- Diff of 3RR warning: The user in question has removed warnings and efforts to discuss the reverts with somewhat incivil edit summaries:[1],[2]
- Editor in question is sufficiently familiar with revert warring as seenhere. Given that Dream Focus was ultimately blocked for 24 hours for attempting to restore a template Sloane wanted removed, it seems in the interest of fairness that it should similarly not be okay for Sloane to keep restoring a template removed by multiple editors either, no? Moreover, I am in a larger sense concerned that the editor in question seems to be here to fight a "war." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, my first edit was the insertion of a speedy deletion tag, not a revert. So there has been no technical breaking of the 3rr. Secondly, I was reverting the removal of the speedy deletion tag by thecreator of the article (User:Ks64q2-[3],[4],[5]), which the speedy deletion tag clearly states as not acceptable and I think can be considered a form of vandalism (although the creator doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith, which is why I didn't report him here or elsewhere). The creator has now agreed to just let an admin take a look at the article and decide whether it should be speedy deleted. I have also gladly engaged the other user, as can be seenhere (archiving my own talk page is hardly a crime). Finally, I thinkUser:A Nobody is only reporting me here, because he has taken offence to the drama listed higher regarding the "rescue" template, which is why he his dragging all kinds of crazy stuff in his 3rr report.--Sloane (talk)03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am taking offense to hypocritical behavior. If it is wrong for someone to keep adding a rescue template when multiple editors have removed it, then it is surely wrong for someone else to keep adding a SD template when multiple editors have removed it as well and when an AFD is ongoing anyway. Why not just let the AfD play out? And yes, seeing the post about approaching deletion as if it is a war is an uncompromising and uncollegial attitude to take regarding deletion here. Wikipedia is not aWP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:A Nobody seems to be admitting he's only reporting me to make aWP:POINT.--Sloane (talk)03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am reporting you, because you are edit warring, engaging in hypocrisy with regards to edit warring, and apparently think you are here to fight a war. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia in cooperation with our colleagues. Saying you are fighting a war on cruft is disrupting Wikipedia to porve aWP:POINT. Please do not edit war or treat wikipedia as a battleground. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:A Nobody also seems to be suffering from a serious case of humourlessness (now where's the noticeboard for that?)--Sloane (talk)04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do have a sense of humor here, on occasion, but I don't find insulting the good faith work of our contributors funny, becauseWikipedia:Editors matter. AfD should be for serious discussion in which actual policy and guideline based rationales are presented, not non-policy based comments that lack encyclopedic seriouness or that might turn off our colleagues. People can and should argue to delete in much better ways than saying to delete as part of some kind of war on cruft. See my argument atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, for example. I cite a policy and also looked for sources to make sure that it did not meet that policy. But again, my concern here is the edit war over the speedy delete template. And again, why not let the deletion discussion play out? Now that multiple editors have argued to keep in the AfD, tossing a speedy delete tag on seems out of place. Should the article creator remove it, perhaps not, but let someone else revert him rather than be the one to add it four times now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Articles up for AfD regularly get tagged with speedy deletion and sometimes in fact get speedy deleted while the AfD discussion is ongoing. I have no problem with any user or admin disagreeing with me and removing the speedy deletion tag. But creators of articles should refrain from removing it. FromWP:SD:The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk)04:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your best bet is still to not go back and forth with the editor in question and anyway, Benjiboi has also removed the speedy delete template. Hoaxes, libel, and copy vios do, rightfully so, occasionally get speedily deleted during AfDs and I would not contest that. A couple articles I nominated for deletion wound up speedily deleted and neither I nor anyone else took issue, but here we have multiple editors in the AfD arguing to keep. Thus, perhaps consensus from the previous discussion has changed and as such, just let the discussion play out. It's best to avoid going back and forth with others. If you are correct than multiple editors will revert. Best, --A NobodyMy talk04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no 3RR violation; Sloane never made his fourth revert. As all parties are now at the AfD, I don't see any point in this report, aside for POINT purposes, but that's a discussion for another time. —sephiroth bcr(converse)04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the concern, i.e. putting a speedy delete template on the article to prove a point when a deletion discussion that might establish a new consensus is underway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Review request,because there has a clear violation of 3RR rule in this report Sloane's first edit is a "revert" giventhis edit made by 9Nak two days ago; tagging exactly the same template that Sloane used. He reported Dream Focus for the same matter and made him blocked, so the same treatment would meet the sprite of "fairness".--Caspian blue06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's just silly. Just because an article was tagged for deletion once, doesn't mean tagging it again constitutes a revert. Also, the comparison with Dream Focus doesn't fly, as I was basically removing a form of vandalism (creator of an article removing a speedy deletion tag), whilst Dream Focus was edit warring over a clean-up tag.--Sloane (talk)12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Repeatedly inserting the tag and making a pointless edit war are "silly". The legitimacy of the article has been disputed on the discussion of the AfD, so I don't see any justification of your 3RR violation. You did not revert vadalism at all.--Caspian blue13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll repeatWP:SD:The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk)13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- may not Good. Even the guideline does not say that removing the tag by the creator of a page is "vandalism". So applying the same rule is "fair".--Caspian blue13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. you made one more revert to the article; 5th revert whilst you're being reported here.--Caspian blue14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I made two ordinary edits. Go ahead and revert them if you disagree. And stop harassing me.[6].--Sloane (talk)14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- What an outrageous accusation you make. I'm relying on the same rule that you used, so abiding by the same "justice" makes your logic to the blocking Dream Focus meaningful. Yourbogus link shows "the history of The Motley Moose". Such false accusation constitutes " harassment and personal attack. You should stop the disruption. The ordinary edits are reverts, and you'd better read the 3RR policy again.--Caspian blue14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Posting the history to the page you accuse me of breaking 3rr on is an "outrageous and false accusation"? What drugs are you on? Als, just asUser:A Nobody yesterday,User:Caspian blue now seems to be admit he's only here to make aWP:POINT.--Sloane (talk)14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- "What drugs are you on?" Good grief! Your another personal attack just makes you closer to blocking. In your logic, you were harassing Dream Focus. FWIW, I voted for deletion of the article. Your edit warring over the tag is just unworthy and disruptive--Caspian blue14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No violation I reviewed the report and I agree that there was no violation of 3RR. The 5th revert was not a revert but an ordinary edit andWP:AGF compels me to assume that Sloane did not want to break 3RR by readding the db-tag removed by the IP (because I will assume that he did not notice it). He stopped now and as such a block would be punitive in any way, contrary toWP:BLOCK's spirit of blocks as a preventive measure. I urge all parties involved to calm down and leave this page now, it's really not needed that you continue the discussion here.SoWhy14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[7]
Beve (talk)04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Based onthis,NovaGrad70 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) looks to be identical to the anonymous user that was reported. I see aself revert about one minute apart, and both users seem to claim to be reverting "malicious" changes. --Sigma 7 (talk)14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seems easiest to semi-protect it for a weekWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[18]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
- Comment. I've never posted on WP:3RR before so apologies if I've missed something important. Basically, I'm here becauseUser:Evenmoremotor has reverted my edit toList of Jewish American mobsters several times without giving any reason why. I originally edited the page because it had a {{nofootnotes}} template and I spent awhile converting the references to in-text citations. I not only converted the existing references but I added three additional sources. I've done this to a few other pages but this is the first time I've ever had an issue with another editor. One of the links had been reverted by a Bot but I thought it was a useful external link so I added it back. Maybe this is the issue, and I don't nessessarily have an problem with with that, but I don't really understand why Evenmoremotor feels he needs to remove the in-text citations.71.184.49.28 (talk)05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's also reverted my edits toIke Bloom andJohnny Spanish so I've stopped editing until this can be resolved.71.184.49.28 (talk)05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
EMM seems to have got carried away by an excess of zeal. But you have been edit warring too. So 24h all roundWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't edit warring. At first I didn't understand his edits and when I reverted back to my version I carefully explained my reasoning. He wasn't so considerate in his edit summeries ("not needed" / "Undid sockpupet 71.184.49.28 / 72.74.209.246"). When he continued to revert my edits, I stopped editing altogether and brought the issue here. Another editor interveaned prior to this and was more than happy to discuss it with Evenmoremotor. I waited almost a day for him to respond and when he didn't I assumed he didn't have a problem. I think it's unfair to block me when I've gone out of my way to settle this and not be disruptive.72.74.198.46 (talk)22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[28]
There are actually more of these in the last 24 hours, but I figured 6 would be more than sufficient.Scjessey (talk)19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[36]
This user has gone on to argue with at least five editors who have reverted his removal and changing of content both on their talk pages and on the talk page for the article making claims of obstructionism. He's edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk)21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[42]
--aktsu (t / c)00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[48]
User:Vexorg was blocked for 3RR violation on this page just two days ago, after defiantly refusing to revert himself following his fourth revert inserting disputed material. He asked to be unblocked, statingOK, I will not breach 3RR and refer back to the talk page of that article Since his return, he has continued to try to edit-war in the disputed material. On the Talk: page he continually claims there is "no consensus" to remove the material, and on the Talk: page and in edit summaries that"NO rationale for removal has been given for this properly sourced relevent section". This is despite the fact thatcopious, policy based-rationales have been provided for its removal. In the past two days his insertion has been reverted by four separate editors, all of whom have explained at length why the material is not appropriate. Despite this, his edit summaries indicate he fully intends to continue edit-warring this material into the article.Jayjg(talk)00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[52]
Also see terms ofarticle probation.Grsz1103:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I was in the process of reporting this same fellow, but Grsz11 got the formatting right the first time and, importantly, noted the article probation--so I've removed my own report, which was essentially a duplicate.Cosmic Latte (talk)03:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[62]
Happy138 (talk)16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-03-11T17:09:42 SoWhy (talk | contribs | block) m (3,698 bytes) (Protected Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC))))William M. Connolley (talk)21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[64]
Essentially, there is a traditional view thatAsian rice was introduced to the Americas by colonial Spain and Portugal. But more recent scholarship indicated that Africans may have introducedAfrican rice first, shortly after, and/or as importantly. You can see discussion of this revisionismhere andhere. I am trying to express both trends in scholarship in the article perthis edit but user prefersthis edit. NB -Explaining both views is very important becausethe scholarship of the African rice deals only with its introduction to theSouthern United States while the article is mostly aboutLatin America and theCarribean. In giving 3RR warning I assured the editor that the scholarship he/she wishes to highlight will be included. The intent seems to be to exclude the bulk of scholarship in favor of the newer scholarship which might not even be applicable toLatin America and theCarribean. The newer scholarship doesn't seem to dispute the old as much as it adds to it. Rather than allow these two (possibly complementary, possibly conflicting) understandings to be referenced user has chosen totemplate me for vandalism. I want to discuss both rices further but don't want to edit war. Even unrelated edits (i.e. additions to the "see also" section) are being undone by this editor's revisions.
