Page: District of Columbia voting rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Npendleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

User:Npendleton is also IP user 207.172.146.226, which he/she verified in conversation on the talk page. Three separate editors have reverted this user's changes, including myself. There is obviously no consensus for the changes the user is making. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll call this Stale for now, since there has been no edit warring in the past 24 hours. Drop me a note on my talk page if the edit warring resumes and I'll take another look. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I added these NPOV facts. "SMP0328." uses long, vague, incomplete and water down language, and selective over summary, and repeated deletion to protect "SMP0328."'s POV. Deleters tactics include summarily discounting all NPOV facts. No one has identified one NPOV fact (that I provided) as factually inaccurate. Deletion of the NPOV facts about key questions of US Constitutional Rights by "SMP0328." and others is shockingly bad. (I am also humored that this user use a "." at the end of their user name to demonstrate how easy it is cut off discussion.) I have asked on the Discussion page which NPOV fact bothers these busy deleters of history. Not one person that has deleted the NPOV facts I contributed has challenged a point in the material I submitted.

Challenging one bit of POV astroturf such as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I don't even really know where to begin with this editor. Based on this user's edit summaries, I can only imagine that this user has no intention of acting in good faith and is simply taunting the editors with whom he or she disagrees. The talk page discussion very quickly turned into this user's own philosophical diatribe. Over a period of several days, four individual editors, including myself, have reverted this user's edits; there is clearly no consensus for this user's changes. Despite Npendleton's claims to the contrary, it is not the responsibility of other users to accommodate an individual whose edits are unsourced, poorly written, tangentially related to the article topic, and violate a NPOV. -epicAdam^(talk) 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hmbr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

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

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

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

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19] (not really an issue, included mostly to indicate Renejs still active on page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] (warned of ANI notification) Past warnings: [21] & [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], & [28]

Comments:

I initially reported Renejs to the ANI [29], but while admins said that something should be done, they refrained from taking action as they didn't feel familiar with the subject. Since then Renejs has continued to edit war in accordance with his WP:SPA POV. Please help. Eugene (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

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

Comments:

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

Page protected. Protected by Maunus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for one day. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]
• 5th revert: [41]
• 6th revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [44]

Comments:

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

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47] (reverts text i added explaining a citation)
• 3rd revert: [48] (reverts another editor)
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]
• 6th revert: [51]
• 7th revert: [52]
• 8th revert: [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments

The IP has just come off a 55 hour block for disruptive editing and is also being looked at for possible sockpuppetry and block evasion (two very similar IP addresses are currently on a one year block for trolling, but the SPI hasn't returned any sort of verdict yet. just suspicions).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Had a sockpuppet? I am a sockpuppet ;)

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Bali ultimate and Jack Merridew have intentionally included redlinks and removed what are widely accepted reliable sources to this AfD. It appears that there is some POV on their part while I am attempting to include fair information.

Some of the unfair information that has been included by

Bali:

• removal of "Grabby award" : [56], [57]
• intentionally creating/restoring redlinks: [58]
• including clearly POV info: [59]

Jack:

• intentionally creating/restoring redlinks: [60], [61], [62]
• removal of "Grabby award": [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]

Now, this list goes on and on, I'm not going to bore anybody. I'm willing to come to consensus, but that means on all our parts. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is being disruptive and does not seem inclined to stop. The article and porn sites and cites on-offer are ludicrous; the AfD should sort the article out, but it's up to others to sort the anon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jack, to clarify, I'm not to participate in internal matters and I'm not to edit content, either? Please advise here. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice you seem to have gotten there; you also seem to not be taking it, so expect to be blocked, again. *I'm* not seeing much beyond disruption from you. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including references is not disruption and your continued insistence that it is will certainly be sorted out. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting any damn unreliable ghit into this project is disruptive. Jack Merridew 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It must be very nice, to be able to determine what's reliable and what's not all on your own...for example, not allowing http://www.grabbys.com/ as a reference for the grabby awards. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours. Please let me know if this resumes after that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: content was already there, arguing for it's removal if unsourced

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute at WP:NOR: [75]

