Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Blippy reported by User:2over0 (result: 24 hours)[edit]

This edit war, sillily enough, involves the addition of {{POV}} in relation to a wider dispute over presentation at Sense About Science.

- 2/0 (cont.) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting case of a number of editors unwilling to acknowledge a lack of consensus on NPOV - I have no desire to edit war, merely that the POV tag remain in place while we address the issues. I am attempting to work in good faith, but am getting very little assistance in this regard. I don't think that I have violated 3RR - I hadn't intended to - but timing may have been an issue. I am happy to accept whatever a fair minded independent admin thinks. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — it's evident multiple editors objected to Blippy's repeated edits; moreover, the user had already been warned about edit warring ~ June 30th. --slakrtalk / 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.144.250.128 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

  • The last half of this talk page detail the efforts of several editors to explain the sourcing and BLP violations in an effort to resolve this edit war.

This dynamic-IP user has been blocked at least twice before, for personal attacks and edit warring here and here while editing this same article. Recently reverted by at least 4 other editors, yet continues to repeatedly reinsert content in violation of WP:BLP. I haven't reverted more than three times yet, but I certainly will as instructed by WP:BLP policy if necessary, unless advised otherwise by the responding Admin. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mifter (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
[99.141.246.39] was blocked, not the IP in question today. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx reported by User:J (Result: Protected)[edit]





  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]


Fresh off his 48h block for attempted edit warring at Carly Fiorina, User:Rvcx immediately returned to reverting to restore his preferred revisions. Not really sure what to do at this point, he continues to mix in wp:blp violations with his reverts... user:J aka justen (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Article since fully protected for one month, again. Ugg. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Jayron32 has protected the page. His rationale can be found in the ANI thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Curtis23 reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result:24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]
  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]

I also suspect this IP revert was his: [7]

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8] (not a formal 3RR warning, but a warning)
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talkpage, but on the users talkpage.

User admits on their userpage that they love pictures in PPV articles, but seem to not understand the concept of too many pictures. They seem intent on cramming as many pictures as possible into the article regardless of how that actually makes the article look. When I tried putting the {{too many pictures}} tag on, they reverted that too (which is not noted above, but maybe it should be) and said on my talkpage that they don't think there are too many pictures. TJ Spyke 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Curtis23 is indeed edit warring against more than one other user, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357 reported by User:K.Khokhar (Result: Submitter 48h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [9]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Constant edit warring and reversions over a long period of time, multiple warnings from a number of editors, continued POV and disruptive edits, user returns after short breaks and carries on from where they left off.

I believe that the user K.Khokhar is wrongly accusing me! Because I reported about her to User:Nishkid64. Abour her constant reverts to my edits after I gave reference to add the explaination about Dravidians. However she changed that but I did not do anything about it instead I contacted User:Dbachmann and Dab made neutral changes. Because Dbachmann is one of the most senior Editors in Wiki. After that I made some clean up like comas and periods as you can see in the history section. I believe the user K.Khokhar wants to make this article a Pakistani article. If anyone is edit warring is her not me. I havent made any edits in the article for the last 24 hours nor do I plan to do so (because the article is good and neutral as it is). Neutral and experienced editor like Dbachmann made good contributions and reviewed my edits as well as Khokhar. I no longer wish to edit the article on Indus, but I will contact other User to point out my differences. It is not me that K.Khokhar has problems with but many Indian Wikipedians and Indians (my opinion) see her talk page (if she did not erase). Also I don't want to be part of this Article any more as long as it stays how Dbachmann left it. I have no problem with changing it to South Asia from Indian Subcontinent. Afghanistan or Kamboja is part of the Indian Subcontinent as stated by most Pakistanis and scholars (written in Wiki article on Indian Subcontinent. So as I said no problem with changin it back to South Asia! Thankyou (Dewan 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Sorry also: Some of the things she is showing of edit warring is me cleaning up what I did. The changes I made on things I wrote that I felt was not clear enough or things I missed. It is not that I changed anyone elses edits. It was my own that after I reread it again and again I rewrote to make it clear. The changes from South Asia to Indian Subcontinent sounded clear because from Indus = India and History of Indian Subcontinent. It is simple Pakistani Nationalism. But if you guys want to change it back to South Asia I have no problem. (Dewan 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Blcoked Khokhar. A check of contributions shows that combative reverting is his main activity on WP YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Reply[edit]