- Diff of 3RR warning:[69] (by me) and[70] (by another editor)
Seems to have gone away. Let me know if the trouble recurrsWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
This is easier to read with bullet points:
As seenhere,User:jheiv has likewise been trying to restore the cited material but is opposed byUser:Nillarse. Thanks - --Boston (talk)02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
N blocked as a sockWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[75]
Edit warring a sourced statement off the page. Also note article subject to terms addressed byarticle probation.Grsz1102:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked The first revert is the same as the "version reverted to" so this is, being pedantic, 1 edit and 3 reverts and thus not a strict violation of the three-revert-rule. However, because the article is on probation and Dalej78 has been previously notified of this, I am blocking him for 24 hours for disruptive edit-warring.CIreland (talk)13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
4RR atFoam takeout container:
Badagnani (talk)03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24h for both of you. Gosh, this just has to be the most boring thing to edit war over. What on earth convinced you that it was vital, today, now, with no delay, to re-insert "Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarelyrecycled."? Couldn't it have waited until tomorrow? Or at least until you could discuss it on talk? Still, at least I get a blog posting out of this mess:[81] if you're interestedWilliam M. Connolley (talk)10:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should this be onWP:LAME?William M. Connolley (talk)12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
Check thearticle history, the case is too complex to be summed up.
Numerous places onTalk:Frank J. Tipler.
I acknowledge I am myself 3RRing, but reading the comments will show that while the letter of 3RR is indeed violated, the spirit is not.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this now? We're at 45RR and going strong.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jamiemichelle was blocked by William M. Connolley for 24 hours.Ruslik (talk)12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- AndUser:Peripitus semi'd the page. HB probably gets a mild rebuke for breaking 3RR, or maybe not, I can't be bothered to work it outWilliam M. Connolley (talk)12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Based on what I read onTalk:Frank_J._Tipler#Request for third opinion I extended the block to one week (personal attacks).Ruslik (talk)12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[82]
Previous report for the same thing on the same page:[88]Herr Gruber (talk)12:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[89]
There is lots (andlots) of acrimonious history here across multiple forums and pages, but seven (and counting) reverts in less than 24 hours does rather take the cake, I think.9Nak (talk)13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. This was a completely new edit, and I would be happy for any admins to review that. Furthermore, I put details on the talk pages, and messaged the editors who made changes to especially ensure it fit the intent of their edits in. Please feel free to check that. I'm afraid this is all smoke and mirrors trying to take attention away from the behavior of some of these users in the AfD of this article. Please feel free to review my Wikipedia editing history in it's entireity, I'm certain you will see there is no problem here. Thank you.Ks64q2 (talk)13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Full disclosure -- I'm deeply involved on this from the other side of Ks6 and when i saw this report i checked my own self out. There's a good chance that I'm over the line (though there may be an argument for leniency that i was involved in reverting BLP issues). At any rate, for the moment have disengaged over there and am alowing Ks6 to own the article and add unsourced/poorly sourced information about living people as he sees fit.Bali ultimate (talk)13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ks65q2 blocked for 12 hours - Bali ultimate told to stay away from article for duration of block, since user already disengaged. Remember,WP:3RR doesnot require that the version reverted to be exactly the same every time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[97]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[102]
- There have been attempts by three regulars to protect long-standing wording during this 24-hour period, using conciliatory edit summaries. The matter,inter alia, is the subject of an RfC for which the proposal wording has apparently been agreed to by all (Questions 1 and 2).
- This comes straight after a strong warning by an admin for abusingUser:HWV258 on the talk page of the guideline ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") and referring to the edits of two other users as "nonsense" in edit summaries.
- This exasperated comment by the experienced and typically cautiousKotniski, a regular at the guideline page, sums up Kendrick7's behaviour.
- I appreciate that Kendrick7 has clearly worked him/herself up into a state of anger; I think I speak for all regulars at the page in saying that we are concerned on a personal level. However, his/her behaviour is becoming uncontrollable.Tony(talk)15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is precisely the sort of personal attacks ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") that causes many editors to just throw up their hands and say that contributing to Wikipedia just isn’t worth the pain. No editor should be able to make deeply cutting insults on the intelligence of another as a tactic to beat them down. A strong warning is, IMO, insufficient. Kendrick has clearly gotten spun up too far with his editwarring and personal attacks; an imposed cooling off period is in order.Greg L (talk)18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2009-03-18T14:44:53 CIreland (talk | contribs | block) m (29,040 bytes) (Protected Wikipedia:Linking: Edit warring / Content dispute: Protected until end of ArbCom case on Date delinking. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Another mistaken prot (IMHO) but it's doneWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[103]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[108]
Seems to be asingle purpose account too, as well as aconflict of interest, as evident here[109].Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.)16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- No reverts since warning. Let me know if it recurrsWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[110]
not inaccurate, kidJeremie Belpois (talk)20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-03-18T20:03:23 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs | block) m (22,398 bytes) (Protected Code Lyoko: Edit warring / Content dispute: indefinite protection until the dispute is resolved, PLEASE use the discussion page, it's there for a reason ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Personally I prefer blocking people to prot, but others disagreeWilliam M. Connolley (talk)20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[115]
- Comment: User edited page and I added extra information precisely sourced from Britannica, and corrected text according to sources already cited by user (Bellamy p 39.). I kept his initial edit. User then reverted my edits 5 times.--Bizso (talk)20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24h eachWilliam M. Connolley (talk)20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Rouge Penguin reported by Jeremie Belpois Result:
no 3rr or anything yet, but he is clearly starting one onOdd Della Robbia andAelita Hopper.Jeremie Belpois (talk)23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Following theCode Lyoko article getting protected, this is just ridiculous. Jeremie already fought tooth and nail to try to revive these articles once before and failed. He was told in no uncertain terms todiscuss instead of recreating them elsewhere. 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
you're starting this, penguin. you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong.Jeremie Belpois (talk)23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is ridiculous behavior on both sides. It's simply not worth fighting over. The article does seem to have changed some. Why not just let it be recreated and nominate it for AfD again. Then see what the consensus of the community is - that will get a definitive answer without the "he said she said". If enough people think it has not changed significantly from the last AfD it can be snowballed into a speedy. All these accusations and reversions are not addressing the supposed issue about the merits of the article.Mfield (talk)00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take your advice. —Trust not the Penguin (T |C)00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tommylotto (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
—MehTsag (talk)03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor #01:53, 6 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war.MehTsag (talk)03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk)05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))William M. Connolley (talk)08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
75.50.45.104 (talk ·contribs)71.98.106.197 (talk ·contribs)
Two IPs, who I suspect are each from two competing news sources, have been engaged in a slow moving edit war for the last week on the articleAnderson, Indiana. One IP will remove a link to the Herald Times,[121], and replace it with a link to the so called Anderson Free Press,[122]. Anderson free press appears to be a managed and hosted by a single person, likely the person who keeps inserting it, and I think it may qualify as link spam. I would like an admin to semi-protect the page please.Charles Edward (Talk)22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Semi protected for a week or two to see if they get bored. Rv to youWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank youCharles Edward (Talk)21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[123]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[127]
Don't be so hasty with the warnings. In four years I have never broken 3RR, and I certainly wouldn't simply to teach someone such as yourself a lesson. If you'd like to involve administrators, I think that would be more than welcome. My viewpoint in this mini-edit war - that ethnic group infoboxes should not contain census data nearly three decades old from a country that no longer exists and whose successor nations are already represented in the infobox - will surely be supported by admins, and other sensible users. You are clearly attempting to inflate the number of declared Yugoslavs by citing duplicated statistics (Yugoslavia in 1981 + Croatia, Serbia, etc. in 1990s and 2000s).--Thewanderer (talk)03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Despite your clean slate you've clearly breached 3rr. There is no rule explicitly stating that infoboxes must be current. Even if they must, this ethnic group can clearly be a special exception because of its type. By not adding the amount of Yugoslavs declared at the time Yugoslavia existed, the article loses a very historically crucial point. Anyone with half a brain can put two and two together and realize why its there. As for the accusation for inflation, I'm not trying to fool anyone, the years are clearly given. Ive never touched the total population figure.PRODUCER (talk)13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you thought I actuallybreached 3RR? 3RR states you cannot performmore than three reverts in a 24-hour period (even I know that, and I think two and two is seven, apparently). Anyways, every ethnic group has historically relevant population figures, and populations arealways changing. The infobox is clearly present to provide current data, as up to date as possible. I think pre-Holocaust Jewish populations, pre-expulsion German populations in Eastern Europe, etc. are important. But that doesn't mean we report these figures in the related infoboxes. The point is, these reported "Yugoslavs" in '81 (who atill lived in a country called Yugoslavia) no longer report themselves as such. It's an interesting historical piece of information, but not a relevant modern statistic to be included with (and confused for) modern census data.--Thewanderer (talk)13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You are both warned re edit warring. Any further reverts without using the talk page will get you a blockWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: These are complex reverts, a diff will be provided for each
- 1st revert:[128] - restores "the intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom", reverting back tothis version, and undoing my own editshere
- 2nd revert:[129] restores "with reservations as Golda Meir expressed it when meeting the press at just after the announcement of the UN Partition plan vote;"We have no alternative." - reverting back tothis version and undoingedit by Canadian Monkey
- 3rd revert:[130] restores "occupied" and "earmarked", revertsthis edit by GHcool
- 4th revert:[131] same as 3rd revert, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
- Diff of 3RR warning: has been warned about and blocked for 3RR numerous times
I reverted separate parts to reflect the wording of the separate references quoted on the separated content disputes involved...PS no warning has been given on any of the separate individual issues....Ashley kennedy3 (talk)16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll leave the 3RR details to administrative oversight. But it should be remarked that NoCal100 (a wikistalker and POV warrior), seems to exercise an avocational passion for going after AK, as his record shows. He is going for his scalp, one more time.
