Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 772: Line 772:
* User: {{userlinks|Seb az86556}}
* User: {{userlinks|Seb az86556}}
* User: {{userlinks|meco}}
* User: {{userlinks|meco}}

Evidence of harassment:

*08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
*08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
*08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
*08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
*08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
*08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
*08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
*07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
*14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)
The noteworthiness of the scientist [[Paul A. LaViolette]] was already well-established and I was allowed to remove the notice of non-notability put on the page and did so when I more than established the noteworthiness of Paul. Immediately user Seb az86556 begin putting up baseless disputes about me not being neutral and I stated why that was absurd, he then took it to a harassing level even further when I removed his dispute but allowed his cleanup request to remain by removing his clean up request and with a childish comment reinstated a non-notability template. He, unlike me, has not explained his reasons for his disputes which I clearly settled. Look at the page history and notice his childish "don't m[e]ss with me" and "fine, have it your way" comments of evidence as to what kind of person this is I'm dealing with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_A._LaViolette&action=history
The noteworthiness of the scientist [[Paul A. LaViolette]] was already well-established and I was allowed to remove the notice of non-notability put on the page and did so when I more than established the noteworthiness of Paul. Immediately user Seb az86556 begin putting up baseless disputes about me not being neutral and I stated why that was absurd, he then took it to a harassing level even further when I removed his dispute but allowed his cleanup request to remain by removing his clean up request and with a childish comment reinstated a non-notability template. He, unlike me, has not explained his reasons for his disputes which I clearly settled. Look at the page history and notice his childish "don't m[e]ss with me" and "fine, have it your way" comments of evidence as to what kind of person this is I'm dealing with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_A._LaViolette&action=history
Line 780: Line 792:


: Coincidentally, I've just started an [[WP:ANI]] thread about this editor. This should probably be added. <small>(as noted in above thread)</small> <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
: Coincidentally, I've just started an [[WP:ANI]] thread about this editor. This should probably be added. <small>(as noted in above thread)</small> <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

==Coincidentally Verbal?==

What a convenient coincidence Verbal that you happen to place your very late welcome notices AFTER I made it clear that I was a fundamentalist Christian and after having already been welcomed by that starred user. You are making personal subversive attacks and clearly with your friends meco and seb.[[User:Serpentdove|Serpentdove]] ([[User talk:Serpentdove|talk]]) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:37, 20 August 2009

    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

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Keka reported by User:Reg Holmes (Result: Both warned)


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


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

    I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but my edit was made on August 13th. Keka reverted, 5 hours after I published. I happened to be showing my friend the page and my entry was gone. I thought it was an accident and reverted back. Keka reverted again 1 minute later. I saw that and tried to find a way to communicate, but being new didn't know how, so I figured revert it again and the more experienced user would try to make contact. Later, another friend said I should leave a message on their talk page, so I left a message to try and start a dialog on Keka's talk page. I waited a day and came back to find my message to him/her deleted and no other attempt to communicate with me, so I looked into this policy and it said there had to be greater than 3 reverts, so I reverted again, and within 15 minutes, Keka reverted the page again, making 4 reverts.

    As it so happens Keka also reverted my post on Floor_and_ceiling_functions, at one point, but I reverted it back, and Keka has not re-reverted that one.

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

    I did not specifically warn, but I found this page through Keka's talk page so it would seem reasonable that they would know it.

    My attempt to communicate is here. I hope this is what you are looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keka&oldid=307755040

    I'm very new to editing wikipedia, and I came up with a series of equations that work for Modulo, floor and ceil, so I thought I would share them. I didn't try to be self serving/promoting or even ask for any credit.

    These were straight algebraic equations that anyone could verify, and yet this Keka person reverted my post. I posted a comment on Keka's talk page asking why s/he reverted my post and they deleted that post calling my attempt to communicate with them as nonsense.

    I'm a little disappointed if this is the norm. I have found open source projects to typically be a much more friendly environment.

