Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.237.129.194 (talk) at 21:22, 31 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


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

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


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

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] I tried the warning but screwed it up. Others have tried talking to the guy though. See Talk Page

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

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

    I semiprotected the page for 24 hours. Hopefully some discussion will come of that. — Jake Wartenberg 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey everyone, looks like it didn't work. [7] Looks to me that as soon as he noticed it was unprotected, he just deleted the link again. Did a quick poke but doesn't look like he tried to explain anything. Asdf now (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now a new IP is involved User:71.199.246.246. Quick research on the forum that gets removed shows its one of the moderators. [8] and [9] "Why would a bot prevent this link from being posted? The forum IS the most definitive source for information on SHS." is all he'll say. Still no talk from the IPs inserting the link, although on their forum they suggest evil forces control XLinkBot and have convinced it that proboards is bad. This is sick. They are just cutesy toys. Why fight? Tomson elite (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than an hour after being reverted, User:71.199.246.246 brings it back saying its definitive and old. Old is subjective, and having looked at it, it doesn't add anything to the article. Furthermore, the moderators at the site are now confirming that they're the ones deleting the other site and replacing it with theirs. [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [13] Previous version reverted to: [14]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [22]



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

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [28] This diff shows one remaining change that the user had repeatedly taken out and then started repeatedly putting back in while taking out something more objectionable due to limitations of the undo function.

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


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

    Nothing has taken place on the article talk page.

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [34]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [41]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] (note that this is only the latest of several warnings)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] (not a diff but a link to an RfC discussion section, one of several sections dedicated to this topic on the article's Talk page)

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

    Comment: 5th revert: [49]. Two protections later, with every single editor except Wkiwoman agreeing that her insertions were WP:SYN at best and apparently factually inaccurate, Wkiwoman is still edit warring against the consensus. Tim Song (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    • Diff of warning: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Reverts detailed with comparable diffs

    Revert #1:

    Revert #2 and 3:

    Revert #4

    All in the space of about 21 hours.

    Reverts (summary)



    Warnings:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54], which he then reverted/deleted from his talk page.

    I also warned him on the Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup with diff [55] and he acccused me of WikiBullying at diff [56]

    Discussion

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


    Comments:

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

    He has constantly become personal, using derogatorily:

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

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

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


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

    Why wasn't I informed of this report? -- Rico 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moogwrench is canvassing on the article talk page, where he wrote me, "Just look at the edit war administrator notice that I put up if you have any more questions about the reverts."[57] -- Rico 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, like I said, look up at the "Warnings" section for the diffs of my warnings about this report. Moogwrench (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 1st alleged revert:
    Is the summary removal of properly used dispute tags, abuse of tags vandalism or avoidant vandalism? That is what Moogwrench did,[58] and that is what I reverted. Template:Verify credibility states, "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." I did that here and here. The results were inconclusive. -- Rico 00:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See section entitled "Warnings" for the warning information.
    As to "vandalism" charge, the diff in question [59] had the following edit summary: "Revert on tag for credibility. IPS is a WP:RS for relevant info, cited by UN and other GOs and NGOs, a large news organization with editorial oversight. Review WP:RS before tag again please." Is this vandalism?
    Furthermore, you did not discuss before applying the template. You applied the template here at 00:54, 27 October 2009, 16 hours before you discussed it in in here at 16:40, 27 October 2009. You waited almost a whole day after applying the template to talk about it here at 23:12, 27 October 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs)
    Regarding the second alleged revert:
    This concerns an entirely different matter.
    Moogwrench tried to put this into the main article four times within 24 hours,[60][61] but other editors (not me), stopped him.
    I put up an RfC on it, and I am content to let it run its course. I have left this edit alone, pending the outcome of that RfC.
    Moogwrench's edit is in the article. This is the last time he added it (the last of countless times). -- Rico 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rico: Why are you talking about the old edit war? Are you trying to confuse the admin that adjudicates this? Everyone, including one admin, has backed up my edit in its new spot. I have never been reverted by anyone else for trying to add this content to this article specifically. One of the ones who reverted me in the other article, User:Cathar11, suggested that I place the information in the new article. I did so. After 10 days, no one complained except for you. No one has reverted the addition but you. You have been reverted by two other users (one an admin) besides me. Cathar11 even did a minor edit on the sentence and did not revert it.Moogwrench (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the third alleged revert:
    This was the day after the second revert, and -- as I've said -- the content remains in the article because I've left it there, pending an outcome of the RfC I added to the talk page.
    I am willing to wait for, and abide by, the consensus of the community.
    For the time being, Moogwrench has -- once again -- succeeded in getting POV content into a Wikipedia article, via edit warring. -- Rico 00:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The date stamps on the diffs for Rico's 4 reverts says it all. Also, one only need look at the history of International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup and its discussion page to see that my edit was backed up by Ed Wood's Wig, Rd232 (an admin), and Simonm223 and that I have only done 3 edits in total over the last 24 hours: 2 reverts, and 1 substantive edit. And yet he has called me the POVpusher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the fourth alleged revert:
    This is a third entirely distinct matter -- although related, because -- once again, Moogwrench summarily deleted a properly used dispute tag[62]. This time I was questioning whether Congress was a reliable source. We've been discussing this for eons.
    Template:Verify credibility states, "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question."
    It is clear that there was no consensus for removal of the tag, because Simonm223 restored it too.[63] -- Rico 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Simonm223did revert Ed Wood's Wig here, but notice what he said in his edit summary: Considering that the org distanced themselves from the report I'd say it's only reliable as a source for the opinion of the author. I think this should be included but in the appropriate context only.
    So I decided to try to be helpful to Ed and reword the content to state that Norma Gutierrez was the author and that it was her opinion, so that the tag could be removed (opinions can be RS's for their authors). I also tried to clear up the confusion over "ouster." Which is what I did.
    Note my edit and its summary: Substantive edit: how does this reword work: gutierrez is listed as the author of opinion, removed credible tag, and dichotomy of (removal=constitutional, expatriation=not) is included. Good? I was asking for feedback on the rewording to alleviate the other editors concerns.
    Instead of discussing the new wording, you did a summary revert with the following helpful commentary in your edit summary: rvv. I was non-plussed, because you just reverted something that you had wanted clarified. And I wanted to give you the opportunity to take back your 4th revert and maybe discuss it a bit.
    Even if you think something is a good idea, or the other person is POVpusher, or you have a really big disagreement about content or sources, that doesn't excuse you from following the rules. You engage in a lot of WP:Wikilawyering but it can't hide the fact that you reverted 4 times in one 24-hour period and you didn't even discuss or even give a good edit summary for some of your reverts. Moogwrench (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "he then reverted/deleted from his talk page."
    The Wikipedia:User page guideline states, "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." -- Rico 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you complained that I hadn't warned you above--"Why wasn't I informed of this report?", when it was obvious that I had, and you deleted it. In fact, you called it WikiBullying when I warned you on the main talk page.Moogwrench (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "I also warned him on the Talk:International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup":