Comments:
Slow edit war over insertion of opinions without source. Contributor feels that unless someone is able to challenge their assertions that the additional information cannot be removed, whilst failing to provide a source to say why the information should be included. Weakopedia (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I protected the page for a week. Discuss don't fight. If you can agree on this before the week is up, let me know and I'll unlock it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Fox News Channel‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drrll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=354990010

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=354993196&oldid=354990010
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=355219522&oldid=355162793
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&diff=355256512&oldid=355220416

Here's 4 links from the past 3 days of user repeatedly inserting the word "liberal" anywhere possible into a section concerning critics of Fox News, some quickly approaching 3RR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=354988798 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=354920128 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=355052655 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=355216412

User has been attempting to make exclusively partisan edits to just about every article edited. Has repeatedly tried to insert "liberal" and "leftist leaning" etc. in an explicitly non-NPOV manner that serves no informative purpose and does not further the article's content. It's perhaps more noticeable in user's insistence that Fox News Channel has the word "liberal" precede a priest criticizing one of its hosts, because "it informs the reader" - but user seems to not be taking into account that this is an encyclopedia and people come here for information, not to see the alleged political affiliation of critics of one subject.

Comments: I have not tried to have a conversation with the user. After viewing the user's talk page and seeing the user has been warned repeatedly and blocked twice for such behavior very recently - in fact, 2 days ago user received a warning from an admin to stop making unconstructive edits to the SPLC article and the user has not complied, so based on that strong pattern of past behavior I took it straight here. Had user given me any reason to believe user would be willing to listen and work things out, I would have commented on the talk page. Every indication shows that that would not have happened. Maybe this should have gone in the "edit war" noticeboard, I don't know. I'm still new at reporting, my apologies. Kelseypedia (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not over 3RR but not discussing and its clearly trying to force their POV through edit warring. 72 hours. If they resume after the block ends let me know as they now are on a very short leash. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted by Drrll on his talk page and I moved it here at their request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case mentioned by the report, I was simply reverting the SPLC article back to the way it had been for over two years ("organizations it calls hate crimes"), not adding material. Unlike the claims made in the report, I didn't add "leftist-leaning" to an article; instead, I actually removed it from the SPLC article because it was unsourced--please see the SPLC article history. In the second case, my addition to the Fox News Channel article was sourced to the NYT. If you check my edit history, you will see that I often use article Talk pages to discuss controversial changes, but I didn't in these cases. I'll discuss all controversial reverts on the article Talk pages before making them in the future.--Drrll (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hungary–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: 12:32, 10 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 13:32, 10 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 07:58, 11 April 2010
• 4th revert: 14:57, 11 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: much familiar with the rules

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:
Here he have a user, who is very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, yet continues to break them repeatedly. It seems that after 5 blocks all for 3RR and edit warring related [78] He continues to edit war some more. All of his edits here remove over 36 000 bytes of content, double the size of our average articles, and over 60 sources also. It is highly evident that this mass deletion of sourced information and blanking has no consensus, but Wladthemat keeps making the same edit over and over again. All the edits are within 26 hours, yet with the other factors (such as past violations) and the repeated blanking which is highly disruptive, I ask that admin action is taken.Hobartimus (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - Page protected one month. The version of this article that was nominated for deletion on 26 March looks truly scary. (See Sections 12 and 13 of the article). If this were a BLP, admins would be taking drastic action. Since the accusations that are made in the article are mostly against groups rather than individuals it's not quite the same. Nonetheless a good consensus needs to found about how to fix this article and make it neutral. I'd suggest a WP:Request for comment. A discussion at the WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard might be another way to get eyes on the problem. Meanwhile, if a compromise is found, the article can be unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

There is no issue to be resolved here. There is a consensus that the Russian names of cities in Ukraine must be listed beneath the Ukrainian names because those Russian names are the most common names found in English: [85]

Comments:

Bandurist is the latest in a long string of Ukrainian nationalist editors who make it their mission to remove all Russian names from Ukrainian-related articles even thought they have been shown time and time again that the Russian names are still often more common in English than the new Ukrainian names. While most of them just remove all references to "Kharkov" (including in book titles), Bandurist was more subtle and made his removal part of a real content edit in order to hide it. For some reason, the Ukrainian vandals aren't targeting all the cities of Ukraine at this time, just Kharkiv. (Taivo (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Result - 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 1: Milton Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page 2: 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Previous version reverted to: the Milton Friedman article

the 2008-2010 Icelandic financial crisis article

March 25th for Milton Friedman article:

• Bonewah reverts, saying that the writers of the articles must be named (in that he is correct), but also making the claim that it be demonstrated the writers are "important". He also says that the references are "editorials" (apparently, he doesn't know the definition of an editorial): [86]
• Here, Bonewah reverts again, even after the proper reference is made and the writer of the article identified : [87]
• 3rd Bonewah revision. He says that I must "justify the edits on the Talk Page".A strange thing to say since the edit had already been justified on the Talk Page and to which he had just responded to prior to making his 3rd reversion: [88]
• 4th Bonewah reversion. Despite his demands being met, his rationale for his reversions keeps changing. [89]

April 8 - 9 (24 hour range) for Milton Friedman article

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

March 25 for 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert, part 1: [96]
• 3rd revert, part 2: [97]
• 4th revert:

[98]

April 8-11 for 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis

Even after this section has already been discussed in Talk, Bonewah continues to delete material while unctiously requesting for it to be "taken to the Talk Page" -- pretending as if no discussion had ever taken place:

• 1) [99]
• 2) [100]

April 11: par for the course for this editor, any reversion may be justification at any time and for any reason simply by accusing the other editor of "edit warring": [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As he had done on my page, I placed a warning template on his Talk Page: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several contributions by myself on both articles' Talk Pages: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]

I had requested page protection for the Milton Friedman article, but the requests was denied:

[110]

Comments:

<Bonewah's persistent revisions and his ever-shifting reasons for those reasons -- first he requests discussion on the Talk Page; then, after discussion has taken place, he finds some new reason to revert -- as well as his accusations of "edit-warring" is what's known as "editing in bad faith". J.R. Hercules (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)>[reply]

• Comment - J.R. Hercules was previously blocked on 9 April for edit warring at Milton Friedman, per this 3RR report. He seems to be continuing the war, now against multiple editors, at both Milton Friedman and at 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis. Nobody else supports his changes on the Talk pages of these two articles. He is at 4RR in 24 hours on Milton Friedman, but has not broken 3RR on the other. Bonewah has only reverted twice on each one. I would prefer that a different admin handle the case this time, since I closed the last one. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you had actually bothered to check the links provided either on this case or even on the case submitted Bonewah, you would have seen that Bonewah did indeed revert at least 3x on at least one of the pages cited. How you managed to focus on only my RR's and not the person who actually submitted the report is beyond me. Strangely enough, you term my editing attempts as "warring" while the editors who keep deleting/reverting are somehow *not* warring, even though the reasons they cite are dubious (at best) or just plain made-up. There could be 10,000 more ideologically-biased editors who don't like my particular edits and it would all mean zip as long as the content of the edits follow WP guidelines (which they do). J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reporter blocked for 55 hours. Continuing to edit-war against multiple editors (and consensus on the talkpage) on an article you've just been blocked for edit-warring on (not to mention the Icelandic article) is the very definition of disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: Insertion of links to Campaign for Liberty website

• 1st revert: 15:51, 11 April 2010
• 2nd revert: 16:03, 11 April 2010
• 3rd revert: 20:15, 11 April 2010
• 4th revert: 22:04, 11 April 2010
• 5th revert: 22:32, 11 April 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

DarkHorseSki, an apparent single-purpose-account, has been trying to use this Wikipedia article as a coatrack for other obscure groups or organizations. His edits have been reverted by Xenophrenic, ArabicaDark, Goethean and perhaps others by now, but he just keeps inserting inappropriate and unsourced content. Suggestions and requests on the talk page have gone unheeded. In addition, he is now adding personal editorializing to the Wikipedia article here. Thanks in advance for any assistance, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Result - 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Johanna Budwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nunquam Dormio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 18:11, 11 April 2010 (edit summary: "rv - he's back to his old tricks")
2. 06:27, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "rv - deletion of papers &c")
3. 09:21, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "rv - fourth deletion by Twiga Kali of papers in Pubmed by Budwig &c")

Comments:

Having some severe problems cleaning up this article which has been used to post commercial links and suffers from exaggerated notability. Current problem involves removing WP:PUFF to non-notable papers/letters/foreign translations that do nothing for the article other than make the subject appear more notable than they really are. Finding it hard to engage other editor in discussion about this. Merely rv's after any edit, despite appeals on talk page to discuss.