    Reg Holmes (talk)

    • Warned Both warned about edit warring. Nja247 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reg Holmes has been adding patent nonsense, including (but very far from limited to) 0 raised to 0 which is mathematically undefined, to the two pages he mentions. Those pages happen to be on my watch list. Even though hidden by the way of using math formulas, the suggested additions by Reg Holmes are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism. Hence my reversals. Reg Holmes, as anyone else, is of course welcome to do constructive, encyclopediatic, and helpful edits. But absoute and obvious nonsense should not be kept. Maybe Reg Holmes's edits were intended to be made in good faith, but given the content of the edits it did not appear so. Indeed, given the content, I counted the edits as disguised vandalism. I should have written "rvv" or "reverting vandalism" already on the first reversals to make the reason clear, but reversal via "popups" does not allow for that ("save" is done automatically). I don't find that vandalism, even when hidden in math expressions, need be discussed in detail with the other editor. keka (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keka, If your soul intent was to revert something that you thought was mathematical nonsense, then why didn't you just talk to me when I tried to open a dialog and asked you why you were reverting my additions? I tried to take this off line and ask you, on your personal talk page, what was the deal, and you reverted that without a reply.
    As for your statement "Reg Holmes has been adding patent nonsense, including (but very far from limited to) 0 raised to 0 which is mathematically undefined, to the two pages he mentions.", I would like to know what exactly you think was patent nonsense". Perhaps you would like to contest that ω = 2pi? ω can technically be what ever it is defined to be, but it is regularly used to symbolize 2pi.
    I can understand your concern about 0^0=1, and that you think that it is undefined, but you need to educate yourself on the current standards. I would like to point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power where it is documented that, despite some debate, 0^0 is widely accepted as equal to 1. Of course I am citing Wikipedia since I am here, but there are numerous other sources that are much more emphatic that 0^0=1. The fact of the matter is that mathematics is not perfect, though we are all working towards that goal. You can find flaws in many aspects of its framework. I'm sure you know that there have been philosophical debates about even whether or not 1+1=2. Should we take down all math related pages, just because there is an objection to the established standards?
    I didn't remove the alternate ways to define these functions, I just added an alternate method to looking at them. Reg Holmes (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keka states that Reg Holmes changes "are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism". That is not Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism which explicitly states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Disagreements should be handled on the Discussion tab, not via Revert. Please also reference Wikipedia:AD which states how disputed information is to be handled.

    Malachid (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HAl reported by User:scientus (Result: Page locked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [1] There are earlier ones



    On lead, trying to remove the most covered part of OOXML

    Argumentative removal of critisism

    Microsoft-run sites

    • 1st revert: [14] Note purposeful confusion of POV tag
    • 2nd revert: [15]
    • 3rd revert: [16]
    • 4th revert: [diff]

    Ghettoblaster on same WP:SELFPUB sites.

    Google sourced critisism - discussion here

    • [19] Ghettoblaster - remove sourced information
    • [20] HAl

    All edit wars simultaneously, i.e. wholesale reverts, by HAl


    The stuff on the Microsoft-run sites, which HAl has repeatedly tried to hide the fact that they are Microsoft-run has been hashed out months ago. - Note that User:Alexbrn, aka Alex Brown has a conflict of interest on this topic as he is personally involved in OOXML development.

    user:HAl has a long history of only editing Microsoft-run sites and towards Microsoft's point of view.

    user:HAl also has a history of harassing editors. It appears he used a IPSock to both insult and straw-man his opponent, with 71.112.18.171, an IP located in Redmond, Washington. [23]

    user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues.

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

    Mud slinging, with no response on real content issues:


    Response Fortunatly I notice this edit because user:Scientus has of course not informed me of his action here directed against me. I just noticed this because I have asked for third party review on the WP:Wikiproject Computing on the edits made by user:Scientus on the Office Open article and user:Scientus reacted on that request for mediation with a link to here but subsequently removed that link so that I would not notice his actions on the ANI board. The above list does show a long list of edit conflict with user:Scientus on the Office open XML article but only a few of those edits were actuallly made in the last few days. Also it should be noted that user:Scientus has a lot more of these edits on the Office Open XML as he been reverting against several other users like user:Ghettoblaster and user:Alexbrn as well. I consider user:Scientus to be a disruptive editor on the wikipedia article of Office Open XML. He has engaged in fact tagging asked a dozen or more extra citations for the most basic of things on an article that has more citations that most on wikipedia already. After that he started to use tendentious disruptive deletions on the article removing very obvious information on support for Office Open XML and blatant tendentious diruptive edits adding stacks of unreleated critisism citations to neutrl text in the article lead. From this user:Scientus has moved on to campaigning to drive away productive contributors which the above is and example of. He now tries to get me a temporary block by formulating a damaging claim but it is almost entirely made up of links that are edits from several weeks ago or older and mostly of actions where he was actually reverted against several users and thus making lost more similar unjustifiable edits. user:Scientus actually got an edit ban for edit warring on my personal talk page. Also he actually claims some kind of ridiculous strawmann claim from Redmond which is just to laughable. When confronted with his actions on the talk page of the Office Open XML article by me and byy user:Ghettoblaster he refuses to go into subject matter or tries to avoid the discusion on the article topic but in stead tries to communicate through wikilawyerling. The WP:Disruptive editing article firstly suggest to keep reverting on disruptive edits and if this not helps to seek mediation or dispute resolution. Because of our edit clash before I taken the subject to the WP:Wikiproject computing to ask for independant verification of the edits made by user:Scientus. I would ask the admins to wait for the outcome of that request for independant intervention or even to invite any admins knowledgeable on computing subject to help out on the Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I already responded to this above:
    "user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues."Scientus (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This only serves to show your bias.
    The Office Open XML format is an official ISO/IEC standard developed by multiple companies within Ecma(also including Apple and Intel) and organizations (like the US libary of congress) and ISO national boies who all want a compatible succesor to the binary MS Office files. You only see a big MS sign on all edits. hAl (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/ site has a Microsoft copyright notice, and is provided and hosted by Microsoft, then it probably is written by Microsoft. Taking efforts to hide these facts sure seems to me to be incongruous with the goals of Wikipedia, especially the goal of building a better encyclopedia.Scientus (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. All I see from the edit history is two users working against each other. I locked the article for a week for you to work though this constructively. Once you stop fighting I'm happy to unlock or you can ask at WP:RFPPSpartaz Humbug! 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.132.143.162 reported by Ramapoughnative (Result: Incomplete report)