    Moogwrench should never have done that. He had already warned me on my talk page, writing, "revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation."[64]
    The International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup talk page is for improvements to the article.
    It looks like an attack on an editor, at best, and biased canvassing -- perhaps campaigning -- at worst.
    I haven't done a revert since his warning. -- Rico 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't threatening you, I was giving you a chance to fix it yourself before reporting you. But you didn't look at it that way (you basically dissed me and said that you hadn't done 4 reverts and misidentified Ed Wood's Wig and his revert as me and mine - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup&diff=322601424&oldid=322586543 was his), and I felt that I had tried my best to resolve it with you before coming here. You are an experienced Wikipedian (since 2004 your page says) and so tell me: is 4 reverts OK if you feel you are right? Moogwrench (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "he acccused me of WikiBullying":
    Moogwrench threatened me on my talk page, writing, "revert your 4th revert or I will report you for edit warring/3RR violation."[65]
    I didn't even understand where he was coming from, because I'd only put back the Verify credibility dispute tag -- questioning whether Congress was a reliable source -- one time. When I saw that he'd also warned me on the article talk page, I asked him what he was talking about.[66]
    Moogwrench informed me that an editor could be in violation of 3RR, "whether or not the same material is involved,"[67] something I didn't know. (Note the link to this noticeboard he added.)
    However, even if I "perform[ed] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," reverting myself wouldn't change that. And since it wouldn't change that fact, Moogwrench was telling me to delete a legitimate dispute tag he's summarily deleted -- (even though there was obviously no consensus for its deletion, because Simonm223 restored it too[68]) -- and threatening me that he would take action against me if I didn't. He was arguing, in essence, that I couldn't reverse abuse of tags vandalism, or avoidant vandalism -- and that I had to revert myself, even though that wouldn't change the "perform[ance of] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." That's WikiBullying.
    It looks like all he wanted was the legitimate Vc dispute tag removed, and he wanted me to remove it for him, and then he could file this report anyway. -- Rico 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said under your fourth revert response, Simonm223 put the tag back after Ed Wood's Wig had removed it because he was worried about attributing to LLoC the views of Norma Gutierrez. I fixed that, so most likely that had resolved Simonm223's concern, and so the credibility tag could go because the content was now attributed to Norma Gutierrez. However, you summarily reverted that without even thinking about what Simonm223 had wrote in his edit summary
    You keep calling my edits vandalism. Here is what WP:Vandalism has to say:
    "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." How could you determine if my edit wasn't made in good faith if you didn't even read Simonm223's summary and see how I had tried to address his concerns. Moogwrench (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Regarding, "There has been a lot of discussion, between him and me, and him and others":
    There has also been discussion between Moogwrench and others.
    I love the slanted way Moogwrench puts things.
    Moogwrench writes that I revert, but when referring to when Moogwrench reverts me, Moogwrench writes that I've "been reverted" (leaving Moogwrench out of the equation).[69] -- Rico 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, above I styled my reverts as "My revert #1", etc. So I do take ownership for them. Moogwrench (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "There has been extensive commentary not only from me, but from other users supporting consensus away from his edits":
    I haven't seen that.
    What I have seen has been extensive reverting of Moogwrench's edits, ever since Moogwrench started editing the Honduran coup articles.[70] Moogwrench has responded to those reverts, almost without exception, with edit warring -- often violating BRD, and winning via tendentious editing. In fact, that's all Moogwrench has been doing on the Honduran coup articles, edit warring.
    Almost all of Moogwrench edits, since he started editing, are part of edit wars.
    By contrast, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, I made thousands of edits, and I've never been blocked. -- Rico 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are just a few of those commentaries supporting my edits of content and sources that I suppose you "haven't seen:
    • I stand by my reasoning above for why this is notable and relevant - with the caveats I mentioned. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Change "appears" to "claims" and it'd be ok. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not a lie. That line in the last sentence does not make the opinion that the removal of Zelaya unconstitutional, just the use of the military. Nice try, though. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This bears mention, but maybe some of the detail could go elsewhere, eg Honduras – United States relations. Rd232 talk 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem to be any real argument that they aren't reliable in the disputatious TL,DR above. We have a useful and halfway decent article on them. They're a real press service, 6th largest in the world, they have their own niche, outlook and focus. … .John Z (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs)
    Regarding, "When he reverts, he usually just says rv, or rrv, in the edit summary."
    I've never written either of those things in an edit summary.
    I have written, "rvv", but that's been in response to Moogwrench's summary removal of validly used dispute tags -- where there's been neither consensus, nor resolution of the dispute. I'm not sure if that's called abuse of tags vandalism or avoidant vandalism these days. We used to call it "Improper use of dispute tags"[71]:

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

    Improper use of dispute tags
    Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
    -- Rico 03:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point, I am sorry if I got it wrong 'rrv' instead of 'rvv', is that you didn't provide any helpful discussion info or indication that you were addressing the previous edit before reverting it. Ideally you should discuss instead of reverting and violating WP:3RR.Moogwrench (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "This user is angry":
    This is a lie.
    When Moogwrench threatened to report me here, I laughed out loud several times.
    Moogwrench is the most tendentious editor I've ever come across in Wikipedia.
    The very thought of him reporting me here made me laugh.
    Since, "the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption," I didn't think Moogwrench would have the chutzpah to come here and report me. The very thought of it made me laugh.
    Anybody that makes me laugh is okay in my book.
    It's very hard to be angry when you're laughing. -- Rico 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you should take note that this page is not to be used to continue a dispute. You've both made your case, please stop cluttering the page with further arguments. An admin will be along to examine the case. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! Moogwrench (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "we were involved in an edit war last week":
    When I first came across Moogwrench, he was involved in an edit war with other editors -- not me -- and had tried to add the same content (which had been previously deleted) to the main coup article four times in less than 24 hours.[72]
    He's been dedicating all his editing to edit wars ever since. -- Rico 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "I just began regular editing this month (10 of October)":
    I think that Moogwrench has made it abundantly clear that he is no newbie.
    How many newbies abbreviate, Most Interested Persons, "MIPs"? (See last sentence of edit in this diff.) -- Rico 04:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "The admin chose to protect instead of block either of us, but I believe that he is still angry at me":
    Why would I be? I was the editor that asked that the article be protected.[73]
    Note my edit summary, when I deleted the report I'd put here on Moogwrench.[74] -- Rico 04:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "for this reason is trying to do constant destructive edits and tags to my edits since then":
    I've made my reasons for my edits abundantly clear, in extensive discussions on the talk pages.
    I've tagged Inter Press Service and Congress, {{Verify credibility}} -- because good faith attempts to verify the reliability of Inter Press Service (which I've never heard of), and Congress, have been inconclusive. Editors have suggested that neither of them is.
    One would have to be a mind reader to know that I've made edits, or tagged Moogwrench's content, for some other reason.
    Unless Moogwrench is a mind reader, I'd prefer that he assume good faith, rather than impugning motives to me. -- Rico 05:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "He continues to accuse me of edit warring":
    [75][76] -- Rico 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "He has constantly become personal, using derogatorily":
    Moogwrench wrote me, "I would actually like editors, and not pedantic edit warriors, to look over my work."[77]
    One who comes into equity must come with clean hands. -- Rico 05:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, " 'liar' - Title of new section in discussion page entitled 'Lie in the article' talking about my edit":
    I have never called Moogwrench a "liar", and I'm surprised he would disingenuously put "liar" in quotes, as if I had.
    I was not talking about Moogwrench's edit.
    I was writing about content in the article that Moogwrench calls, his. (Freudian slip?) -- Rico 06:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "Other editors have reverted him during the last 24 (listed here) and in the past few days (not listed here)":
    "Other editors have reverted Moogwrench during the last 24 hours (listed here) and in the past few days (listed here and here). -- Rico 06:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "Revert by Rd232 at 13:43, 28 October 2009":
    After I saw that, I added an RfC to the talk page. (Before that, Moogwrench had no other editor agreeing with him.) I have not removed the content since then and am content to allow the RfC to run its course over the next thirty days.
    The content remains in the article. As usual, Moogwrench has gotten his way via tendentious editing and edit warring.
    Everything has to be the way Moogwrench says. -- Rico 06:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "Revert by Ed Wood's Wig at 19:06, 28 October 2009":
    Ed Wood's Wig has denied on the article talk pages again and again and again that there ever was a coup in Honduras.[78]:Ed Wood's Wig has been repeatedly warned that the article talk pages are not forums,[79] because Ed Wood's Wig never backs up his claims with reliable sources.[80]
    Ed Wood's Wig is just uncivil beyond belief, so I am not surprised to see a coup denier align with a coup apologist and summarily delete a valid dispute tag. -- Rico 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding, "No one but him has reverted me since the conclusion of the old edit war in relation to this article":
    That's not true.[81] -- Rico 06:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moogwrench keeps trying to paint himself as being with consensus, but the results of the RfC I added to the talk page are leaning towards agreeing with me.
    JRSP agreed with me.[82] -- Rico 07:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