Quite sad that senior editors are actively engaging in clear and overt Pov pushing by supporting editors who hold views such as this [19] and who make POV and false changes (last 24 hours) such as these [20], [21]. All my edits were explained and are supported by sources, In the end it's wikipedia that loses out, not editors like myself as atleast we have our integrity intact. Khokhar (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are fighting a loosing battle the Indian admin Monkey will always side with his fellow NRIs abroad the fact that the indian nationalist Dewan called you a "Paki" should be enough for a complete block maybe take your case to non Indian admins? 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Dewan357 also removed the picture of Shalimar Gardens in the Mughal Empire page and replaced it with the one in disputed Jammu and Kashmir: [22] showing another clear pov [23] Khokar I urge not to annoy Monkey or he will discuss you with other Indian users and track all your edits that’s what he did with users Yousaf and Adilyour he is not very fond of Pakistani editors keep calm and look for non Indian admins cheers and good luck 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
User SikhHistory also canvassed for you to get blocked in Monkeys talk page you seriously need to get in touch with a admin (non Indian) and explain the ganging up which the Indian users are doing against you [24] 86.158.237.68 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng aka 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: Stale )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [25]



To show that Yonteng is 94.192.139.167, please see in the archive: [31] and [32] and [33] and [34].

  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]. This user's past few edits on the talk page have been entirely unconstructive, especially [36]. Emptymountains (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Warring has ceased. Reports of socking should go to WP:SPI] Nja247 10:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob reported by Semitransgenic (Result: 3 weeks)[edit]

Off2riorob reverted the deletion of unreliably sourced material: 1

Deleted long standing reliably sourced material: 2

Deleted long standing reliably sourced material and added unreliably sourced material: 3

Reversion of above disputed edits: 4

Removes unsourced material but fails to reinstate long standing reliably sourced content: 5

Generally ignoring concensus building and long standing efforts made in adhering to WP:NPOV made by other editors. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think a report of edit warring is required, this is a content dispute, I have had plenty of discussion about my edits, all of which is there to read, Just because some material is long standing as semi says doesn't make it worthwhile. In the end it was me who removed the disputed material and I have clearly explained why the material I have removed is of no value. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
this is the material that I have removed as worthless derogatory name calling from an unqualified person...
The Australian critic and cynic Clive James scornfully referred to him as "Bagwash", likening the experience of listening to one of his discourses to sitting in a laundrette and watching "your underwear revolve soggily for hours while exuding grey suds. The Bagwash talks the way that looks."[200] James finished by saying that Osho was just a "rebarbative dingbat who manipulates the manipulatable" Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Content Rob removed is taken from a work by Bob Mullan, a professor of sociology and psychology, he discussed the relevance of James's comments in his academic work Life as Laughter:following Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the context of it being exemplary of the kind of reception Osho received in wider society. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, in mullans book the comment can be ok, but not here in what could be likened to a summary of a book,in this case the comment adds nothing and as we are on a single page and not a whole book, then by adding a small worthless comment from a unqualified person, we have added undue weight and value to it, perhaps if we had 125 pages we could make a case for keeping it in, but we have one page, and as far as this wikipedia article goes, it is of no value> Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob refuses to read or even acknowledge policies such as WP:consensus and WP:NPOV. He seems to believe he has the right to excise anything he finds to be "contentious", and ignores or sidesteps any argument from policy. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Nja247 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Patriot Missile33 reported by User:UltraEdit (Result: Warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [37]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Patriot Missile33 keeps adding a disputed text without comments on the talk page. Viridae, an admin, stated here that the disputed text doesn't have a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This editor also has several recent 3RR/Edit Warring warnings on his talk page for his edits to another article. UltraEdit (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned. Patriot Missile has been warned that use of the Wikileaks reference may violate BLP policy, since it alleges serious crimes. The accusatory report is self-published by someone on the internet who claims to be the former lawyer for the organization. If Patriot continues to add it, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:C2SP reported by Dream Focus (Result: Warned)[edit]