    There is a user who is known by IP address vandalizing the Ramapough page. He 1st complained on how it was written as "high school writing" then procedes to call me a liar when I post about elders able to speak Munsee. I gave him the reference pointing to the tribal website showing they are instructing Munsee classes in the Ramapough tribal office. Now they are adding links to other group as if we were related with no references to back it up. I request an arbitrator and the page blocked from changes until this is resolved. Thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Asked to collect evidence and use the submission templateScientus (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned both of them, and left a note at the talk page of the article. Am going to watch it and make sure the war doesn't restart. lifebaka++ 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To assist others in watching the article, I added some header information. The IPs are all from the Chicago area. They are most likely one single person who identifies himself here as a long-time editor who chooses to be anonymous. The IP seems more familiar with our sourcing rules than is Ramapoughnative, but he seems not to have picked up much diplomacy in his WP career. Lots of personal attacks on both sides. In the last two days both parties have broken 3RR. Admins should take action if the war continues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Systemizer reported by Verbal (Result: 1 week)

    Timewave zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Systemizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 05:25, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Added some sourced content")
    2. 07:09, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid an unexplained deletion of sourced content")
    3. 07:27, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "The sources were written by McKenna himself, so YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THEM UNRELIABLE.")
    4. 07:41, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "This version of the Summary section is sourced directly from McKenna and is INDISPUTABLE")

    The user refuses despite repeated notes in edit summaries and on talk pages to engage in debate, and continues to edit war against multiple editors who have attempted to discuss the edits. Please also review their block log.

    —Verbal chat 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an ongoing problem: 5. 12:05, 17 August 2009 (I think my timing on some may be an hour off, due to locale settings - not sure!) Verbal chat 11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 1 week King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xashaiar reported by User:Alefbe (Result: )

    User:Xashaiar is not a new user and he is already familiar with the 3RR rule. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left him a warning. This shouldn't preclude a block, if anyone still feels it necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goramon reported by User:JoshuaZ(Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [31]
    • Did not warn user since user repeatedly in the edit war claimed other users were violating 3RR: See [32].
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Disscussion on talk page here


    Note that the user was so willing to repeatedly revert without discussion that he actually reverted to the version he didn't want when he failed to read the relevant edit summaries. See [33][34]. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]


    Normally, I wouldn't care about the removal of one word in an article, but the diff of the first edit shows that he's not acting in good faith.

    Falcon8765 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Cybercobra (Result: Dup)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since this is rather trivial and obvious.

    Apologies if I've made any mistakes in filling out this report, this is my first one (or at least the first one I can recall). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note – Duplicate report. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, beaten to it. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [49]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50].
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PasswordUsername reported by User:jacurek (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [51]


    • 1st revert [[52]] 18:31, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ Removed misrepresented source. "Frequently", "often" are not found in the source. "Russophobia" or "anti-Russian sentiment" not found anywhere in the article either.")
    • 2nd revert [[53]] 19:51, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ That Chechens have an overwhelmingly negative view of Russians may be true, but it's not in source. Please stop adding misrepresented material.")
    • 3rd revert [[54]] 21:23, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "Undid revision 308551436 by Martintg (talk) Not OR -- text is sourced to what is found in a notable court case.")
    • 4th revert [[55]] 01:23, 18 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* Baltic states */ improper tagging - see talk")