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

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

    Comments:

    I've left this user good advice.[92] Please be patient, per WP:BITE. They started here on the wrong foot and I'm trying to coax them in a better direction. It would really help if people applied less pressure and were friendlier. If I'm mistaken, we'll see soon enough, and the editor will trouble you no longer. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will do. Our comments on this matter passed at the same time, so disregard below. I would delete it, but I don't know if that's allowed.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) FWIW, I am very friendly towards productive, new users. I'm also rather confused by your statement, "It would really help if people applied less pressure and were friendlier.", after you blocked his/her first account. But that's neither here nor there. APK because, he says, it's true 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Regardless, you are already blocked from editing with your other accounts. The block applies to this one as well. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look back at the blocks! I was told that I should create a new account. I am doing what the admin asked. Do you have another method of editing again when the reason you were blocked was your username? I could have just created a new account and never let on that I was the previous poster. So much for honesty... --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the ANI discussion, Jehochman said he indefinitely blocked your account "for (a) disruption, (b) importing a real world conflict into Wikipedia WP:BATTLE, and (c) derisive username combined with a campaign to attack and disparage other users due to their political views." APK because, he says, it's true 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring that Jehochman was the one who told me to reopen two new accounts. He is also supporting me now. Look at what he said on my Talk page as soon as this current username was opened. If he wanted to keep blocking me, he would have done so, not encouraged me to keep editing.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    These reverts are to a page into which a smear was being inserted by a suspected scibaby sock, who inserted it ~7+ times under your very nose, Arthur Rubin, while you stood by approvingly, and did nothing (the page is on your watchlist). Now, despite a long history of being blocked for edit warring yourself, and an ongoing dispute with me that I have raised with admin EdJohnston, you are reporting me here on a technicality. The question of your involvement with that page needs to be raised, given your clear Libertarian ideological dislike of the organisation in question (we all know you ran as a candidate for the Libertarian Party, unsuccessfully). Why are you editing the encyclopedia to push a philosophical barrow, and not to improve the encyclopedia? Can Wikipedia afford sysops like this? ► RATEL ◄ 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What is the evidence this is SciBaby? Post at WP:SPI. Don't leave hanging accusations. I like to block socks of banned users, but need some evidence first.
    2. It takes at least two to wdit war. Just stop.
    3. Strike your personal attacks. Your comment is not fair to Arthur.

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

    My evidence that it is scibaby is that scibaby has been dogging my edits for several months now, and I've seen about 20 socks of his blocked on pages I edit. It is also clear from this person's edits that despite protestations of ignorance of how wp works, he is well aware of how to edit, shooting to noticeboards without a pause, using reversion, indentation, policy-quoting and numbering seamlessly, etc. I'm not trying to edit war anyone, but simply trying to stop the encyclopedia being used to smear Bill McKibben and 350.org with an entirely unrelated event. I wish someone would ask Arthur Rubin to edit articles outside the global warming scope. It's deeply damaging for WP to have strongly opinionated sysops editing articles like this. It should be noted that over 97% of practising climatologists regard anthropogenic global warming as real, and that means that scientists who believe otherwise are actually mavericks and wp:fringe applies. Rubin is not a scientist but subscribes to a skeptical viewpoint that allies him with a tiny minority of scientists in the applicable field. Therefore he should not be editing climate related pages, especially as he does so with attitude. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Check my editing log. Do you see the number of errors I've made? Lots. I'm not an expert Wiki user. If I had been on here for months, do you think I'd be asking about elementary things? I had to ask what a scibaby was. I must politely protest that you are wrong. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97], see also [98]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

    Comments:

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [100]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    I'd suggest a 1R limit and a stern word. I'm not a fan of blocking, so I'd rather go with that. Master of Puppets 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. A 1RR limit is more likely to be effective, since the earlier two EW blocks don't seem to have made a difference so far. Do you know how such a limit is usually formalized and instituted ? Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing the talk page of the user in question is generally enough. Just define the terms and repercussions. Also, make sure to specify that the limitation is in effect immediately, not when they reply - some users will not reply and then later claim they didn't see your edit. Master of Puppets 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [111] 18:06, 28 October 2009
    • 1st revert: [112] 23:08, 28 October 2009
    • 2nd revert: [113] 03:52, 29 October 2009
    • 3rd revert: [114] 19:05, 29 October 2009
    • 4th revert: [115] 20:02, 29 October 2009

    Prior warnings:

    JN466 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Page: 350.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [118]

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

    THe complainant had technically violated 3RR on this article less than 24 hours ago. As an admin had requrested that the new editor who also violated 3RR in the reverse direction be given some slack, I also recommended against a block, but it should be noted that he, also, is repeating his contentious edits. The claim of attempting to resolve the issue seems — questionable, at best. It looks to me as if he were attempting to goad the new editor who opened the RfC; at least, that seems to be the effect. Intentions are difficult to determine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim I technically violated 3rr on the article in the section above, but by my count I did not do so at all. The rule is 24 hrs right? I did not break that rule, whereas you did. ► RATEL ◄ 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears my miscounted. If I hadn't misinterpreted your offer of compromise (which you still shouldn't have implemented without indication of consensus from the batty editor or an uninvolved editor), as not being a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, I probably would have kept better count.
    Quoting my report above:
    1. 00:08, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
    2. 00:52, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Moonbatssuck (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
    3. 22:07, 28 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Idetestlunarbats (talk) to last version by Dr.enh")
    4. 00:07, 29 October 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by MoonHoaxBat (talk) to last version by Ratel")
    4 reverts in less than 24 hours (although only about 23 hours 59 minutes). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [120]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

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

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [127]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

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

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

    See also [134]. Thanks. --Nutriveg (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I had also reported this user, not realizing he had already been reported. I've merged my comments into this report and removed my duplicate report.
    Direct evidence of connection between the user and the two IPs:
    • see this edit where the IP 158.194.199.13 replaces a {{UnsignedIP}} tag on a comment by IP 158.194.65.44 with the signature of user "Testosterone vs diabetes".
    • see this edit there user "Testosterone vs diabetes" replaces the signature of IP 158.194.199.13 with his own signature.
    See also related issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Testosterone vs diabetes.
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I too had added a report. The only thing I would like to add are the other relevant talk page sections:
    Wperdue (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the disputed user contributions, I agree with editors above. I tried to compromise on the Diabetes mellitus page, where I came for a third opinion, but it seems he took my attempts at good faith and reach a reasonable middle ground as a "green light" for his soapbox and conspiracy theories, and this is unacceptable. There is something of interest in the links he provides, but the editor's behaviour is unacceptable and difficult to control. --Cyclopiatalk 22:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The report was a bit stale by now, but I have gone ahead and blocked the user account because the disruption has been going on for a few days, and because of the IP socking. Let me know if he persists in using other IP socks, and I can semi-protect the page. Cyclopia, can you please ensure that the "something of interest in the links he provides" is included in the article, to whatever depth it deserves ? Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will try, no problem. Why this request? --Cyclopiatalk 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Because I haven't looked at the content issue and you as the 30 responder would have a better idea idea of if/how it should be handled. Basically, passing the buck. :-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [135]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [141]

    Comments:

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

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

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

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


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned him in the comments to my restorations: [146] I warned him on his talk page, twice: [147], [148]. User Cyclopia warned him on his talkpage, but he deleted that warning and called the user a "moron" [149] he then proceeded to send ME a message threatening me with 3RR [150] despite the fact that I had only restored his reversions and had added additional information in my second restoration. He has not responded to any of my posts.