• No violation - 3 rv's each - page protected for discussion - note that further edit warring after protection expires may be reason for a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.175.68.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Original insertion of controversial edit and six reverts this morning, four after warning issued Full record from single purpose IP account here

Warning given here

No move by IP address to talk page - this is part of a pattern of near identical edits by IP addresses in recent week. Partial protection of the page has been requested. Comments:

• Blocked for 31h. I rolled back the edit again; might be worth taking to RFPP as this is a dynamic IP and I can't really semi the page myself having rolled back. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logged request earlier today, its moving up the queue --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Helen Bader School of Social Welfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Revws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 13:37, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 13:48, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 14:19, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "Added sources from US News & World Report and the original 2010 Academic Excellence Award from APHSA")
4. 14:29, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "It is top ranked, so it notable. Sources are reliable sources not advertisement.")
5. 14:48, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "It received the 2010 Academic Excellence Award from the American Public Human Services Association and top ranked by US News")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113] and [114]

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

Comments:

• Declined When a good faith new editor is struggling to write a new article, they should be approached in a helpful and collaborative manner; tagging and templating is not a substitute for discussion. A block for edit-warring would be completely inappropriate here, at least for Revws. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Miss Universe 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bigb0x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. 10:56, 11 April 2010 (no edit summary)
2. 15:43, 11 April 2010 (no edit summary)
3. 20:45, 11 April 2010 (no edit summary)

• Two intervening reverts by Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. 12:14, 11 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355313749 by Bigb0x (talk)")
2. 16:25, 11 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355350470 by Bigb0x (talk)")

Bigbox's last edit reverted by an IP user:

1. 05:15, 12 April 2010 no edit summary

This is slightly stale (about 20 hours since last revert), but these two editors seem to have some mutual animosity. See Talk:Miss World 2010. If temporary blocking is not warranted, the two may bear some watching. Cnilep (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the above-metioned article with right reasons that are stated in the following sources:

http://abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/04/10/10/venus-raj-given-chance-reclaim-bb-pilipinas-universe-title
http://globalbeauties.com/blog/?p=891

As you can read, she has been given the CHANCE to get the crown back, but she is still DETHRONED at the moment. She is still NOT the representative of the Philippines nor anyone else.

Besides, it is not 100% clear that she will get her valid passport, because it is combined with a lot of problems.

Whoever edits what I edited, you are either a nationalistic Filipino who is blinded by nationalism or can´t read at all. Sorry to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigb0x (talk • contribs)

Page: Lim Biow Chuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DanS76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Help! DanS76 repeatedly deleted the controversy section I've added. He cited copyright violations when I only copied the quotes of the person involved. I did not copy the whole article. I believe that this is permissable under fair use.

AS per the talk page of the article[[116]], the only things I removed were copyvio text (which Ahnan only has to at least paraphrase to get it approved) and the content from political blogs, which failes the WP:NPOV and WP:RS tests. Another editor also added that WP:BLP could also be an issue with the original article as it was.DanS76 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REPORT WITHDRAWN TO AVOID YET ANOTHER TEDIUM OF PEOPLE ARGUING Vexorg (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: French colonial empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Gd21091993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry for my bad English, and sorry, I'm not fully understand how to request blocking here. the user edit the same page, French colonial empire on almost every wiki. he has been block here because of an edit war, and has been block for infinity in 2 wikis. Ely1 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the sysop on he.wiki who blocked the IP there (my user page). I'm performed the block after checking on some other wikis for use of the image on the article, and concluded that it's an edit war gone inter-wiki. Never quite understood en.wiki guidelines in this respect, but if this is allowed to go own it will return to other wikis, and force us to block the entire article for sysops only, which will be unfortunate. Havelock (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gd21091993 has a total of 18 contributions on the English Wikipedia, dating from February 2010. The majority of these contributions are reverts of the French colonial empire article to restore an image called File:13Etendue de l'Empire Français.png, which he strongly prefers over the alternative. Since the account is only here for edit-warring purposes, an indefinite block seems correct. I've asked him to respond here. If there is no satisfactory response, I'm planning to enact the block. He was previously blocked in February for the same reason, but only for a short time. He has never posted anything to a talk page, either here or at the French wiki, which is where his account was created. Here are the sulutil results for his account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gussie Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 208.57.67.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original version