    User informed [[56]] but not warned (repeat offender)--Jacurek (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    He self-reverted his last: [57], so it's only 3 reverts in 24h. Offliner (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st revert 15:59, 17 August 2009 (Marked as a minor edit) (edit summary: "/* Russia and the Soviet Union */ Removing material irrelevant to subject of collaborationism per WP:COATRACK and minor rewrite for coherency.")
    • 2nd revert 16:04, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 308499149 by Vecrumba (talk) The article isn't about this. What Shthern stocks are isn't even explained.")
    • 3rd revert 17:02, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Rvt again. Please explain WHY this is relevant information for an article about collaborationism. No one has done this, days after my request. Nothing has been said on talk despite days of asking.")
    --Martintg (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I self-reverted myself yesterday long before Jacurek made his "4RR report." ([58] - I'm not sure how Jacurek could have missed that one, because I self-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 308591443 by PasswordUsername (talk) fourth revert -- undo") I think that sufficiently addresses my editing at Anti-Russian sentiment, where every change is very well justified. As for what's brought up by Martintg's piling on top of this, I'd like to point out that I've also asked others, like Jacurek and Martintg, to put up an argument for including material outside the scope of WWII collaborationism before reverting my changes at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, on whose talk page Jacurek simply contended that Stalin's pre-1941 relations were significant to be detailed in an article dealing with WWII collaboration with the Nazis, without ever explaining why - others agreed with my edits on talk, and Martintg reverted, but never even participated. So explain their reasoning they never even did (please take a look)–although happy to revert they were, even without discussing the subject rationally and seriously. This report is ridiculous. Not only did I undo an accidental 4th revert as I reverted myself, I actually bothered to use the talk page where I had to in good faith undo the changes of these content opponents. I recommend that the admin reviewing this take note of Jacurek and Martintg's contributions - because I think that this report should be withdrawn in good faith. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PasswordUsername, please focus on the fact that you did revert extensively recently on many articles instead of attacking other editors. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Password Username has also been edit warring over at Nochnoy Dozor (group) (1st [59], 2nd [60], 3rd [61].) as well. Note that like on the other two articles (there may be other articles where this is going on) he is careful not to "officially" break the 3RR barrier but he's edit warring against multiple editors none the less. I believe this is usually seen as an attempt at "gaming the system" or "fence hugging" - I'm sure that since he's been blocked for 3RR before, PU knows he can't do 4 reverts (he got a little ahead of himself on "Anti-Russian sentiment") but he seems pretty keen on getting "his" 3 reverts per day on multiple articles at once. Furthermore, he also had 3 reverts, right-up-to-but-not-past-the limit on Neo-Stalinism a couple days ago (1st [62], 2nd [63], 3rd [64]. I'm sure he feels his edits are "justified" - but then people who revert always do.radek (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those diffs aren't even all reverts–do let me know what reversion you see in this: [65]. Nice try there. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a revert. Standard strategy among some editors who try to POV articles - present favorable sources' unequivocally and without attribution in text, while preceding all information from unfavorable sources with "according to an opinion..."radek (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectamundo. Attributing a source is now a revert–do everyone a favor and stop bringing your content disputes to an edit warring noticeboard. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When done selectively, yes. And please watch civility.radek (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please observe WP:HOUNDING. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IslamForEver1 reported by User:Jeff5102 (Result: socks blocked)

    This user is sockpuppetteer of a lot of sockpuppets, at the moment he uses User:GladHights, User:LeafyPlus, and User:Androizant. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IslamForEver1/Archive


    • Previous version reverted to:See below:


    And so on and on.

    The problem with this user is going on since September last year, when he edited the article as User:72.81.208.215.

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I edited the article talk-page 53 times. I think that would do.