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


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

If you look at the edit history [47] and the talk page, you see that three editors have reverted him, and we have tried reasoning with him. He is determined to say "attempts to remove" instead of "remove." He previously reverted something similar twice before that, [48] [49] insisting that it doesn't remove. I believe his behavior is quite disruptive. Dream Focus 01:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: Issue being discussed with another admin. Further, see the report directly below this one and my comments there. Nja247 10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus reported by C2SP (Result: No vio)[edit]


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


  • First revert: # 11:04, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "how many millions of people received it, counts")
  • Second revert: # 11:18, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "how long it takes someone to run something, is not relevant, he having a lot of files to scan. See talk page for the rest, and discuss it there.")
  • Third revert: # 11:28, 15 August 2009 (edit summary: "revelent to how they make certain their software handles everything")
  • Fourth revert: # 00:41, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "if it can find it, it can remove it.")
  • Fifth revert: # 00:47, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "cleared it up a bit")
  • Sixth revert: # 00:48, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "you have to list what the review said, not just take things out of context")
  • Seventh revert: # 00:49, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "it does not attempt to remove anything. It attempts to find, and then ALWAYS removes that")
  • Eigth revert: # 01:02, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "stop reverting this")


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sorry, new to Wikipedia, unknown that this could be done. I was using the talk page before edits and after.
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

If you notice the history [51] this article has been highly reverted and edited due to Advertisements being placed on the page, refs pointing to forum posts and blog posts, etc. Dream Focus is the only current editor attempting to revive this old advertisement and I am one of many (from the past) attempting to keep the content neutral now. I did not revert anything added that would be considered solid information, if you notice which reverts I made, you will notice that I was merely trying to keep the verbiage balanced. I stated on the talk page that I was purposely looking for such verbiage to balance out the reception sections. I am not happy to allow anyone to post POVs nor AD like material, as I thought that was the rules. Furthermore, I recommend unofficially that this article be nominated for deletion and that Dream Focus be corrected for his behavior as I find it very unsettling.

This is my first time reporting a user, so I am sorry in advance if I did it wrong. C2SP (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The rule is you can not revert the same thing more than three times in a 24 hour period. Editing different unrelated sections during that time period doesn't count. Dream Focus 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • [52] This edit is something totally unrelated. Here [53] I changed something, but it not reverting anything, I just fixing what was at the current version of the article, last edited by Schapel, removing the words "attempts to", since as I explained in my summary edit if the program can find it, it can remove it, there no "attempting". That was my first edit of the day. Nothing to do with the three reverts of C2SP found [54] [55] and [56] I only reverted him three times in the 24 hour period. The other edits mentioned were from other days, are unrelated. Dream Focus 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: It is my every intention to *stop* warring on this page, regardless who started it. In the future I will try to be more diplomatic at my approach to making edits and will make every effort to go through all the proper channels before it comes to this again. Learning more everyday. C2SP (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: User seems to now be aware of edit warring policy. Thus, they should continue discussing the issue to work towards consensus. Should that fail, do not continue to edit war, rather seek dispute resolution or possibly page protection.. Nja247 10:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedsnursing reported by User:Who then was a gentleman? (Result: 12h)[edit]

Pedsnursing (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing a section from the Doctorate in Nursing article. When challenged, they blank their Talk page and never discuss their edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Talk page warns and page edit history show pattern of edit warring. Short block to stop disruption and to ensure user is aware of policy and warning should give them guidance on how to better handle disputes in the future. Nja247 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RichPoynder reported by User:Nableezy (Result:24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [57]


Continually adding unsourced information to a BLP and editwarring to retain it.