- (1)Any checking of what AK was doing will show that, in a 3 to 1 editing context, AK was correcting bad edits . NoCal's bad edit, eliding the mention of Judah Magnes as opposed to partition, says the source refers to Biltwater, not to 1947. Well, he is not familiar, as is AK, with sources. It is well known Judah Magnes was consistently opposed to any partition plan, from 1937 to 1947. Had NoCal100 been interested in the article rather than in creating problems for AK, he would have either put a courtesy[citation needed] note on Ashley's edit, or checked for himself, and he would have found that historically AK's remark was spot-on (William M. Brinner, Moses Rischin,Like All the Nations? The Life and Legacy of Judah L. Magnes, SUNY Press, 1987 p.36). What NoCal100's edit does is fudge up the impression Jewish opposition to Partition was from commies and fringe lunatics by cancelling AK's legitimate point that there was serious opposition by mainstream Zionist figures like Judah Magnes.
- (2)AK's edit on the Benny Morris quotation, replacing GHCool's (a precise editor normally), is word-perfect with Morris's text, which is the source for the passage (‘the previous Jewish occupation of Arab-earmarked territory’. Benny Morris,The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 p.149)' One should add that GHcool's elision of words taken directly, verbatim, from the sourced page dismisses them in his edit-summary as 'removing POV'. Since when is editing strictly to source (and one of high historical quality) a matter of inserting a POV? This cannot be counted.
- (3)I cannot analyse the Gold Meir piece because I am unfamiliar with it.
- NoCal is counting as reverts edits of one editor against three others. AK's edits correct wrongly removed information, or restore the precise wording of the source. This is editorial responsibility to the texts and history, not reverts, though in NoCal100's world, it would appear, any challenge to what he alone apparently thinks of as a truth-team tag effort, is mustered as a 3RR violation. This is a disgraceful piece of gamnesmanship again, a farce. Since when is editing to sources against poor users of sources reverting?Nishidani (talk)16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- For just how poorly informed NoCal100 is about the history of the events described on the page he is editing, predominantly against AK, see the exchanges at the end ofthis sectionNishidani (talk)17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
AK is banned from the article for 24h, and until he learns how to use the "preview" buttonWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[132]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[138]
Has been warned several times about it and has ignored warns. rdunnPLIB 10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[139]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[143]
I decided to reportuser Laveol because, although he didn't violated 3RR to the end, he blatantly and repeatedly removed sourced material from theMiladinov Brothers article. Iwarned him about this disruptive behavior, but it seems it wasn't useful as he continued to remove referenced material from the page. I tried to restore my edits twice:[144],[145], politely asking him to stop removing sourced material from the article. Please note I didn't removed other sourced info from the page, I only added more info into the page and properly referenced it.MatriX (talk)12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions applies. You're both now onWP:1RR parole on that article. You'll need to find some way to talk this throughWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[146]
Two 3RR warnings issued within the last 24 hours - 6 reverts made. Not relevant to the 3RR report, but this is an article started by the above user, while using a sock IP, the article is about the user and is highly self-promotional, relies on self-published sources, lacks 3rd party sources and is non-notable.
I have stepped away from the article after being warned by an admin that edit-warring is not the way to procede, however the above editor is continuing to revert. I do not wish to enter into an edit war, and have no desire to edit this article while another editor is edit warring.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk)15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- AfterカンチョーSennen Goroshi ! was warned by the admin not to proceed with his editing, the content was restored to it's original form and no further edits have been made by me.Dfrench (talk)16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be accurate, after you were given your second warning for 3RR in aprox 24 hours, you made your sixth revert within a 24 hour period.
- I wasn't given a 3RR warning, I was given the following messageHello Sennen. I think you want an AfD rather than a speedy, if you believe the article should be deleted. Please don't tempt fate by getting into an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- When you got the second 3RR warning you were lucky it wasn't a block for breaking 3RR, to follow that second warning with yet another revert seems to be close to an open request to be blocked.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk)16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record, my comment to Sennen was *intended* to be a 3RR warning. Do you prefer{{uw-3rr}}? I don't see that either party has committed a technical 3RR. One way to resolve the issue would be to see if Dfrench settles down after the current AfD is over. If the 3RR closer agrees with that idea, then a verdict of 'No action' might be appropriate. Note that a discussion atWikipedia:COIN#Dana L. French is continuing. That is a forum in which any further problems can be reported.EdJohnston (talk)17:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree on some points and disagree on others, I do see Dana French's actions as a breach of 3RR - however if the article in question is dealt with in a pretty clear manner, that would hopefully put an end to the reverts. And to answer your question, no I would much rather have friendly advice than some nasty template, templates are for those who are unaware of the rules.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk)18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've warned D. If he reverts again, a block is clearly in order. The COI is so obvious that he cannot revert that article anywayWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Keeps reverting edits on bmibaby for his own liking. Discussion was held onbmibaby and came to an agreement, see:Talk:bmibaby. But yetNouse4aname keeps reverting thinking he is best. Also note the he has already been blocked 2 times because of edit wars. ThanksZaps93 (talk)19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can't be bothered to report this properly, despite the clear instructions at the top. So I can't be bothered to investigateWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:here
- Diff of 3RR warning:User talk:Grrace (initial welcome, specific comment, warning of this report)
Continues to change sourced information inMustang (horse). I have reverted twice, (see links above), both times with edit summaries asking them to take it to the talk page. I also posted polite warnings on their talk page and started a discussion section on the article talk page. The user is adding blatantly incorrect information to the article, and changing information that is sourced to reliable sources. I cannot revert again without violating 3RR, and the user has not technically reverted me 3 times. However, the editor is continuing to add their POV without sources and without discussion on any talk pages. I have never used this page before, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong!Dana boomer (talk)21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that's better, 24h anywayWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gah, I keep messing things up. Sorry :( Thanks for the quick response, anyways.Dana boomer (talk)22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and a question: Am I allowed to revert the article again without breaking 3RR? Or could you? Thank you so much!Dana boomer (talk)22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[155]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
- Errrm... you are reporting yourself? Or why are your diffs to reverts by you?William M. Connolley (talk)22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Im confused, new at this thing? I read guides but now I'm lost.Zaps93 (talk)22:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you are supposed to be demonstrating that your "opponent" is reverting. That means you need diffs showing *them* doing a revert, not you. Unless you'd like to be blocked, but there are simpler ways to achieve thatWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[160]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[165]
Note that I understand the 3RR warning was for another article however the user was properly warned and understands what the 3RR is even going so far as to remove my warning. --Nukes4Tots (talk)22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry chaps but this kind of gratuitous edit warring without any pretence at trying to reach a reasonable conclusion on the talk page merits a block for you bothWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[166]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[171]
User:Viriditas is edit warring on this talk page, changing and removing my comments, violatingWP:TALK as well asWP:3RR. In my zeal to restore my own comments, I may have violated or come close to violating 3RR as well, if so, I humbly apologize.Dlabtot (talk)23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to the page history, I haven't editedPeople's Park since1 May 2008, and that was only to disambiguate a link.[172] On the other hand, the page history shows that you've been engaged in an edit war while tag teaming withUser:Sierralaw, andUser:Rkmlai against edits made byUser:Apostle12. Most recently, you made a POV editafter starting an RFC. I arrived on the talk page on March 6 to try and mediate, only to be attacked by you and told that I have contempt for homeless people. Now, I discover you are pushing a minority POV in the article. Lastly, you started an RFC when you found that discussion between Apostle12 and Rkmlai was working towards resolving the impasse. Unfortunately, you didn't follow the conventions for article RFC's and you made comments about users instead of the topic. I removed them, you restored them, and then you tried moving the goalposts, claiming that I was invovled in the dispute (I'm not, I've only been mediating on the talk page). And that's where we stand. Article RFC's are notabout users, and the RFC was changed to reflect the nature of the dispute, the words of which were written by you and you alone. I will admit, however, that my mediating style was overly aggressive, and had the effect of not one, but two elephants in a china shop, drunk on cheap wine. For that, I apologize.Viriditas (talk)04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Asthe talk page history andthe talk page version before you started reverting my talk page comments shows, my comment that you have deleted from the talk page was clearly presented as the comment of an involved editor and was never part of the RfC.Dlabtot (talk)05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but neither of those links show anything and I'm not involved in any dispute on this page. If you pay very close attention to the talk page, you will notice that I have criticized all parties involved from the very first edit I made as mediator. I'm surprised that you missed this fact. I would be happy to provide diffs if you need them.Viriditas (talk)05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Could I possibly nudge some admin to look at this? I would really like to restore my comments to this talk page but I don't want to do so if they are just going to be deleted again. I was advisedelsewhere that this report would have been better made atWP:ANI, but it seems too late for that now.Dlabtot (talk)15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would really appreciate some response from someone who is watching this noticeboard. It's been 11 days since I posted this notice. Perhaps dozens of reports have been responded to in that time. I don't understand why this report has been ignored. Tell me I'm wrong to post it, and why, or tell me to post it somewhere eles, or tell me whatever you want - just please don't pretend that this report doesn't exist.Dlabtot (talk)02:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Stale A number of comments:
- Edit warring: When two users are edit-warring with each other with no others reverting and the situation arises that one has made 4 reverts, the other 3, I would typically block both users. It is against the spirit of the three-revert-rule to play the game of "first reverter always loses".
- Although it is considered bad form to alter another users comments on a Talk page, this arguably does not apply to the framing of an RFC, any more than it applies to say, the choice of headers on the Talk page. Comments are typically an individual affair whereas the framing of an RFC ought to be collectively determined. One user does not get to veto any changes to the RFC on the basis that it is "his" RFC or on the basis that the RFC constitutes his "comments" on the Talk page.
- When reports on this noticeboard go stale there is usually one of two causes : Either dealing with it would require too much additional time (to deal with the fallout) and no admin that has viewed it has been able to commit that time (colloquially, blocking established editors for edit-warring pretty much means you're going to have to be online in the near future to deal with the hissy fit that often ensues). Or the cause is that multiple admins have looked at the report and thought "Not sure what the right thing to do about that is so I'll leave it for someone else". I viewed the report previously and, to be frank, both reasons prevented me from dealing with it. You would have to ask other admins for their own reasons.
CIreland (talk)03:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thank you for responding, although I must wonder if you actually examined the evidence. The other user reverted my comment. He didn't in any way alter the RfC that I filed before I made my comment. A cursory examination of the diffs would reveal this. So there is no coherent way to respond to your comments about "the framing of an RfC " since those comments don't refer to anything that is actually in dispute. It's the kind of response someone would make if they didn't look at thediffs, but instead just read the comments on this page. Like a Wikipedia version ofCrossfire.