    Jeff5102 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • All 3 socks blocked indef and article semi'd for a month. Black Kite 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result:96h)

    Persistent edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Was blocked for 48 hrs but still edited the page through an IP address, and has done the same again now the block has been lifted. Being investigated for sock puppets. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is really frustrating that "Another avatar" ignores all the references (see The New Cambridge Medieval History etc) and is doing original research. Henry of Luxembourg was never called "Henry VIII" but ever "Henry VII"; Henry (VII) of Germany was never "head of the empire" or emperor - his father Frederick II was the emperor. If you can understand german: read the articles in the NDB (Neue Deutsche Biographie - New German Biography): Henry (VII) and Henry VII. --77.176.22.203 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Black Kite 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aradic-es reported by User:Polargeo (Result: 48 hours )





    Also User:PRODUCER is involved in this edit waring with User:Aradic-es. I have not provided evidence of attempts to stop this because it seems that there is no point talking to these users. They are going at this edit waring across many articles. I first came across this waring in the article Karađorđevo agreement. However, in the case reported here Aradic-es appears to be repeatedly removing well sourced and accurate material from the lead section of the article. This material is simply showing details of a major international court case which the person is currently a defendent in and which the person is internationally most famous for. It appears Aradic-es wants to cover this up as much as possible. I think Aradic-es has been editing disruptively. I am new to this reporting of users so please forgive my mistakes. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reported Aradic-es here, please take a look for more information regarding the "edit waring across many articles", I have found discussing with this user to be ineffective even when a third opinion is brought in. PRODUCER (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patriot_Missile33 reported by User:Rhode_Island_Red (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [83]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

    This user is repeatedly deleting content from the article's lead despite the fact that they have not provided reasonable justification for doing so, have not adequately participated in ongoing discussions on the Talk page, have not included edit summaries, and have ignored input from other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.48.41.215 reported by User:Hexagon1 (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: The difference lies in the link to the British National (Overseas) passport, which is politically sensitive in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. Edit difference demonstrated in following reverts:
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on our respective talks: User talk:70.48.41.215 and User talk:Hexagon1, where I have warned the editor twice. The edit summaries of my edits too changed from explicitly referencing WP:AGF to a cautious warning tone.

    My edit summary requests for the editor to discuss on template talk have been ignored, though some discussion has very recently occurred on our user talks, accompanied by reverts. I have been very active on the template's talk and would welcome the IP's contributions there. This template, used on hundreds of often politically sensitive pages needs to reflect a neutral consensus-supported viewpoint, and this IP consistently violates such a consensus. I am hoping a brief cook-down block will help the IP understand that edit warring is neither productive nor efficient. I should note this user edits from a dynamic IP and would thus not be debilitatingly affected by such a block, merely made aware of Wikipedia policy's stance on constructive debate, which I have been trying to foster from the get-go. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very good! Hexagon1! why didn't you report yourself?? 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I have not to my knowledge breached WP:3RR, and unlike you, have consistently tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page. If you agree to revert the template to the consensus-supported state and commence discussion on the template's talk then there's no need for blocks. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    are you 100% sure you are not breached WP:3RR? are you sure you have tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page? pls check carefully! 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take that as a no, you won't agree to discuss. Good night then, it's twenty to three on Wednesday morning here. PS: 3RR is four reverts in 24 hours, not three. I have not breached it. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your pair of eyes are selectively blind. No matter it is technically fitted within 24 hours, if you keep reverting, it will also be counted or considered as edit warring or disruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that blocking the IP would probably not stop the dispute, I've protected the page. Settle it on the talk page or through DR somehow. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:192.87.123.115/User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: AA's block extended)

    User has been banned for second time in a week for edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Both times, his/her edits have been re-added by an IP address. Plus another avator has left a rude and defiant response to latest ban on his Talk page. I think the page needs protection from IP edits. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - User:Jerzy has extended Another avatar's block to 200 hours. I don't see the need for semiprotection to deal with a total of two IP edits. The block-evading IPs were 131.180.140.61 and 192.87.123.115, both from the Netherlands. (There is at least one good-faith IP working on the article, from the 77.* range). EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noloop at Criticism of Human Rights Watch reported by User:Doc Tropics (Result: 1 week)