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried to ask the user to not add poorly sourced OR to a BLP at User talk:RichPoynder.

nableezy - 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Appears to be a clearcut vio with some BLP issues thrown in for good measure, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit reported by User:Outerlimits (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [64]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]
Fist one wasn't a revert, I removed a problematic sentence fragment that had been there for months. - Schrandit (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment You both are equally edit warring. You should stop doing this immediately and instead use the talk page to work towards consensus. Should that fail, seek dispute resolution, or possibly page protection. Nja247 10:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not quite "equally". See [71]. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That would appear to be his fourth revert in just under 24h. Can I just add that the content the two of you are squabbling over is really not worth squabbling over in this way, however? user:J aka justen (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ameebact reported by User:Straight Edge PXK (Result: Page protected)[edit]



  1. 17:50, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */")
  2. 17:50, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Geography */")
  3. 17:50, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education */")
  4. 17:51, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */")
  5. 17:51, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
  6. 17:51, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Places of worship */")
  7. 17:52, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Transportation */")
  8. 17:52, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Prominent People */")
  9. 17:52, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
  10. 18:14, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* History */")
  11. 18:14, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Prominent People */")
  12. 18:16, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Places of worship */")
  13. 18:16, 23 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Places to visit */")


User is repeatedly changing article despite warnings and reversions. Previously edited under an IP (See the SPI case) Jordan Payne T /C 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dougweller has already protected the page, however, since most of these edits were vandalism, I've also blocked User:Ameebact for 48 hours. Shell babelfish 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [72]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78] (Technopat's discussion on Radiopathy's page), [79] (My discussion on Radiopathy's page)


Radiopathy and Technopat were having a disagreement on the page as to whether a detail about Withers working on toilet seats was trivial and worthy of inclusion, Techopat took the discussion to RP's talk page. RP began to make 3RR warnings [80], then threatened him with a block and told him any further talk page posts would be reported to ANI [81].

I saw the edits and good faith warned both of them they were at 3RR [82], and that this discussion should really be taken to the article's talk page to determine consensus instead of edit warring. Radiopathy responded by telling me I had "no right to get involved" and threatened me with an ANI thread [83]. He then reverted my edit on the page, referring to it as "vandalism" [84]. Dayewalker (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I told Dayewalker he had no right to get involved "in a retaliatory content dispute", which goes back to disputes he fabricated at Barack Obama and Paint It, Black. His motives are hardly in good faith, and this complaint should just be disregarded. Radiopathy •talk• 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours Also, warned Technopat against any further reverting. Shell babelfish 21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result:24 hours )[edit]

Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:59, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "just moved portion of sentence into separate sentence")
  2. 17:59, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  3. 18:15, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Little debate over a fundamental definition of capitalism")
  4. 18:23, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverting disruptive edit removing sourced info")
  5. 18:31, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverting disruptive edit removing sourced info. (It was also removed with no explanation whatsoever)")
  6. 21:27, 22 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "If you want to delete that, then this needs to be delete as well, as not to present in accurate or biased picture")
  7. 17:34, 23 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "It's sourced and the body of the article represents it. Everyone agrees that capitalism includes private ownership, markets, and paid labor.")
  8. 18:12, 23 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Don't give false edit summaries. It's not true that it's agreed to. I don't agree to it.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kehz99 reported by User:Contimm (Result:No violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]


  • 1st revert: [87]
  • 2nd revert: [88] Note: Kehz99 is also IP address 67.191.237.201.
  • 3rd revert: [89]
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Attempted Resolution[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lagos#August_2009_Edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kehz99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.191.237.201
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Contimm

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

Contimm (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No violation. Please use the talk page of the article to work out any differences of opinion, or see WP:DR for other ideas. Shell babelfish 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kehz99 reported by User:Contimm (Result:Both editors blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [91]


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]


Contimm (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Shell babelfish 21:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm125 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result:Page protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [99]

User:Rm125 made his four reverts within a 26-hour period, but he is edit-warring nonetheless. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.232.10.224 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Complicated, but all edit sequences add links to the same inappropriate google and YouTube videos.