- I also don't know what to say about your comments regarding the blocking of editors. Again it seems that you have not actually bothered to look at what happened. I'm not interested in getting anyone blocked. All I want is to be able to participate in a talk page discussion. I object to the wholesale deletion of my talk page comments in blatant violation of the letter and spirit of our core principles. I find it impossible to believe that you actually examined what happened and subsequently characterized my behavior as 'edit-warring'. It's edit-warring to restore your own talk page comments? Comments that simply state one side of a disagreement, in a completely civil and collegial way?
- I'll just restore my comment, and if it is again deleted byUser:Viriditas, I will report it onWP:ANI, which is what I should have done in the first place. In fact, that's where I will report any violations of the three revert rule in the future since this noticeboard is clearly dysfunctional.Dlabtot (talk)04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll reply at your talk page Dlabtot, except to say here that the suggestion I didn't look at the diffs is ridiculous.CIreland (talk)05:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: /
Reverts are a little more complex:
- Ah, I'd like leniency but if did step over the line, I'll take my medicine (I can't honestly tell what's a revert anymore with this fellow Ks6 -- another editor removes an anonymous blog post he inserts, i happen along later, i remove the same anonymous blog post, but am not aware that it's a "revert"). Won't like it, but understand why that redline rule is in place and the general communal good it does. As a favor to me and if its important to Caspian, i ask that he goes through the trouble of providing the diffs in a separate report (like this one). Once again, I've stopped engaging the article completely, as that's the only way to avoid edit wars with Ks6. The field is all his, caspian.Bali ultimate (talk)06:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Given the recent ugliness on AN/ANI/WQA/RFA, the reason that reporter only reports the Ks6 looks obvious. If the reverts are based on consensus, I don't quite get the fact that Sloane let the edit war happen between the two. Also Bali has several experience of filing to here[187], he knows 3RR clearly. There is no excuse for 3RR violation except vandalism. Well, any reviewing admin would be looking through your reverts as well since I mentioned it. I'm not agreeing with K at all but the user needs to learn a lot of policies in civility. --Caspian blue06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree that Bali violated 3RR - the versions he "reverted" to were all clearly different.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- While KS reverted to different versions as well, the case could be made that repeatedly removing artimprove tags could be considered as reverting the same material.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't really matter what Bali reverted. Any reversion counts towards breaking the 3rr rule.--Sloane (talk)14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps such a case could be made, but it's debatable. In at least two instances ([188],[189]), Ks64q2 used proactive edit summaries to explain his actions and to indicate his intention to improve the article; he does not appear to have reverted any challenges made to these explanations. In short, Ks64q2's involvement appears to be entirely good-faith. I have doubts, however, about the good-faith of this report. It is peculiar, to say the least, that Sloane and Bali ultimate suddenly took an antagonistic interest in a page that Ks64q2 had edited, given that, ata contentious AfD from around the same time, both of the former editors had recently endorsed the deletion of an article that Ks64q2 had worked on heavily. Of course, one mouse click can lead to another, andWP:Wikistalking doesn't necessarily exist at that point. But for one of these editors, furthermore, A) to have made onlyone edit to the article in question, and B) to report a very iffy and ambiguous case of 3RR on it? I don't know what it all adds up to, but Idon't think it amounts to a blockworthy indictment of Ks64q2.Cosmic Latte (talk)14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing "iffy or ambiguous" about this case. All reverts happened after other editors had made clear they disagreed with Ks64q2's actions. Perhaps a more clearer rundown of events: Ks64q2's sock adds a link[190], other editor reverts[191], Ks64q2 reverts[192] (REVERT #1). Other editor adds refimprov tag[193], Ks64q2 reverts[194], other user reverts[195], Ks64q2 reverts again[196] (REVERT #2). Fact tag is left at end of sentence by user[197], Ks64q2 removes it[198], other editors puts it back in[199], Ks64q2 reverts again[200] (REVERT #3). Other user adds advert tag[201], Ks64q2 reverts[202], I add it back in,[203], Ks64q2 reverts again.[204] (REVERT #4). All in 24h. Edit summaries don't excuse you from edit warring. Also, pleaseassume some good faith on the part of your fellow editors. --Sloane (talk)15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here he admits to using socks[205] (one of which to reinsert material of a nature he was told was not up to snuff -- a blog post by "moo means hello" here[206] and here[207]. He not only refuses to abide by consensus (seeTalk:Remote Area Medical - which he tried to wipe clean with the false edit summary "cleanup of resolved discussion points"[208]) but he claims agreement/consensus when there is none. For instance my last revert on this article was his removal of an advert tag placed by another used, about which there had been no discussion by him on the talk page. He had already been told multiple times to seek consensus. Yet he removed it with this edit summary "With editor Bali's and my new edits, I believe this has been addressed. Removing advert tag; if more work is needed, let me know where, and I'll polish it up"[209]. The thing is i hadn't made any edits to the page since the advert tag was placed, and had no communication with him on the matter. It's just more game playing and disruption from this fellow.
As i've said before, if my behavior is appropriate and if i've stepped over the 3rr line, I'll take my medicine. But please, separately report my actions so this behavioral issue and my (possible) behavioral issue don't get muddled and jumbled (wikilawyers like to play the turn the accusation around game. I won't do that).Bali ultimate (talk)14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
24h. I can't see any point in looking at anyone elseWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[210]
- 04:35, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "We are not going to rewrite this page every time an UNRELIABLE source changes its wording.")
- 15:31, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision by Ratel, identified as vandalism.")
- 16:14, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 278348825 bySoxwon (talk) Stop going against consensus.")
- 18:49, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Stop the edit war. You are going against the consensus.")
- Diff of 3RR warning:[211] (to which editor replied "Don't you have anything better to do?"[212] and reverted two more times)
- 19:44, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Seems like you aren't reading the talk page. Collect, ChildofMidnight, and I are all taking the same stance. Looks like Soxwon is the only one still going against consensus.")
- 22:44, 19 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "It is undue weight to mention bias in sentence 1. Show me one other article that does this.")
Note: based on the article talk page, the editor is suspected of being,[213] and seems to admit being,[214] an IP-hopping ban evading sock. So a range block or article semi-protection may be necessary.Wikidemon (talk)05:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:NOTE: this is my version from yesterday and I have added much to it despite the disruption by user Hrafn which has been ongoing for about 10 days[215]
- 1st revert: by user Hrafn[216]
- 2nd revert: my previous[217]
- 3rd revert: by user Hrafn[218]
- 4th revert: mycurrent as of this writing[219] This is what I want it to stay as while I expand the article.
Please see also:Discussion board for Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio
- Diff of 3RR warning: User Hrafn may not have reverted 3 times in a day but it is a continual pattern of harassment over at least ten days.
This issue has been ongoing for about 10 days. User Hrafn submitted the article for deletion which ended in non-consensus. A few people weighed in on both sides but essentially it has been an edit war between the two of us. User Hrafn continually threatens me with Wikipedia violations that are apparently only in his mind. He stated openly his own contempt for non-regnant royals and then told me I was forbidden to edit the article because I am an officer of the organization. He tagged me with COI even though I made no secret of my affiliation. He, on the other hand, did not reveal his bias against non-regnant royals until he let some statements slip on the discussion board.
User Hrafn continually challenges all source records without reasonable foundation. As an example he challenged a book published in Spain as unreliable because he couldn't find evidence that the publisher (an Academy) was "recognized". There is no Wikipedia requirement that I know of that requires a source to prove to be "recognized". When I asked by who or what he stated the Cronista Rey de Armas of the Kingdom of Spain (a post which is vacant and not likely to be filled and which has no bearing over institutions in any case). I pointed that out and he then challenged it as simply unreliable. I challenged him several times to read the source (available cheaply for purchase online and free electronically from myself to any enquirer). Finally I provided the names of the authors who are themselves Wikipedia sources in other articles. User Hrafn then claimed that he could find NO Wikipedia entries for them. If you type the surname of the first named (Montells y Galan) into GOOGLE the number 3 and 4 returns are Wikipedia articles citing him as a source. I pointed these out to user Hrafn as well. Each and every time he removed the source and called it unreliable. Further, he tagged every section with sources required and removed all my general sources as deletable because they did not reference a specific claim or part of the article. Pointing out the meaning of general did not help. So I included inline sources. He removed them reverting to a shell version and then added tags requiring citation for every sentence in the first section. This was not even controversial material. He was being disruptive. So I added citations for each place he so indicated and he still reverted to a version showing that sources were needed and citations were required. It is maddening. I am doing my best to improve the article and he is disruptively reverting and ignoring everything he doesn't personally like. And to add insult he continually accuses me of COI and claims that he has a "consensus" which is not indicated on the discussion page. He has had a few people concur with him but these are I believe also largely based on his versions which he keeps reverting to. It is impossible to fix something when he continually removes the work. I spend half my time finding my last good version to revert to myself before I can continue the editing. This user is in my opinion a bully who is imposing his personal opinions on others. He continually quotes Wikipedia rules in non-applicable situations in an apparent attempt to bluff his way and intimidate others. I have tried to satisfy his demands outrageous as some of them were, but it is clear that he has no intention of being satisfied until this article is successfully proposed for deletion. I need help. Thank you for reviewing my complaint.DaleLeppard (talk)06:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- DaleLeppard's evidence is mal-formed. His links are to old versions, not difs, and two are to versions created by his own edits.
- DaleLeppard is aWP:COI editor on this article whose edits/reverts repeatedly violateWP:RS,WP:CONSENSUS &WP:MOSLINKS, as well as removing legitimate templates (most notably one pointing out his COI).
- I will not attempt to address his lengthy diatribe, other than to say that I generally dispute its accuracy.