    Two days ago this editor was given a 48 hour block for disruptive editing at the article linked above. Immediately upon returning his first edit to article space was a blanket revert of every single change made to the article (by at least 4 different editors) since his enforced break. This represents an unacceptable pattern of behaviour and deliberate flaunting of WP process. Please review and consider appropriate actions. Thanks, Doc Tropics 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you try talking to me first, and authority second? Noloop (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an extensive plea for communication on the Talk page. That's how consensus works.... Noloop (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is equivalent to a statement of intent to edit war: "I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time." --DocTropics [92] It's interesting that one can always report a "mass deletion" and it automatically looks bad, but it's much harder to report a "mass addition of POV-promoting WP:WEIGHT-violating" material, and have anybody care. You are editing without the consensus of 2 of the roughly 5 editors active on the article. Noloop (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider it counterproductive to communicate or negotiate with an editor that exhibits such profoundly bad-faith behaviour and disregard for policy; official channels are more appropriate. Doc Tropics 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did you not wait for responses from the eds whose work you deleted? Why did you post the request[[93]] after the deletions[[94]]? You should not delete material wihtout consensus, wihtout aloowing others eds to explain thier edits to you. Consensus is alkso achived thru edits, not just talk pages. You have mass deleted consensus edits that took two days to arrive at. Two days of work you have just blindly deleted. All of the added material is sourvced (much of it from notable persons) and attributed, i9n addition much of the work you deleted was aimed at putting in HRW's side of the story, or material defending their work (as such it is difficult to descirbe it as POV pushinig, putting in both sides arguments). What Noloop saying is that we cannot edit the page with out his consent. I have said that if you want we reset the page to 26th July and work from there.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the usual I-am-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong attitude Noloop has shown for far too long. I endorse a longer block to stop the edit-warring and the continuing removal of sourced and neutral material for which consensus has been reached. It is time to stop this disruptive editor. Pantherskin (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked this user for one week; he seems to have leaped back into the dispute he was blocked for disrupting, without any attempt at reasonable discussion that I can locate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has been offerd the option to go back to a pr dispuute date and to start work from there[[95]] sadley he only had 10 minutes to resppond prior to his block. I do not wish to post on his talk page as he has used this in thw past as an example of stalkiing.23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

    User:Jadran91 reported by User:Radeksz (Result: AB 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [96]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not asking for a block and I think this is just dealing with a new user.

    This appears to be a new user so not looking for a block or any kind of restriction. Assuming that it is in fact a new user (though he appears to be familiar with German Wikipedia) and not a sock of some sort, I just want a quick warning made to the user - in my experience new users pay more attention to warnings from uninvolved admins than from someone they're in a dispute with. So if not a sock, just warn, please don't block. Thanks.radek (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt this is a new user. Ostap 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts as well. But let's AGF.radek (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked 12 hours by Lifebaka. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.236.11.92, User:75.36.205.242, User:76.216.23.78 and User:WikiLubber reported by User:Tim Song (Result: Page semi-protected)



    • Reverts: (see comment below)
      To merged version: [102] [103] [104] [105][106] [107][108] [109]
      Each of those reverts was reverted in turn to the separate-season version in the next edit. I'll supply diffs if necessary.


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110] for one of the user. See below.

    I'm not originally involved in the article's editing (I discovered the problem during RC patrol a couple days ago, reverted once b/c the edit was apparently contrary to the talk page consensus, and watched it ever since), but this is getting out of hand. In the past few days there's been a revert war, with at least 8 reverts to the merged version by different users in the past 72 hours as far as I can see, and another 8 reverts (including mine) to the separate version. While there's no technical violation of 3RR, I thought that an admin might want to look into this matter and also consider possible sockpuppetry for the anons. Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clarification: I brought this here b/c of the revert war. I included everyone who has reverted at least twice in the past 72 hours. If I missed anyone, it's purely inadvertent. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I only wanted the seasons of that article separate for easier viewing, since there are 5 seasons. And all other TV shows that have had more than 1 season have separate seasons on their episode lists. WikiLubber (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article semi-protected for a week. Black Kite 07:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Introman reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [114]


    • 1st revert: [115] 23:55 18 Aug 2009
    • 1st revert: [116] 23:57 18 Aug 2009
    • 1st revert: [117] 23:58 18 Aug 2009
    • 1st revert: [118] 23:59 18 Aug 2009
    • 2nd revert: [119] 00:23 19 Aug 2009
    • 2nd revert: [120] 00:23 19 Aug 2009
    • 2nd revert: [121] 00:27 19 Aug 2009
    • 2nd revert: [122] 00:36 19 Aug 2009
    • 2nd revert: [123] 00:36 19 Aug 2009
    • 3rd revert: [124] 01:09 19 Aug 2009
    • 4th revert: [125] 02:43 19 Aug 2009


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

    Introman made a bold change to the article which I reverted and set up a discussion. However he continued to make alterations to the text that did not reflect the sources and provided no sources to defend his edits. Furthermore he reverted the text without attempting to gain consensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined No actual 3RR violation, and there's a start at talking together on the talk page, thus hopefully any further edit warring will now be avoided. Nja247 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karasek reported by User:Radeksz (Result: Self-revert)


    • Previous version reverted to: [127]


    • 1st revert: [128] (this is a revert because removal of names was disputed before)
    • 2nd revert: [129]
    • 3rd revert: [130]
    • 4th revert: [131]
    • 5th revert: [132]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134] (basically the user is trying to add contested info and change names based on an unclear source of unknown reliability and application)