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:47


May be the same as 77.96.24.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), in which case he's been more than adequately warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Shell babelfish 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 violation of 3RVV on Modern Buddhism (Result: Reporter and reportee 24 hour blocks)[edit]

After discussing the matter on talk:Buddhism#deleted_reference_in_intro_to_stub_"Modern Buddhism", where i found only support for my opinion, i have merged the two articles Modern Buddhism and Buddhist modernism while fully preserving the (rather crude, i might add) content of Jemesouviens32's newly created page.

Beforehand I asked User:Jemesouviens32 to join the discussion on his talk page, which he did, but while gaining some support for the idea of having an article on the subject at all it is of course ridiculous to have two, which he seems to be failing to recognize. Finally i merged the two articles, which he by now has reverted four times after me reverting his revert 3 times. It is the first time that i am involved in this kind of edit war. If you will you can consider this as reporting myself as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi 3ö (talkcontribs) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have watched the discussion for a while and I must say that Jemesouviens32 is not being very civil - accusations of vandalism like this and breaching the third revert rule as seen in the article's history, also including vandalism accusations. My best answer would be to list the article for deletion. If there are good arguments to keep it, do so, if not, don't. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Alchaemia reported by User:Hexagon1 (Result: 24h )[edit]

While basically every single one of mine and the other users' edit summaries when reverting Alchaemia refer to the talk page and the consensus which has been established there, Alchaemia has made limited to no progress there. The current consensus, established through a lengthy multi-user debate, holds us to the UN geoscheme on the template. Rather than debate this cordially like Turkish Flame on the talk page, Alchaemia has taken to edit warring.

Alchaemia is a year old editor with over a 1000 edits which has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He or she blatantly refuse to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy, and continues to be extremely incivil. A recent exchange on our talks is greatly indicative of their attitude (User_talk:Alchaemia#August_2009 and User_talk:Hexagon1#Re:_August). A block would be warranted in this case to protect the article and to remind the user that our policies are here for a reason. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

165.166.14.146 (talk · contribs) reported by csloat (Result: 24h)[edit]

User has a history of vandalism going back to January 2008; recently has begun trolling extensively on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, and making a host of changes to the article page against consensus based on obviously specious arguments. His talk page is filled with warnings, and he was warned again before his most recent edit. He was also reported earlier to WP:AN/I when it became clear to me that he was going to be a significant problem. It's clear that some sort of administrative intervention will be necessary. csloat (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Reported this earlier today [110], but report was removed because it wasn't deemed credible, and was not in the proper format [111]. Whether on procedural grounds or in order to allow for different viewpoints, the dismissal of the initial report concerns me. This was clearly a case of prolonged edit warring with personal attacks, and may eventually warrant a request for page protection. Glad it has been revisited. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Natzfan reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [112]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]


--Loonymonkey (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Shell babelfish 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:AlexBeales reported by User:Gold Scratch (Result: both blocked)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [119]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see discussion on user's talk page and also in the edit summaries for the article.

I have warned the user and debated with them extensively but they have just continued to revert and have even sworn at me. Gold Scratch (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Both blocked for 24h by another admin (unknown whether he'd seen this report). The edit war, about a comma, had seen both editor hit 48 reverts each. Now that's dedication. Black Kite 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:165.166.14.146 (Result: Reporting user blocked)[edit]