HrafnTalkStalk(P)06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You're both banned from editing the article for a week. DL is encouraged to find some other interestsWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[220]
- Previous version reverted to:[221]
- Previous version reverted to:[222]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[223]
magnius (talk)13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not obviously in vio. You seem to be reverting the anon's edits as "vandalism" but how is the outside world supposed to know that? Please don't run to AN3 without having made some effort to resolve the situation on the article's talk pageWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[224]
- Previous version reverted to:[226]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[232]
This user has already violated 3RR inNowruz. Also, it seems that he/she is already familiar with 3RR, Most probably, this IP is associated with a registered user.Alefbe (talk)14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- A malicious and unfounded complaint. He knew I was about to report him for incivility and sockpuppet investigation so he has conconted this cry for help. Remind me what is it called when a guilty person accuses an accuser of the same thing out of desperation? He seems to hope someone will believe him stating I am associated with a registered user without there being any proof in existance of this being the case. In short,User:Alefbe has been edit warring to the point of pure vandalism, ignoring and deleting messages on his talk page, ordering me toget an ID (the usual IP racism), being uncivil, and there is strong evidence to suspect him of using at least one sockpuppet. But rather than listen to his rant and listen to my rant, it is better to look at the evidence, see the edits ofmyself andUser:Alefbe (in a chronological fashion) especially in relation to the articleNowruz.94.192.38.247 (talk)15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Alefbet. Please semi-protect the article against IP vandalism. Also, please blockuser:94.192.38.247 for violating 3rr in Nowruz article, edit warring with various users, drastic edits without discussion.--St. Hubert (talk)16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's hardly surprising you would agree withUser:Alefbe as both of your edit histories seem to show alot of 'agreeing' and I have been suggesting you are likely a sock all afternoon. As for suggesting that I be blocked, sorry, if you think you can have the serious and constructive editors of wikipedia (IP or otherwise) blocked at your whim and say so, you will be disappointed. Please stop wasting peoples' time.94.192.38.247 (talk)16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, the IP reverted[237]Raayen's edit. Now he is edit warring withRaayen.--St. Hubert (talk)17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant countries and regions should be placed there, as per my edit revision. Someone removing them and stating "Every corner of the world need not to be here" doesn't constitute a sound rationale for removal.94.192.38.247 (talk)17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong evidence thatUser:Raayen is a sock ofUser:Hubert[238]. Also see[239].94.192.38.247 (talk)18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "very arbitrary and idiosyncratic double hyphen" appears to be a result of the signature button above the edit window. Scrolling up through the past few reports, you'll see that quite a few people use it. --Onorem♠Dil18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of it. This is not the only link between them however, their edit histories contain identical reverting, convenient support for each other and editing the same articles on the same day, in a way in which it very improbable they are two different people. On a positive note, the edit warring has subsided.94.192.38.247 (talk)18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Semi protected for a whileWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protecting it will block me, who brought a request for page protection[240], this is unfair. I suggested fully protecting it to stop the edit warring. Semi protecting it won't stop the edit warring William.94.192.38.247 (talk)19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you do something about violation of 3rr by this IP and his disruptive edits? He does controversial reverts and call all his opponents sock?--St. Hubert (talk)21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're still out to waste your own and other peoples' time I see. All the evidence is in our edit histories, let people make their own judgements. I've been putting off making a sockpuppet investigation about you as I thought you might change your ways, what a pity.94.192.38.247 (talk)21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[241]
- Diff of first 3RR warning:[246]
- Diff of second 3RR warning:[247]
- This user is a single purpose account (WP:SPA} and has been reverting and long-term edit warring since 16th March. He has been reverting other users as well. Refuses to engage in discussion on talk.Dr.K.logos17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidence of long-term edit warring: These reverts are from the 16th of March:
Dr.K.logos17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much William. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K.logos19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
- Previous version reverted to:[250]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[255]
New IP user keeps inserting same Bible verses and interps, does not get the point of WP yet. Refused dialogue attempts. Will a 3RR block get this person talking? Technically this is ~40 hours (was trying to avoid 3RR myself, though I had help fromUser:Nubiatech andUser:Boston); but I trust the pattern is obvious.JJB07:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Boston! I don't think they're socks myself, but it is probably moot, because the vandalism has stopped, and I suspect that (plus the >24 hours) is why no activity from the admins. Dewatchlisting until a situation recurs.JJB 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[256]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[261]
Revert-warring at the article atResident Evil 5 or a questionably reliable source.MuZemike21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- As an involved party, I won't
Not done this report myself, but the user has already agreed to allow consensus to establish whether the source can be used and agreed not to re-insert it. Blocking is unnecessary. –xeno (talk)22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)- There were multiple parties involved in edit war who've both came to consensus, thus no action needed.Nja24709:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Diff of 3RR warning:[262]
Tamilvendan (talk ·contribs) is edit warring on articlekallar_(caste). He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion and also provides no sources to prove that the various dynasties are Kallar. He comes across as very dodgy since every time I ask for a reference on the talk page, he fills up the article with nonsense and irrelevant sources about the dynasties before actually giving a source that proves that the various dynasties are Kallar. This is just a clever ploy to dodge the main dispute and say that he has added a lot of content to the article. I have repeatedly requested him for a source that shows that the dynasties belonged to the Kallar clan but he has not provided one until now even though he says that he has added them.
He primarily argues that the various kings and dynasties must be Kallar since some people from the Kallar community use the same names as the famous personalities. For example in [[263]] under section "Chola", he says (direct quote from his version) "Chera, chola and pandian are commonly called as Thevar to mean they are descendents of Lord Indra. But specially cholas were called by many Surnames all these surnames (Mel kondar, Chozangar, Thevar etc.) are now used by Kallars only shows that Cholas are from the Royal Kallar community". Basically he argues that since the Kallars now use the same names as the historical personalities, then it must mean that the historical personality belonged to the Kallar community. Sorry to say but this does not prove anything.
I can keep giving examples that show how his theory is flawed. For example, two popular Indian personalities,Feroze Gandhi andMohandas Gandhi have the same surname but they are definitely not from the same community.Feroze Gandhi belonged to the Parsi community whileMohandas Gandhi belonged to the Modh community. Again, if some person at present has the name Feroze Gandhi, does that mean that he belongs to the Parsi communit? Not necessarily.
ShivNarayanan (talk)22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24h eachWilliam M. Connolley (talk)23:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There are two editors telling me I must further "linkify" them in order to get my edit reverted. [I have already] linkified them to a page here at wikipedia that proved I know what I am talking about; it is VERY basic physics btw. I believe the mere idea that the info could be found here at wikipedia made them feel like digging in their heels. Given the fact that they are so completely ignorant on this topic and also given the fact that the wiki edit in question involves potentially lethal information, I am unwilling to discuss the matter further with them. The article is entitledBlack light and I feel it is mainly an article of interest to impulsive adolescents..a grave situation indeed. if you have no one on your staff competent enough to verify the info I have already supplied And you still refuse to revert my edit then I will not be back to argue this or to make further edits because my time is quite valuable. So, this post is to inform you, Wikipedia, that you have been notified of this situation officially. not only should you inform these two editors that they overstepped their bounds by reverting an edit on a topic which they know nothing about but also I am, through love of this place, telling you that if you let that misinformation remain, or if it has been seen or crawled by anyone, then you are open to a lawsuit from anyone who is hurt by it or by anyone who can prove they were hurt in court; one does not necessarily equal the other and this site does show up pretty well on the search engines were a class action lawyer looking for a fall guy.Cakes Downey (talk)10:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is no violation of thethree revert in 24 hours rules. You should engage the user's that you're in dispute with on their talk page, or on the article's talk page itself, seedispute resolution info.Nja24710:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Animal treatment in rodeo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Buttermilk1950 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 01:15, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 278442851 byCgoodwin (talk) Go to Discussion")
- 03:12, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* Responses */ removed. blatant copyvio.")
- 04:06, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* Responses */ improperly formatted and pretty nearly verbatim from a very questionable source")
- 05:08, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 278680165 byCgoodwin Go to talk page")
- 08:18, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* Responses */")
- 08:35, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* Responses */")
- 08:49, 21 March 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* Responses */")
- Diff of warning:here and the editor acknowledged thewarning
- Comment With 5, 6 and 7 the editor slowly removed the content without any reason or edit summary which has meant that the editor has done more then 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. —Bidgee (talk)11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Derby of the eternal enemies (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
Continuant reverts from this user in the last three days, in order to delete a certain part of the article which is sourced. The same person has made exactly the same reverts several times as an IP guest in the last month. On the latter occasion, other users have undone his reverts as well. -Sthenel (talk)12:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see a vio, and you can't be bothered to make it clear, so we may as well leave it at thatWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Anna_Bligh (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Blogger89 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:48, 21 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 278726499 byNubiatech (talk)")
- 12:58, 21 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 278727551 byEdBever (talk)")
- 13:10, 21 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 278728872 byNubiatech (talk)")
- 13:13, 21 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 278729839 byOverlordQ (talk)")
Warned Will watch and see if they continueQTC13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[264]
The user is not only violating 3RR, he is also deleting and/or falsifying sourced information (fromthis academic source). I have tried to explain that to him on the talk page, as did some others users.
He was warned byUser:Xashaiar:[265]
Tajik (talk)14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[266]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[273]
Nableezy (talk)19:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Sorry, but revertingvandalism is not subject to theWikipedia:Three-revert rule. 2 other editors also reverted Yam's vandalism,Lol,lol. After Nab left a dubious claim of revert war on my talk page, which I also consider vandalism,Lol, I responded:response. I've been removing Yam's vandalism for awhile, before he moved the title of the article to things like "Hamas execution of Israeli spies", "Hamas termination of spies" "Hamas reprisal attacks against TRAITORS." Yeah, feel free to block me, I couldn't give less of a shit at this point. You want to blow up this article with nonsense and blatant fabrication Nableezy, have at it. It will be just another wikipedia tragedy.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit: The previous version didn't have the sentence. You or yam put it there without consensus. We had a lengthy discussion on your talk page that went nowhere, I then reported Yam for persistent vandalism that was of course burned alive and passionately defended by Fal who wasn't even involved in the article. Nice try tho, really...almost. This close.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is clearly not vandalism, it is a content dispute that has seen edit warring. I am not going to speak on the content dispute here, unless some admin asks me to which I am guessing is not going to happen. But this seems a pretty clear violation of 3RR.Nableezy (talk)20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- And yes the previous version doesnt have the sentence, hence 'previous version revertedto'Nableezy (talk)20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see, fuck this is retarded:earlier version. That was there for awhile, however it was deleted at some point because the expanded body, supported by cited sources,new body, made it clear that not all Palestinians were killed/tortured/executed etc... for suspected collaboration. Hamas does not make this clear, we are only drawing this conclusion based on interpretations which is OR. The body quotes the statements of Hamas/Fatah officials, for all we know these people were party of yet another "reclaiming" of Gaza campaign by Hamas. We can't say that sentence with such certainty, but we can say Palestinians because that is undeniable.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you wouldn't even know this because you started editing this article today (mostly reverted my just edits while ignoring Yam's vandalism). If anything, I should be reporting you for disruption.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free, though I would suggest you be a bit more civil on admin noticeboards.Nableezy (talk)20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This notice defines incivility Nab. What is the correct response to such an arrogant suggestion....oh, blow me? Yeah, that fits quite nicely.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- keep diggingNableezy (talk)20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yay! The great thing about wikipedia is that no matter what, vandalism will always fail in the long-term.Wikifan12345 (talk)20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- For those who are curious, the vandalized edits I was reverting and Nab is defending was by a userwarned not to be disruptive or face a likely ban. P.S: Vandalism was in the same article.Wikifan12345 (talk)21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any vandalism, as defined in the context ofWP:3RR. So Wf gets 24h. N and Y get cautioned re edit warringWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
On March 21st, 2009, user Literaturegeek engaged in an edit war and made more than 3 reverts in less than 1 day. User also made legitimate edits to disguise the activity. User wanred Literaturegeek, warning her "(gaming the system. claim of vand unfounded) " User Nja247 stated "Making unsubstantiated accusations goes against assuming good faith, and may constitute a personal attack."Xports (talk)10:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)xports
- User did not violate 3RR. This is not the place to discuss ongoing disputes, rather blatant 3RR violations.Nja24712:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- 22 March, 12:13
- 22 March, 13:33
- 22 March, 14:01 (note personal attack in edit summary)
- 22 March, 14:29
User has had prior warnings about edit warring[278], two prior blocks for nationalist personal attacks and was previously warned off underWP:ARBMAC ([279]).