    OK, first of all I didn't know the rule, and until now I wasn't used to users like Radeksz, who simply removes academic(!) sources again and again (the third time User:Space Cadet miraculously appeared) and without any proper reason. Bad luck I suppose. Karasek (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The revert war was about a German source, which Radeksz and Jacurek did not understand. "dt." in short biographies means "German". Ask any native speaker about it. Just because none of the three Polish users can speak German doesn't mean that revert warring makes up for your language barrier.
    2. the warning was given after the last revert and there was no additional revert after the warning
    3. gaming 3RR? Radeksz and Jacurek have been involved in three 3RR cases against different users on different articles in the last 24 hours: this case (both Radeksz and Jacurek revert-warred), Jadran91 reported by Radeksz (both Radeksz and Jacurek revert-warred) and PasswordUsername reported by Jacurek (Radeksz revert-warred). Both Radeksz and Jacurek are under are on editing restrictions and known for revert warring.--88.134.51.186 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I'm sorry but I only made one revert. You've been on Wiki for 3 years. Usually when new users break 3RR I'm pretty sympathetic but you are not one and I seriously doubt you didn't know about it. You seem to know enough about it to be able to point to other reports. Yes, the weird recent correlated upswing in edit warring is part of the reason why I wasn't quite sure Jadran was in fact a new user. I did not revert-war with PU nor am I "known for revert warring" - if I have violated 3RR policy, please file a report or take your personal attacks and false accusations elsewhere.radek (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about. The IP is a different user.
    Sorry. Originally the text was unsigned and it looked like a continuation of your message.radek (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I read the rule now and self-reverted the article. I will start the discussion on the talk page again... Karasek (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted after you were reported here with "Jacurek demanded" edit summary, this was not in good faith. Also, please focus on the fact of edit warring by you on the above article instead on attacking other users. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hmm Karasek you are on wiki since November 2007 and you've never heard of the 3RR rule? riiiight. seems to be a "the dog eat my homework" type of excuse. Loosmark (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please have a look at my number of edits and you probably know how experienced I am. I have maybe 1000 edits since 2007, you have more than 1000 edits since May 09. I don't spend that much time here. Karasek (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Karasek self-reverted the last one, I'd say the likelihood of a continuing edit war is, in the short term, low. I'll keep an eye on the page to make sure further reverts relating to this issue don't happen (as one can edit war without breaking 3RR), but nothing else needs doing immediately. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rvcx reported by User:J (Result: 48 hrs)

    • Previous version reverted to: stable
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

    The ramifications for a wp:blp of someone apparently hellbent on removing any "supportive" content and increasing the presence of criticism is pretty clear. He's clearly expressed his ultimatum (on the article talk page) that any "supportive" content will be removed until his particular notion of "balance" is achieved, and he's enforcing it quite blatantly through revert, now at four for the last few hours... The poorly sourced Condé Nast content has long been excluded from the article for wp:blp reasons, and it is one point that I believe the wp:blp wp:3rr exclusion comes into play for, so I hope some outside party can take a look at this, address User:Rvcx's behaviour, and perhaps stick around to help in the meantime. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the WP:3RR exception for WP:BLPs, I "revert(ed) the addition of [...] poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." (The poorly sourced, controversial Condé Nast photo caption was the reason for long-term full protection on the article. User:Rvcx picked up the content from the talk page archives and decided to run with it this morning.) user:J aka justen (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, in retaliation, User:Rvcx removed non-controversial "supportive" content... His edits are quite blatant, and quite ridiculous examples of edit warring. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage 'user:J to assume good faith. If inclusion in one list is considered a violation of WP:BLP and requires even more discussion than has already taken place, then inclusion in these other lists requires the same. In fact, the default position of WP:BLP is "just the facts"---if you consider inclusion is such subjective lists to be opinion, then it should *all* be removed until consensus is reached. Rvcx (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the definition of "revert" continues to grow to include any edit to the page at all. Brilliant. Rvcx (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed good faith until you began retaliatory edit warring. At that point, there's no need to assume good faith, since there's a clear example of bad faith. wp:blp precludes controversial content, not retaliatory removal of what you call "supportive" content if other editors don't cede to your ultimatums to include, as you put it, more criticism. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked. User:Rvcx was just blocked for 24 hours by User:Smashville, for violating WP:3RR. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was 48 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malke 2010 reported by User:Chhe (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [137]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152]

