get used to things here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded: The user does appear to be editing

in good faith and is just uneducated as per the policies on Wikipedia. It wouldn't be beneficial for a block, as stated above, just someone to give them a helping hand and give them comprehension of the editing policies. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP}

09:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale However, this report would have been actionable at the time. Thanks to Ajraddatz for the polite note. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efik_language&dir=prev&action=history

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

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo)

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

• Comment. No violation:
  WP:3RR, see: [73] / [74]. Talk:Efik language actually highlights several personal attacks directed against Kwamikagami. Meph^talk
  23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation and Malformed – There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP}
  09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid
  WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP}
  09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nixle:[75]
User being reported: 71.188.67.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:44, 4 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig is no longer the CEO, he is now the Co-Founder only.), 18:07, 9 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig Mitnick founded Nixle with Firas Emachah. Any change that doesn't reflect this should be considered vandalism.), 20:53, 17 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (These edits are vandalism. Craig Mitnick co-founded Nixle. This is an encyclopedia not a billboard.), 12:55, 14 January 2011 Henrik (talk | contribs) m (20,963 bytes) (Protected Nixle: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)]

Comments:

<As you can see this has been an ongoing problem. The page is continuously vandalized to take Craig Mitnick off the page as co-founder. It is abundantly clear, by the references posted, that Craig co-founded Nixle. This user should be warned by an administrator. If activity continues, maybe the user should be banned for a time.Danny Gosser (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) -->

• Warned Report
  WP:AIV if they vandalize the page again. -FASTILY ^(TALK)
  01:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Efik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mephistophelian

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

• 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:

• Comment. No violation: I closed
  WP:CSK #1, #2.1, #2.2, and #2.4) and subsequently came under fire. Meph^talk
  23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP}
  09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid
  WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP}
  09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Garycompugeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:00, June 10, 2011

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

1. 19:13, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "replaced long standing well balanced intro")
2. 16:15, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433107461 by Jayjg (talk)revert to much discussed and well balanced intro")
3. 20:45, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433607950 by
   talk
   )please do not removed properly sourced well balanced long standing intro")
4. 15:10, 11 June 2011 (edit summary: "Restoring long standing well balanced properly sourced intro that was debated and written by many on both sides of the issue")
5. 20:51, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "no consensus for your proposed changes to intro doc")
6. 16:56, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433943266 by
   talk
   )no consensus for rewriting intro restored established well balanced intro")
7. 20:06, 14 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434288859 by
   talk
   )no consensus for this new unbalanced intro")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Gary has been warned on several occasions in the past (eg., [81]), and can reasonably be expected to be aware of applicable policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All five sections currently at Talk:Circumcision involve this matter.

Comments:

I haven't reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period and I have been talking on the discussion page AND Doc's changes do not have consensus. Should he not gain consensus before rewriting entire intro and deleting much properly sourced well balanced data? Jake and I have had many disputes in the past so please evaluate the talk page yourself. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This report is for edit-warring, which in my view has reached an unacceptable level, and (in the last 2-3 days) now appears to be taking place instead of discussion. Jakew (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am in violation so is Doc James. I am trying to discuss on the talk page and have no wish to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good grief, folks. Why must we have this constant edit warring over this topic? With the level of edit warring on both sides, I'm not really wanting to issue blocks, and I also don't want to protect the article when there appears to be actual editing going on in addition to the revert warring. Can't we just stop the revert warring? I see there is talk page discussion going on, at the very least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We where having some problems on this page with sock puppets. A few have been blocked. Consensus if of course that Wikipedia be based on current evidence (within 5 years). Not stuff that is 20 years sorry 19 years old. Also we use review per consensus and that is what I have done.

talk · contribs · email

) 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illegal Operation has been

• 17:51, June 14, 2011
• 16:36, June 13, 2011
• 19:04, June 11, 2011
• 12:54, June 11, 2011
• 17:05, June 10, 2011

I have warned the editor to stop edit-warring.[82]

But Illegal Operation continues to edit-war after my warning:

• 22:28, June 14, 2011

Also note that Illegal Operation was warned against edit-warring on this very same content by an admin on December 13, 2010[83] so this edit-warring is a long-term problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the source http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html did not talk about Windows Phone market share and was removed. Specifically, the statement on Wikipedia said that Windows Phone has 2.5% market share, yet this is not said anywhere at the source. Apparently, I am using the talk page for discussion, but Enemenemu decided to keep re-adding the source and did not use the talk page until today. I have no idea why A Quest For Knowledge is supporting him. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last time I was contacted by an Admin was 6+ months ago and is irrelevant to this discussion. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that out of the 4 editors discussing this on the talk page, Illegal Operation is the only one against inclusion.[84] So not only is he edit-warring, he's edit-warring against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• He's also stopped completely at this point, so I'd recommend that no block be issued (blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I've left the user a note on his talk page regarding edit warring. It should also be noted that A Quest For Knowledge's actions have not helped at all here. Instead of trying to talk with the editor and find out his side of the story, AQFN has continually left short, commanding messages which only promote hard feelings, not a solution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on Ajraddatz's talk page, but I suppose I should post it here, too. If my messages to Illegal Operation have been curt, it's out of frustration over the fact that he's been edit-warring on this article for 6 months making it very difficult for anyone to work on the article. His latest edit war is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 07:06, June 15, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --you scared cynic dogs")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block (see section above), and immediate return to same edit war.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

See the article on Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He has made multple reversions as you can see here. I've been trying to remove an unsourced claim that some people were "progressive" and he keeps readding it without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both of you are violating 3rr. Please stop reverting and talk it over with the other editor on the article's talk page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I have described my concerns at the BLP Noticeboard. I think that the Pipim article, at least the Resignation section, needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text.

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]
• 5th revert: [89]
• 6th revert: [90]
• 7th revert: [91]
• 8th revert: [92]
• 9th revert: [93]
• 10th revert: [94]
• 11th revert: [95]
• 12th revert: [96]
• 13th revert: [97]

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

I've been trying to stop him from readding false information that certain scholars are progresssive under

Comments:

I have a feeling, based on editing styles, that user User:50.72.159.224 is the same as user:75.128.235.12 is the same as user:BelloWello. Not that there's anything wrong with editing as an IP, but, you have to play by the rules. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this was BelloWello or his helpers is hard to say; the IPs evidently are familiar with BelloWello's off-wiki postings. The article has now been locked until 18 June. The IP was restoring information that directly violated

WP:BLP. In comparison the issue of the internal labels progressive/conservative amongst Seventh Day Adventism editors is becoming so disruptive that the subject of topic bans in this area might have to be discussed again. Mathsci (talk

) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot they could run to do a comparison of styles, etc., and make a determination, but when Lionel reported IP 75.128 as a possible sockpuppet of BelloWello, the lame response was "we're not very good at matching IPs and named users." Go figure! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw in something to the ring on the two IPs and say that it's  Unlikely that the two IPs are related directly to the same user, (Just from a geolocation lookup). However, if a CheckUser can't confirm/state that such is likely to BelloWello, it may just be someone that has the same opinion as them. It is possible to match IPs and named users via Geolocation in certain cases assuming at least a high amount of data matches, in most cases, it could only be likely or unlikely. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crashdoom. I didn't check the times of the edits. You can't be in Wisconsin and British Columbia at the same time, can you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct on that. There is a chance that one of the results could be a false-positive due to the potential risk of a proxy being used, either that or, as previously stated, there is more than one person with the same view on the matter. As such, I believe that's the reasoning behind the CheckUsers being not very good matching users and IPs without direct links. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 16 hour break between Wisconsin and Vancouver, so there's no overlap. Both IPs are SPAs. Should I take this to the right (SPI) forum? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful since there's a chance due to the match in editing as stated. However, you may get told the same with only an opinion of it being possible/unlikely, due to the IPs not having a directly verifiable link. The time differennce does pose the question that it may be possible via a proxy or such. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can be in Ontario Canada and Delaware at the same time. If I were to edit from my IP on this computer it would say I am in Delaware. If I edit from my cell phone it says I am in Ontario Canada. GB fan (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all these ambiguities, how do you ever prove an account is a sockpuppet? --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, with great difficulty. This does return to the point, that CheckUsers can't say anything is certain unless everything is explicitly linked. Also, the fact that the IP can be edited is unlikely to be used in most cases with average users on Wikipedia. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Protection applied by SoWhy. Minima© (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