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

    Comments:

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

    • I endorse the summary above. Crotchety Old Man deleted a template+personal message I added on his talk page calling me a "moron" in the edit summary [151]. While he's entitled to delete whatever from his own talk page, the edit summary is not exactly WP:CIVIL, even if I don't care much. The deletion pattern above is however very much concerning. --Cyclopiatalk 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation/Stale. A single revert today (and that was six hours ago), the remainder were two days since. The user didn't wait "just over 24 hours", that's just false - the reverts were 40 hours apart. This isn't great, but it's something that belongs at WP:WQA if anywhere. Also, we should have a very low tolerance for unnecessary BLP-skirting at this article - the issue in question doesn't belong in the article since it's clearly false. I also note without comment that the IP editor is surprisingly well-read on the minutiae of Wikipedia policy from their very first edit. Black Kite 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a minute. The problem is not the 3RR, I think. The problem is that he is repeatedly deleting completely legit and on-topic comments on an article talk page -violating WP:TPO, handwaving BLP when there's no such concern -the deleted comment is not vandalistic or libelous by any standard. --Cyclopiatalk 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. --Cyclopiatalk 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite: Thank you for your quick response. I will look into filing my complaint there if he continues to delete my posts. (I really did try to do my homework on the wikipedia rules to make sure I was in the right here). You noted that this was a "stale" controversy; for future reference, when should I have brought this to the admins' attention? Should I have continued to restore his reverts for a longer period of time and then reported if he continued, or should I have reported him after the 3rd consecutive revert? (I was concerned with running afowl of the 3RR and edit warring prohibitions myself). Cyclopia: Thanks for lending your support in this matter, I'm a frequent user of wikipedia but this was my first serious contribution to the site and I was worried I wouldn't be taken seriously because I hadn't set up an account yet. Much appreciated. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The gerbil junk is a BLP violation. BLP violations are not allowed in either the articles OR the talk pages. Reverting BLP violations overrides the 3-revert rule. Although I would argue that reverting only part of it defeats the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a clear history of incivility from Crotchety Old Man just gathered from his edit summaries on his user talkpage, but, as pointed out that's an ANI issue. Re the Edit-warring, he can't seem to decide on his reason for reversion: first it was
      • argument is dead, then it was
      • (read the rest of the talk page. this issue has been resolved. gerbil mentions dont belong in the article, so no further discussion neccessary. thanks IP, followed by
      • Per BLP., then,
      • (rv per BLP. don't re-add unless you have an original thought to bring to the already-dead argument.), finally
      • (per TPO, delete material not relevant to improving the article. thanks for linking that!)
    • This means that at least 3 of his reversions weren't based on BLP arguments, and that should be enough for a warning.
    • Furthermore the BLP argument is highly controversial: Nobody is suggesting that Richard Gere stuck a Gerbil up his ass, Everybody is suggesting that there's a false rumour about it, and with 83 book references, 5 movies and tv show references, and references to it by Richard Gere and Sylvester Stallone, there is now a rediculous amount of good references about this false rumour and that does not a BLP violation make. Rfwoolf (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's absolutely no reason to delete relevant comments to the talk page, too. We're not talking of the gerbil any more, Crotchety. We are talking of you deleting talk page material by other editors and using incivil edit summaries. But that's more of a material for AN/I than for this page.--Cyclopiatalk 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crotchety has reverted six times now. The "other" parties reverting back total 3 other parties. Right now he's outnumbered. He should make no further reversions unless he gets another party to do it. While that won't solve the problem, it alleviates the situation where one editor reverts 6 times. It aint right, and even the BLP violation falls flat because then the entire talk page is a BLP violation; Crotchety should delete the entire talk page otherwise he is singling out a single user's comments. BLP violation or not, he's singling someone out: he should apply his self-righteousness evenly. Rfwoolf (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make an effort at applying some logic to the situation. The edit in question is the first since the whole gerbil issue was summarily smacked down as a BLP violation. Again, I understand your frustration. You put a lot of wasted time and effort into finding "sources", only to be embarrassed when an admin deleted the page WebHamster created. You'll feel better if you just move on. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, by suggesting someone else do the revert, you basically admit that you know you're in the wrong. Baby steps! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the issue has not been "smacked down": there was some weak consensus that it shouldn't appear in the article, and discussion didn't move on. This doesn't mean that someone cannot bring the issue back, if done properly. That's what the IP editor did, and it was by no mean a BLP violation (heck, it doesn't even cite what is the legend being talked about!).
    Second, Rfwoolf suggestion is that, if you feel that deleting such content from talk page is legit, you should find editors deleting it, in addition to you. Which is not happening -quite the opposite in fact.
    The point is: One thing is consensus about the content. Another is deleting relevant and civil comments from a talk page. If you persist, this matter, along with your persistent incivility pattern in edit summaries, is going to ANI as soon as I have time. --Cyclopiatalk 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you file an ANI report, make sure you let me know via my talk page. I'd hate for you to make the same dumb mistake twice. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure you will be noticed -why twice? I didn't file anything about you before. --Cyclopiatalk 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crotchety: "I find it reprehensible and downright pathetic that I was not notified of this discussion. I expect a little more from the experienced editors. (Not you, IP - you clearly have no clue what's going on)." I'm not sure what part of my message on your talkpage that said "This is your final warning: if you continue to revert posts just because you disagree with the poster I will report you for rules violations." or the other warnings from other editors or the warning in the comments to the restorations were unclear. If you simply did not read people's comments before deleted them and called them names then that is your problem my friend.
    Again, I welcome your comments on the page if you still want to discuss the issue, and if not, there is no one forcing you to read it; if the matter is settled in your mind and you don't want to be excluded from the discussion, then exclude yourself, keeping in mind that there are new people coming to wikipedia every day with differing opinions who would like to engage each other in a civil matter. Thank you. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drmargi and User:HelloAnnyong reported by User:Roman888 (Result: )