    Malke 2010 has something of a long history of disruptive editing. He seems to have the intent of adding POV to the Karl Rove and other articles to paint the subject in a more favorable light. So far he has added POV, deleted entire sections that were sourced, deleted things many times without discussion, gone against consensus, made threats of libel (although I agree with VsevolodKrolikov that they were vaguely made), been generally hostile, avoided discussion of specific points by quoting wikipedia rules, accused others of violating wikipedia rules, attempted to change the Karl Rove talk page on several occasions so as to obfuscate the situation, and changed the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page by inserting his comments before another user justdafax's comment so as to make it seem he was agreeing with him. I think there is even more problematic things he has done, but I don't have time to continue listing them just now. I have to go to work. He as also been causing problems at some other pages including Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Catholic Church, and Reverse discrimination that I know of. Jusdafax has asked for help from administrators with regards to this on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but it hasn't gotten a response yet which was why I was adding it here hoping to get a more speedy help from an administrator. P.S. when reading through the talk page please note that Malke has made some changes to it to make it unclear as to who said what to whom. So you will have to go through the history of the talk page carefully to discern this with regards to some points.Chhe (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patriot_Missile33 reported by User:Rhode_Island_Red (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [153]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]

    This user is repeatedly deleting content from the article's lead despite the fact that they have not provided reasonable justification for doing so, have not adequately participated in ongoing discussions on the Talk page, have not included edit summaries, and have ignored input from other editors. Two editors have been reverting the content blanking and the user in question keeps reverting.

    User:Tacv reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [159]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

    The user is a single-purpose account dedicated to making Carmen Miranda be described solely as "Portugese", despite consensus otherwise and the fact that she is associated with Brazil, having moved there when an infant. He claims that calling her Brazilian "is an outrage to the portuguese people".

    User:Seb az86556 (reported by User:Serpentdove) is edit warring and possibly baiting me to get me banned

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpentdove (talk • contribs)

    Coincidentally, I've just started an WP:ANI thread about this editor. This should probably be added. Verbal chat 09:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Seb az86556

    • Author kept removing a speedy deletion tag from an article created by him/herself. gave uw-speedy and re-instated tag. this is not edit-warring. speedy-tags are contested by using { { hangon }}, not the author removing them. Note from article's edit-history that even when/if taking these re-instatements into account, there were only 2 reverts. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, I gave the author 2x uw-attack which s/he subsequently removed from his/her talkpage. rationale for uw-attack warnings based on these remarks:
    Edit comment: "removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb"'
    On my talkpage: "libeler" [169]
    On article's talkpage: "Noteworthiness is not by consensus you wannabe geniuses and word-misdefiners (...) you're whining your unnoteworthy jealous opinions"
    • accusations of sockpuppetry are completely unfounded

    User:meco (reported by User:Serpentdove) is edit warring via User:Seb az86556 and possibly baiting me via User:Seb az86556 to get me banned

    Evidence of harassment:

    • 08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
    • 08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
    • 08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
    • 08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
    • 08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
    • 08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
    • 08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
    • 07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
    • 14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)

    The noteworthiness of the scientist Paul A. LaViolette was already well-established and I was allowed to remove the notice of non-notability put on the page and did so when I more than established the noteworthiness of Paul. Immediately user Seb az86556 begin putting up baseless disputes about me not being neutral and I stated why that was absurd, he then took it to a harassing level even further when I removed his dispute but allowed his cleanup request to remain by removing his clean up request and with a childish comment reinstated a non-notability template. He, unlike me, has not explained his reasons for his disputes which I clearly settled. Look at the page history and notice his childish "don't m[e]ss with me" and "fine, have it your way" comments of evidence as to what kind of person this is I'm dealing with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_A._LaViolette&action=history

    As for meco, notice in my talk page history how he magically appears after Seb's contesting to babble to me about the non-noteworthiness template? Clearly meco is trying to subvert the three edit rule via seb, and is sockpuppetting via Seb.

    Seb baited me and then libeled me by implying I'm not keeping my cool (sound familiar? Notice meco told me to be temperate on my talk page? Clearly they are attacking me subversively and trying to get me banned in their bias against LaViolette. This is a clear edit warrior and provocateur and it is he who is not being neutral with his baseless contesting.Serpentdove (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coincidentally, I've just started an WP:ANI thread about this editor. This should probably be added. (as noted in above thread) Verbal chat 09:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coincidentally Verbal?

    What a convenient coincidence Verbal that you happen to place your very late welcome notices AFTER I made it clear that I was a fundamentalist Christian and after having already been welcomed by that starred user. You are making personal subversive attacks and clearly with your friends meco and seb.Serpentdove (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=309037226"