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

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

Comments:

I can't figure out how to report this right. LOLThigle (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the 3rr helper tool, linked at the top of the page. You need to insert diffs of each revert in the above template. The helper tool will help you do that, but you'll still need to review its results.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see

WP:Boomerang. You're both edit warring disruptively. You need to stop, and use the talk page, too.   — Jess· Δ♥

19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reported person (Thisthat2011) only reverted once, and the reporter (Thigle) tried to revert to a previous version (by SudoGhost and then followed by his/her version) four times within a period of less than 26 hours [102], [103], [104], [105]. The reporter was blocked twice back in May, and seems to be edit-warring again, despite the fact that she/he is participating in the discussion page. Minima© (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try looking through that again - both users have violated the 3rr. I've left messages on both of their talk pages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spotted it now, and have displayed the diffs above, showing how many times the reported person wanted to "Move contents to the History again". This was harder for me to spot because the number of bytes kept changing, but the edit summaries showed what Thisthat2011 wanted to do. Minima© (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Ajraddatz's messages seem to have had the desired effect. Please open a new report if discussion at Talk:Hinduism breaks down. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Efik Language

Previous version [Ibibio Language Page]

reverted to: [Efik Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efik_language]

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs)

• Efik Language is not the Same language as Ibibio language and the 2 languages are spoken in different states of Nigeria.
• There is no language that is called Ibibio-Efik as there is no language that is mixed with the two. Just like there is no language called Spanish-French.
• There is also another similar language known as Annang, which is similar to Efik and Ibibio just like Italian language is similar to French and Spanish.
• There are also others like Oron, Eket etc. Which although spoken in the same area are not similar to Efik, Ibibio and Annang, but Kwami is linking all these languages to a Single page.
• Kwami is not from Nigeria and does not know anyting about these languages. But I am a native Ibibio, I have also lived in the States and areas where Efik and Annang languages are spoken, that is how I learned to speak Efik, so I understand the differences.
• If you allow this editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies!

[106]

If You Allow This editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of Lies! Ibibiogrl (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that you haven't been discussing properly with the editor in question over the issue, also I note: "(cur | prev) 23:09, 31 May 2011 Ibibiogrl (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo) ", so it does appear that you have been causing problems for the article, whether it was on purpose or not, I don't know + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this case is suffering from some personal attacks. Closing and leaving note on reporting editor's page. m.o.p 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Thomas Sowell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• 5th revert (though not within 24 hours, just to show that edit warring continues): [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113] (disclaimer: this was done just now)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114] and [115]

Comments:
Thomas Sowell is a BLP and we should have a high threshold for what we include. Biased sources like Media Matters for America are not appropriate. There is very clear consensus on the article talk page against including this, with 6 editors (4 usernames, 2 IPs) for removing it and only 1 (User:CartoonDiablo) for keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not valid based on the fact that I was not given a 3RR warning prior to being reported, I attempted to resolve the issue multiple times (diffs: [116] and [117]) and feel the consensus is based on a violation of

NPOV. I will attempt to reach a resolution of whether or not removing the section violates NPOV in the respective noticeboard. CartoonDiablo (talk

) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Despite awareness of a discussion on the article's talk page in which several users agreed the source was not reliable, you, CartoonDiablo, edit-warred to keep it in. If that's not grounds for a 3RR block, then it is grounds for block under Disruptive Editing -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Insite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minphie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]
• 5th revert: [122]
• 6th revert: [123]
• 7th revert: [124]
• 8th revert: [125]
• 9th revert: [126]

Discussion of why this source should not be used [127] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129] On further investigation this user may be a sock puppet and thus will also report there on time of here. He/she has been edit warring across a number of pages.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK)
  18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is not exclusively 3 reverts within 24 hours per

talk · contribs · email

) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I do not feel this user deserves a block; they edit Insite sparingly, and appear to be acting in good faith. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: George Demos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brookster22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

There are many more identical section blankings in the past few days, but these are the four most recent:

• 1st revert: [131]
• 2nd revert: [132]
• 3rd revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135] and [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Note: There is also a related sock investigation pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410

Comments:

• Brookster22 claims that the reason for their reverts is
  talk
  ) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)