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


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


    DrMargi

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

    HelloAnnyong

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

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

    TokenPassport reported by Verbal (Result: 31h )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments

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

    Brazil

    There is a problem at Brazil. Two editors, Lecen (talk · contribs) and Opinoso (talk · contribs) are bickering about changes to several sections of Brazil. I've tried to be an uninvolved party to bring them closer to consensus. Both are a little biased in regard to the subject, but I had hopes they could work it out. User:Lecen is more engaged in discussion, while User:Opinoso is having problems with staying civil. Two days ago User:Opinoso added another section to the discussion, that had also been edited by User:Lecen. Now User:Opinoso has unilaterally reverted large parts of the article. I think that was not the correct thing to do at this moment. I think this move has made the situation go out of hand, and ask for intervention. Of what sort, I leave up to you. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have informed both users about this discussion [163] [164] User:Lecen has informed me that he will be unavailable till Tuesday. [165]

    I reverted the article to its original History text. A brief explaination of what is going on there: one day User:Lecen decided to erase the entire History text from article Brazil. He said he was "improving" the article because it was "wrong". However, all the informations there were well sourced. This user did not point what was wrong there and why it was wrong. He simply deleted the entire text without any justification and replaced it with his own contributions. The text he deleted was sourced, written by several users along the years. This good text was replaced by a new text, exclusively written user Lecen, with biased informations that show his own vision about the subjetive and tries to hide important facts about it.

    I asked user Lecen to comment on each information he deleted from that article.[166] However, he was not able to explain the removal not even of a single information. Then, he was not deleting the article because it was "wrong", but because he just doesn't like it. From this perspective, I re-posted the original History text that he deleted without any justification.

    What History text should stay there: the "old text", written by several users along the years, well sourced and neutral or the "new text", written exclusively by user Lecen, biased and selling his personal point of view of the subject? Opinoso (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [167]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

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

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

    Kenosis/SaltyBoatr reported by 96.237.129.194 (Result: )

    Page: Template:Second Amendment
    User being reported: Kenosis/SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version: [174]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am capable of looking, and I looked

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

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


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

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


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


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

    Comments:


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

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&oldid=322571196
    2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&oldid=322574216
    3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&oldid=322575850
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=323168296"