Fut.Perf.☼14:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Request moot, user was indef-blocked byUser:Chillum for generally disruptive behaviour and personal attacks.Fut.Perf.☼17:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[280]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[285]
Also warned in the history log hours ago
It may be prudent to put a protection onto the article.BigK HeX (talk)16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[286]
This user somehow manages to find new reasons to annul my contributions: if it's notWP:OR, it'sWP:TRIVIA... orWP:SYNTH... or whatever rule he might want to enforce in a blind and non-constructive way. It seems that he indulges in deletionism under the pretense of being a helpful editor; in some cases, he seems unfamiliar with the subject matter of the article; a good example would bethis diff here: had he seen the episode, he would haveseen Cartman dressing up as a raccoon - that's not a speculation, is it?I urge you to address my concerns this time. Thank you very much in advance.NotAnotherAliGFan (talk)21:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression I was to have been warned on my userpage that I was mentioned on this noticeboard, I have received no such notice. I can also see above that you have hidden your declaration not to tell me. With regards the article you mentioned above, I stated the WP policy I was using to revert the edits and invited you to discuss on the talk page.Alastairward (talk)21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...and I urged you to stop reverting my edits many times, was that helpful at all? I would like to communicate with you in a normal fashion, but you seem to be pretty stubborn when it comes to "revert first, ask questions later." Yeah yeah yeah, I know all about BRD... start listening (being considerate) and so will I. Your reverts are extremely disruptive towards both me and the readers of the respective articles, I've told you so more than once.
- And by the way, how come you noticed this message within 15 minutes unless you methodically stalk my contributions page?NotAnotherAliGFan (talk)21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I reported you here before (see your report page for theblock notice) so it was on my watchlist. Why didn't you follow the guidelines on how to report someone and notify me?Alastairward (talk)21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The Rouge Penguin reported by Jeremie Belpois (Result: prot)
user continues to redirect pagesOdd Della Robbia andAelita Hopper, even after an AFD filed by him were the final decision was speedy keep. keeps edit warring to try to get his way. the latter article is still being worked on and finalized, but he seems to ignore that.
keeps telling me to add "references" and "real world info", and seems to refuse to explain to me what he expects. this guy is a problem, and needs to be dealt with. also is reverting grammar and spelling fixes onList of primary characters in Code Lyoko.Jeremie Belpois (talk)22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The pages werefirstredirected bythe closing admin, who determined that they were better off on the list. Jeremie has since reverted four times on both ([290][291][292][293] and[294][295][296][297]). —Trust not the Penguin (T |C)22:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I could block you both, but protection looks like being more amusingWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This user wants to have a pseudoscientific alternative in this article, for which he cannot supply good sources. The editwar is about a POV-template he wants to have on the article as long as his crackpot hypothesis is not named. His actions have been reverted by 5 different users so far. We have asked him on the talkpage to give reliable sources, but he keeps ignoring this and reverting the article.
Best regards,Woodwalker (talk)18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect either Woodwalker or Awikert are sock puppets and one and the same person to engage in edit warring. See below:
- I have reported you onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for violating 3RR atsubduction.Awickert (talk)19:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- See hereSock PuppetrySophergeo (talk)19:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Again, please readWP:3RR. Woodwalker reported you for edit warring, I reported you for 3RR, as you can see by our signed comments here. If you wish to have a sockpuppetry trial, by all means, go ahead.Awickert (talk)19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- In addition: this user is also trying to get his POV through at other articles: seeTalk:Expanding Earth,Talk:Mantle (geology),Talk:Ganymede (moon). He seems to be unwilling to provide sources, ignores arguments or demands for reliable references and instead puts on a smokescreen in discussions. I think this is a case ofwikilawyering,WP:POINT and perhaps simply trolling and keeping others from writing articles.Woodwalker (talk)18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- He has broken 3RR atsubduction:[298][299][300][301]
- See NPOV and talk page on subduction. Editors are attempting to surppress information thorugh edit warring and personal attacks.
- Also see NPOV which states that questionable science or science that is peer-reviwed cannot be labeled as fringe.Sophergeo (talk)19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Discussions on these issues have been attempted atTalk:Subduction,Talk:Expanding Earth,Talk:Mantle (geology), andTalk:Ganymede (moon).Sophergeo refuses to address any concerns given there, making the discussions pointless, and instead only makes accusations. In addition, and is spamming his comments that are addressed on one of these pages, by copy/pasting without response to the other talk pages.Awickert (talk)19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You also reverted 3 times.Sophergeo (talk)19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- For the THIRD time, readWP:3RR.Awickert (talk)19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for 3rr vio and editwarring on several articles.Vsmith (talk)19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've initiated an RFC atTalk:Expanding Earth based on advice from another editor. If anyone wants to unblockSophergeo so he can participate in the discussion sooner, I would support it.Awickert (talk)06:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sophergeo (talk ·contribs) now has an indefinite block as a sockpuppet ofWikkidd (talk ·contribs) (who also has an indefinite block).dougweller (talk)19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy to Violate NPOV through Edit War and Information Suppression (Result: reporting user indefinitely blocked as puppetmaster)
Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to descibe themantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle.Also seeExpanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV.Wikkidd (talk)04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikkidd (talk ·contribs) and 2 socks now blocked indefinitely.dougweller (talk)19:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[302]
It seems as if this user is trying to "hide" accusations of Hamas' satanic ways by abusing Wikipedia's bureaucracy to the maximum. Thank you in advance.NotAnotherAliGFan (talk)22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the satanic ways of Hamas are being masked by policies such asWP:OR andWP:SYNTH. I have certainly reverted edits that contained wholly unrelated information to the article, and I suppose this qualifies as an edit war, between the two of us, as he was repeatedly reinserting material that had been objected to by a number of editors. This material had been removed a few days ago, and stayed removed with a rough agreement among most editors on the talk page until NAAGF reinserted it, and continued to reinsert it without justifying it on the talk page.Nableezy (talk)22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- In Nableezy's defence,NotAnotherAliGFan has been pushing for a non-consensus addition to theRed hair article, in a similar manner, a reverse revert war if you will.Alastairward (talk)23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as above, NotAnotherAliGFan did not warn Nableezy about this report on the 3RR noticeboard through their talk page, merely that they believed that Nableezy was engaging in an edit war.Alastairward (talk)23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is the second edit warring report Nableezy has taken against users in reprisal attacks. The section was in the article for awhile, then removed, then readded, before a talk page was created hereHumanitarian aid involvement isn't a reprisal attack. I believe consensus should be made there and users should try to assume good faith in these kinds of situations. Considering the controversy and lack of consensus, Nableezy would have to be punished as well -diff 1diff 2,diff 3. Points and criticisms should be left for the talk page, taking it out on the article is a big no-no IMO.Wikifan12345 (talk)23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- uhh, if you pay attention he reported me, and with you I waited until you got up to 6 reverts.Nableezy (talk)23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. Well thanks Nableezy. Yourkindness is greatly appreciated. :D To revise, nobody should be blocked, banned, or whatever IMO.Wikifan12345 (talk)23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- If by gaming the system you mean warning you at 4 reverts and telling you other editors can revert the info you didnt want in, then you saying to report you if i think you were in vio of 3rr, then actually reporting you when you got to 6 reverts, then i guess you can say i was gaming the system. seems to be an interesting definition though, in fact it seems pretty far out there. but doesnt have much to do with this now does it?Nableezy (talk)23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, continue derailing the report. I'm sure it will help your case. I believe you shouldn't be blocked but personally it wouldn't keep me up at night. ;DWikifan12345 (talk)23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"In Nableezy's defence,NotAnotherAliGFan has been pushing for a non-consensus addition to theRed hair article" - what does that have to do withanything???NotAnotherAliGFan (talk)00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- It speaks to general behavior, see the top of the page for a description of what edit warring is.Nableezy (talk)00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- My offense is not necessarily your defense, and I won't continue this here because you'd both love to see me slip...NotAnotherAliGFan (talk)00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just let it go. It would only be a 24 hour block and then the edit warring would resume. Why don't you try and make a consensus at the talk page instead of vilifying every use who disagrees with your edits.Wikifan12345 (talk)00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Nableezy was reverting vandalism by NotAnotherAliGFan, and I think 3RR deosn't apply when reverting vandalism. I am saying vandalism because on 1st of March I madethis comment and on the same day I saidhere I'll remove this section until an RS is provided to illustrate the relation between the reprisal attacks and the prevention of the humanitarian aid - Nevertheless I waitedmore than 2 weeks before removing the section - And when removing it I indicated to the talk page where I stated thatthis section is not relevant and no one objected it is removal for more than 2 weeks. Now NotAnotherAliGFan came and very simplyrestored it without even trying to argue why. I am afraid,good faith is not easily assumed here, and i don't think hehas been bold rather ignoring other editors reasoning. Let alone the whole section is an blatant OR as no RS is relating both acts together.Yamanam (talk)11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- This isnt the place to rehash the content dispute. I make no claims that the edits I removed were vandalism, just that they were completely irrelevant to the article and added, in the words of the reporter, to push a POV of 'Hamas' satanic ways'Nableezy (talk)14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
12h each. The article needs a rest from your edit warring. Keep it up and the blocks will get longerWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[306]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
Evenmoremotor (talk)01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor
- EMM cautioned to avoid edit warring and to avoid communication by cut-n-pasteWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is stubbornly insisting on using five decimal numbers on page2008–09 NBA season#Statistic leaders. Nba.com uses 1 to 3 decimals depending on the stat. Other users have also corrected this but Syjytg keeps changing it back. Five decimals are way too much and actually make the readability of the table a lot worse. I warned the user but with no effect.—Precedingunsigned comment added byAntti29 (talk •contribs)13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Antti29 broke the 3RR rule. He done it 4 times, I have not. I only did it 3 times.Syjytg (talk)14:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe but at least my reverts were justified whereas yours aren't. I'm still waiting for a reason for the five decimals.Antti29 (talk)14:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Over here, they only look at whether 3RR is violated a not, they dont look like at content dispute.Syjytg (talk)14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Here'san idea: perhaps both of you should discuss this at thetalk page of the article instead of....well, just instead. Frank | talk 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
You see the bit at the top of the page that says "to add a new report, click here". Well do itWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[311]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[316]
<Rotational (talk)18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- May be worth pointing out that you are attempting to mislead here. The "1st revert" you have cited was my original edit, and can hardly be classed as a revert.Jenuk1985 | Talk18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
R cautioned to read MOS and stop reverting against itWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The IP user has ignored suggestions in the edit summaries, as well as a warning on their talk page. User has another 3RR violation onResident Evil: Extinction and is making the same disruptive edits on other film pages. --Intractable (talk)19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).141.154.15.141 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
AnonIP editor 141.154.15.141, back from recent block persists in long term edit warring of Second Amendment article.