• 1st revert: 14:53
• 2nd revert: 14:54
• 3rd revert: 14:58
• 4th revert: 15:08

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 Warnings

Comments:

• I realized I also reverted four times. Huggle makes this far too easy -- I will be more careful, and I'm not reverting this article again (actually have put huggle back on the shelf for now)
• While two of the 3RR diffs differ somewhat, the content is basically the same and it's obvious the IP is here for self-promotion.
• Article needs to be reverted; probably should check all the changes by this IP (going back several days)

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ myth theory is once again proving contentious. Large numbers of editors have been making substantial changes very quickly recently. A couple of them are running rough-shod over WP:CON material hashed out in mediation. While I don't think the situation amounts to edit waring, it's darn close. I'd like an admin to please lock the page for a week so we can work some of these issues out on the talk page. Thanks. Eugene (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation was a poor affair and Eugene is having to come to terms with not owning the article anymore. That is not the same as edit warring and as a content dispute I do not know what he hopes to achieve by bringing it here. Sophia ♫ 23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eugene. The amount of POV pushing from the other side is getting to be ridiculous. Also, Eugene is not the "owner", although you (Sophia) want to paint him as such. Since your side cannot provide any RS quotes that say that the theory is mainstream or even a "minority" viewpoint (which you have admitted to in the past that it wasn't, from what I can recall), the theory is fringe and will continue to remain so in the foreseeable future. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully protected for 3 days. WP:RFPP would've been a better venue for this, actually. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the history over the last couple of months would have shown who has been the major architect of the current article with all its problems. Sophia ♫ 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as though edits from both "sides" are (or have been) problematic, actually. Have you thought about taking this to dispute resolution, or is that a lost cause by now? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the last 3 days most of the recent editing has been by one person. Not healthy for any article and bound to cause problems when that changes. It is also worth looking at Eugene's user page, which makes it clear he feels he is fighting some sort of holy war. Sophia ♫ 23:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this; we have interacted in the past. However, I think it is still worth calling a halt to proceedings on the article for a few days to allow discusion to take place. If this is not successful, there are other avenues (WP:DR, WP:RFC) that can be followed. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I was in the process of writing up a 3RR report on Eugene when you protected. It took a while because he's engaged in complex partial reverting. I won't repeat it here, but I'd like to add that he has been doing this for a very long time. It has reached the point where it's difficult for anyone he disagrees with to make an edit. It has resulted in a POV article—in the opinion of several editors in good standing, including uninvolved editors—that seems poorly researched, and where reliable sources are being kept out simply because Eugene doesn't agree with them. POV categories are added against consensus, and basically anything he doesn't approve of, no matter how reasonable or well-sourced, is likely to be removed. It has led to RfCs, a mediation, two failed FACs, a rejected approach by Eugene to RfAr, and various other DR steps, but it continues. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article even exist? It is exactly what Wikipedia:Content forking is talking about. This article needs to be merged into Historicity of Jesus. The reason there are so many problems with the article is that its very existence is against policy. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think you are right, a lot of interesting information would be lost due to undue weight considerations. Sophia ♫ 00:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on Eugeneacurry's talkpage. Hopefully this will calm down some of the problems. If not, I have the article watchlisted. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I oppose any attempt to make Eugene the "villain" in this discussion. He has been an excellent editor (although no one is perfect; other than me, of course :-) ). There are some editors who simply don't want to acknowledge the best available evidence which is supported by mainstream scholarship, but would rather push their own POV. The CMT is fringe, and it seems that the next course of action will be to go to mediation. Thank for protecting the page, but I think the protection needs to be for about a month (or at least for a few weeks) rather than a few days, IMHO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]