Most recent IP address 141.154.15.141- Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:57, 22 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing itsy bitsy teeny tiny insy winsy minority opinion and Brady Campaign propaganda")
- 20:20, 22 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Post Heller federal cases */")
- 15:11, 23 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing itsy bitsy teeny tiny insy winsy minority opinion and Brady Campaign propaganda")
- 15:37, 23 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Well regulated militia */")
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).141.154.12.116 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Second IP address - Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 23:15, 13 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ again removing itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny minority opinon not even always cited by its originator - see talk page")
- 13:12, 15 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing intsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion that even originator does not always use. - see talk page")
- 15:58, 15 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 277416822 byYaf (talk) yet again removing intsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion - see talk page")
- 17:37, 16 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing intsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion that even originator does not always use. - see talk page")
- 22:57, 16 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing intsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny opinion that even originator does not always use. - see talk page for discussion")
- 16:50, 17 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 277749118 bySMP0328. (talk) please stop including tiny minority opinon that does not belong in article")
- 19:45, 17 March 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 277924525 byYaf (talk)please stop including tiny minority opinon that does not belong in article - see talk page")
- 03:54, 19 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ yet again removing small intsy winsy intsy bitsy teeny tiny mnority opinion that does not belong in the article -see talk page")
- 04:01, 20 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Later commentary */ removing itsy bitsy teeny tiny insy winsy minority opinion and Brady Campaign propaganda")
- 13:04, 20 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Background */")
- 13:03, 22 March 2009(edit summary: "/* Post Heller federal cases */ removing US v Walter - not a Second Amendment case - no objections to removal received after 3 weeks of asking - see talk page for details")
warned the other IP 141.154.12.116 here.
—SaltyBoatr (talk)20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Numerous IP blocks for this same SPA anon IP editor on edit warring on this same article:
- For proof of being same editor, seethis edit.
- For proof of being same editor as 68.160.141.242 seesee this edit.
- For proof of being same editor seethis edit.
- 13:03, 22 March 2009 revert 1
- 18:57, 22 March 2009 revert 2
- 15:11, 23 March 2009 revert 3
- 15:37, 23 March 2009 revert 4
-Yaf (talk)20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't wade through all that. Semi seems simplerWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Warned – Not a violation of thethree revert rule, but appears to be edit warring. If attempts aren't made at dispute resolution, feel free to update/report again. --slakr\ talk /04:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Page:Julian the Apostate
This is just a case of harrassment. The user seems to like removing material I put up. This time it's about a simple reference to the major work of Julian's writings. The work is listed in the body of the article, but not in the references where it belongs for scholarly purposes. Carl.bunderson has taken it upon himself to refuse the reference.
The comment for his 2nd revert:there'sreally no need to include that, seeing as how it is already referenced; this isn't meant to be a section of adverts for books. This was in response to my edit comment: "Including the only collected works of Julian in the references section."
The comment for his 3rd revert:its gratuious--no. This is in response to "There should be a reference to the work where I put it so that people can find it with ease. Please leave it there."
The first change came only twenty minutes after I posted it. The person doesn't enter into constructive discussion. He has already caused me to be blocked. Let me be clear: I do not seek to have the fellow blocked. I just want to be allowed to follow proper scholarly procedure and put a reference to the collected works in the references section. (And perhaps someone could kindly ask him to find another target to occupy his interest.) --spincontrol04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In my defence: I've retained the substantive edits Spin has made. I fixed the reference to include all the necessary bibliographic information, making the mention in the primary sources of the reference section redundant, as it is included in the footnote. Any allegations of "doesn't enter into constructe discussion" should be discounted, or taken with a grains of salt. Looking atTalk:Nativity of Jesus will reveal an astonishing level of incivility from this user. In addition, I have no intention of making a fourth revert in 24h.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I supplied the bibliographic note in the first place, putting it in a clear logical place. But please try to find where it is now on the page. --spincontrol04:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's the way WP works, is through footnotes. The works don'tneed to be re-listed at the bottom of the page.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the so-called "1st revert" is by no means a revert. Modifying a user's edit can under no circumstances be considered reverting. I maintained the substance of his edit, while changing his reference formatting, as indicated in my edit summary. Calling this edit a revert is demonstrative of Spin's ignorance of Wiki procedure.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You reverted the references section, removing the bibliographic note to a place where it cannot easily be found. This seems to me to be senseless obfuscation. I see no purpose for hiding the information. So why do it? --spincontrol05:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keeping it in a footnote is not obfuscation, it's the way things are done around here. How do you not understand the difference between editing an edit, and reverting? Invincible ignorance, if ever I've seen it.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Insult as he may, try to find the bibliographical information for the reference work of Julian's collected writings. --spincontrol05:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh please do something about this guy. I corrected a link to a historical personage, then added a link for a section on the same page -- because it deals with one of Julian's writings -- to where the writing is mentioned on the Julian page, and this fellow has reverted it[335] ("rv most recent edit--terms should be wikilinked only once in an article"). --spincontrol07:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the second link; I did not revert your correction of the link. That was commendable. But linking to her a second time is not necessary. Per our guidelines "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." Linking to the same term in a given article is clearly something that istolerated, not encouraged. Consensus should be sought if there is any question about the necessity of linking to a single article more than once from a given article.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)07:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This was a purposeful link that was removed, a link (to the subsection of the previously linked article) that specifically dealt with Julian's panegyric to Eusebia, so it is only reasonable to link a second time from the mention in the Julian article about his panegyric to the comment in the Eusebia article.
Can someone please tell this guy to look over someone else's shoulder? I feel like I can't even go to the toilet safely. --spincontrol07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a further demonstration of the harrassment. Same page, this time for the link from Julian's panegyric to a section which deals with it. Page already linked to, so it doesn't matter why it is linked to a second time.
Despite the logic of the link, Carl must revert. --spincontrol08:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Again, guidelines state that an article should not be linked multiple times. You need to convince users its necessary, should anyone question it.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with Wikipedia. You ignore the reasoning for the linkage. You aredeliberatelymisapplying rules. --spincontrol08:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, there are numerous multiple linkages in the Julian article. Why has he singled out the one that I put up (which has a clear reasoning behind it)?? As I said, simple harrassment. --spincontrol08:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because I read diffs, not entire articles. This is by no means harassment, Spin.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)09:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't contribute anything to the page, but you just casually happen to read the diffs and revert things here and there. Why not be consistent and fix the multiple linkages that don't have a reason and give some impression you are not just harrassing me? --spincontrol09:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I stated I'm not harassing you, and that's all that's needed. I don't care what you think, once I've done that.carl bunderson(talk)(contributions)09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a better suggestion for what Carl is doing? --spincontrol09:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked for 24 hours – Both editors violated thethree-revert rule, both have 3RR histories. It's not a race to the board to see who can report the other guy first. Everything under this thread should be discussed on the talk page instead. This board isn't a place to discuss your content dispute— it's for reporting when the shit hits the fan and editors have regressed to the wiki-equivalent of throwing feces at each other (i.e., they've resorted to edit warring). In the future, please do not edit war, and please use the article's talk page. --slakr\ talk /12:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous March 20/pre-edit war version reverted to:[339]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[344]
This article I've worked on for a year has suddenly descended into an edit war as Drsmoo, who's edited for a while, and two new editors have declared that the article must label Atzmon an antisemite, as opposed to mentioning the accusations made against this Ex-Israeli for criticizing Israel, etc. He and new editors also repeatedly have been accusing editors trying to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV of trying to "sanitize" Atzmons antisemitism (doing so in both edit summaries and talk page). Besides specific warning to Drsmoo above,I placed a general notice on the talk page for everyone. (Note: one editor went over a couple times but he was deleting poorly sourced and/or POV/libelous statements.) I myself have largely refrained from editing article while this is going on.CarolMooreDC (talk)17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- 23 March, 17:54
- 23 March, 21:15
- 23 March, 21:24
- 24 March, 17:54
Mass revert war between half a dozen users on each side, but I think this one is the first who's actually crossed 3RR. FDAU has also been revert-warring in parallel on various other articles, and may in fact be a banned sock.Fut.Perf.☼19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to note that one of the revert warriors is Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is also filibustering on the talk page. --Avg (talk)19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have two reverts, plus another on an entirely different issue that just happened to come up a bit earlier. But thanks for enriching my vocabulary, yes "filibustering", I had forgotten that word, it really should come to mind when watching today's talk page shenanigans.Fut.Perf.☼19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have two revertstoday, but another two yesterday.
- 22 March, 13:36
- 22 March, 14:09
- 23 March, 18:54
- 24 March, 06:35
- So technically you do not violate the 3RR, but you are obviously editing against the existing status quo, against whatWP:NC instructs: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain"--Avg (talk)19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
24h. See also article talk pageWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thelema (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Will in China (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- Diff of 3RR warning:here and an earlier informal warninghere. Warning from the time before he chose a username (about the same article) may no longer exist, I don't know.
-Dan (talk)04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You know what, I should have made your lives easier with the previous version link by showinghow if differed from an even earlier version in this edit war.Dan (talk)04:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain how edit 4 is a revert.Will in China (talk)04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you add what you removed?Dan (talk)04:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's got nothing to do with how a revert is defined. What version of the article does it revert to? Speaking of definitions, I think the following behavior by you technically qualifies as edit warring as well.Will in China (talk)04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interested admins will also want to examineDan repetitive just short of 3RR for three-days-running behavior.
- Previous version reverted to:06:54, 21 March 2009
- All reverts are full (blind) reverts, not integrating any intervening changes:
- 07:03, 22 March 2009
- 17:32, 22 March 2009 (done as a series of edits)
- 00:09, 23 March 2009
- 17:57, 23 March 2009
- 18:47, 24 March 2009
- 18:58, 24 March 2009
- 19:09, 24 March 2009
Will in China (talk)04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[346]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[351]
Editor is again violatingWP:3RR
Editor repeatedly tries to insert a false assertion (regarding Milton Friedman). Repeatedly removes the tags placed on the dubious claims without any acknowledgement of the attempt at resolution placed on the talk page.Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Milton_Friedman_now_claimed_to_be_an_Austrian_Business_Cycle_aficionado
Editor also repeatedly attempts to insert wholly redundant information (regarding the Great Depression).
Also, editor attempts to discuss a small-minority opinion while removing note of mainstream regard, which seems to create problems underWP:UNDUE and possibly to a tiny extentWikipedia:Coatrack#The_Criticism_GambitBigK HeX (talk)05:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[352]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[361]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[362]
One or more users are consistently reverting or editing the article to remove references and violate NPOV. These users are not discussing their changes or providing evidence for their validity. This seems to have been going on for around a month.Inkwell (talk)11:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rather a low level of activity, doesn't appear to merit semi-protWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Syjytg (talk)14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[363]
- 1st revert:[364] - labeled as a revert
- 2nd revert:[365]
- 3rd revert:[366] - labeled as a revert
- 4th revert:[367]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[368]
- Andhere.IronDuke15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The article had already been changed by somebody else before I could self revert.Wodge (talk)16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Leave the article alone for 24h. In future, please be far more cautious about edit warringWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[373]
Viewfinder (talk)20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[374]
It is obvious that the IP and the user are warring over the addition of some material. This article seems to be written primarily by the user. See the diffs/history for more info.MathCool10Sign here!02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are listing reverts from 2008. No vioWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Judging from the anon IP user'scontributions, they appear to be an SPA with a vendetta against the subject of the BLP article. the user has added the identical set of three edits three times since 3/21/09; thesame three edits twice over the past 2 days surpassed the 3RR limit. Attempts at engaging the user in discussion have gone unanswered both in article discussion (1) and in the anon IP's usertalk space(2,3). Their edits are disruptive, and the user doesn't seem interested in talking.
- Diff of 3RR warning:[388]
As this user is an SPA with an ax to grind, I don't think that Wikipedia is proper forum for their grievances. They should be indef blocked. -Arcayne(cast a spell)04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio. I'm confused about the axe-to-grind stuff though: the anon is removing stuff about him being an elvis impersonatorWilliam M. Connolley (talk)09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Might I get you to look at the edits again, William? The same set of three keeps getting added every day. My reference to the 'ax to grind' is the revert of how Cawley pays for the production himself with an edit claiming that others do (1). Additionally, there is the removal of Cawley as an Elvis impersonator (2); apparently the anon has an opinion as to Cawley's impression. Third, the noting of Cawley (3) as an extra when he is actually described as having a cameo role (spoken lines, whereas extras do not). This, coupled with the posts noting uncited info in article discussion(4,5), the anon clearly has issues with Cawley. As this has happened three times already, I don't think they are planning on stopping any time soon. As the article is a BLP, maybe we should take steps to protect it from an anon who isn't interested in discussion. Other new folk have acted well within the rules, whichis why I didn't seek RfPP. -Arcayne(cast a spell)11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I got confused over who was removing what. However, this is effectively 3 reverts since the 21st - hardly AN3 materialWilliam M. Connolley (talk)12:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
User mostly seems concerned with obfuscating indication of the weight of a minority perspective given in the article. Weight is being noted perWP:UNDUE
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
Also, it may help to be aware of this:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.125.108.39
If that investigation pans out, then this would be the third violation ofWP:3RR in about 3 days (see above reports at:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#70.125.108.39_reported_by_BigK_HeX_.28Result:_24h.29 andWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#70.125.108.39_reported_by_BigK_HeX_.28Result:_48h.29)
It could be helpful to put a protection of some sort on the article.BigK HeX (talk)07:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- 48h. It is already semi. If anyone else shows up and does the same edits, let me knowWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[389]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[394]
Another example of the pattern of disruption by Ohconfucius. He's insisting on the right to be insulting and incivil to me on a subpage in his user space, which he has no right to do. He's also been blatantly dishonest in several of his posts about that subpage, not only on my talk page but on his own subpage and in theproposal to delete that subpage. He believes it's some sort of big joke when it's actually emblamatic of how he constantly disrespects the Wikipedia community. He just recently came off a two-week block for using several anonymous IP accounts to evade a block of his registered account. He was disruptive on his own discussion page during the two-week block, earning a series of warnings. And now that the block has expired, he's obviously decided to avenge himself by creating the "WikiDiva Awards" subpage (among others). He should be blocked indefinitely or banned as there is no indication that he intends to be a constructive contributor to the project.Tennis expert (talk)09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is not a chance that anyone is getting blocked for removing a reference to them being a wiki diva from someone elses user space. If you really want to carry on using the page, then I suggest you leave Tennis expert out of it completely else you'll be getting the disruption block. I suggest you knock it off right away.RyanPostlethwaiteSeethe mess I've created orlet's have banter09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[395]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[400]
This user is already famous for using talk pages of articles as if they were a forum, always talking about Portuguese people and posting unsourced figures about Portuguese people in Brazil, usually growing the importance of Portuguese in the ethnic composition of Brazil, and decreasing the importance of other ethnic groups, such as Africans, Italians or German (it seems a case of Portuguese nationalism there). He already tried to use a Phone Book as a source, because most Brazilians have Portuguese surnames, then he concluded that they are all whites of direct Portuguese descent (as if African-Americans with British surnames were of direct British descent). Now he's claiming Gauchos are all of direct Portuguese descent, when the articleGaucho itself reports that they can be of any race or racial combination.
Moreover, this user was blocked several times the past weeks for disruptions in several articles. Recently, he was disputing the talk page of article White Latin American[401] and did personal attacks to other users. Then, he decided to leave Wikipedia arguing "Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way", and started to reverte all his "contributions":[402][403][404]
He was, once again, blocked because of this vandalism. He even said he was going to open alegal threat against Wikipedia[405]. But, in fact, he was pretending to be leaving Wikipedia, since now he is back again with the same disruptions and behaviour. He's not going to stop until somebody block him definitelyOpinoso (talk)15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- 24h. O advised to read the [{WP:3RR]] exemption on vandalism rather more carefully than he has done so farWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[406]
User has kept adding the same junk to the article without reliable sources even though he/she has been repeatedly asked
Has been reverted by multiple people who have explained why on the talk pageTalk:Fields of science#Intelligent Design Reverted. User has also violated 3RR now (see last 4 edits) and although a specific 3RR warning was not given (as I suspected the user may potentially not violate it but edit war anyway), I feel my 2 warnings ([413] and[414]), also given at[415]) which were given before the latest edits were sufficient to warn/explain to the user their behaviour was unacceptable and they will be blocked.
I have my suspicions that the user is a troll rather then a well meaning if seriously confused user, seeTalk:Mount Redoubt (Alaska)#Effect of God? as well as[416]. Their previous contribs[417][418] and[419]
Nil Einne (talk)23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Declined Editor made no reverts after being informed of the 3-revert-rule. Report again if there are further reverts in the near future, referencing this report.CIreland (talk)04:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[420]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[425]
ArbiteroftruthPlead Your Case04:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[426]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
this user said I was degrading the quality of the page and claimed I was vandalizing even after I left explanations for the changes I made and used cited sources as well.Matsuiny2004 (talk)06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Contiguous edits count as one, so most of this vast list aren't reverts. OTOH you've indulged in the behaviour you've reported DT for, so you clearly believe that it is blockable behaviour, so I have acted in accordance with thatWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
[454][455][456][457](Warned here, response was "report away")
He has reverted 2 editors. A consensus version was then changed to essentially the same format the reverts were to (with a different section title). A block might emphasise that reverting is not a good path, would allow more cites to be added to make it obvious he is wrong (i thought 12 was enough, but will add more).
Edits today are not quite reverts, as i rewrote the article in between, but the similar behaviour mkaes me think consensus is not going to be enough to convince hereYobMod08:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[458]
- 09:46, 27 March 2009(edit summary: "")
- 10:30, 27 March 2009(edit summary: "")
- 10:56, 27 March 2009(edit summary: "")
- 10:59, 27 March 2009(edit summary: "")
The user constantly removes the COI and VI tags on this article. I'm trying to assume good faith as they are a new user, and have offered advice on the article talk page, and other related articles Thlgnosis has been editing, but each time I'm getting minimal response and seeing the tags being removed without the issues being resolved. I warned against 3RR in my last edit summary on the article in question.Howie☎11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No reverts since your warning. Warn earlier next time and sign itWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[459]
- Diff of 3RR warning:[464] (treated as vandalism.)
ArbiteroftruthPlead Your Case15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Reporter exceeded more than 3 times as well and reporter should read What is Vandalism and what is not. He doesn't even know how to differtiante vandalism and non-vandalism.Syjytg (talk)15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have, more than once and after many times of me talking to you about the pages in question, reverted them to a poorly worded and poorly constructed version of the page. You even used the wrong Chinese script on the page (Hong Kong uses Traditional, not Simplified). You have, after my continued advice, continued to include excessive info on the page, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's MOS.Stop blaming your incompetence and unwillingness to follow rules on other people.ArbiteroftruthPlead Your Case15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You think it is a poor article only. I think mine is totally brilliant. This is a Singapore show, not Hong Kong, you don't even know your facts don't come and talk.Syjytg (talk)15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Flaming Butterfly is a show produced byAsia Television, which is based in Hong Kong. It was bought by MediaCorp. That does not make it a Singaporean show, just like MediaCorp buying Two and a Half Man doesn't make it a Singaporean show. Also, your version of the page had too much information, wrong Chinese script, and poor construction. I improved the page as an effort to help Wikipedia, only to be met by your opposition (a blatant violation ofWP:OWN).ArbiteroftruthPlead Your Case15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-03-27T17:19:45 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Syjytg (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Continued socking within minutes after last block. Abusing multiple accounts: Continued abuse of multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syjytg)William M. Connolley (talk)22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours and notified ofWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.CIreland (talk)04:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)