Tuscola Township, Michigan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bkonrad (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt was made on the thereverter's talk page
—Spshu (talk)14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- On top of this, he has attack me personal, one of which was for posting the 3RR notice.Spshu (talk)14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am surprised by Spshu's actions in this regard, at least partly because I had appreciated his work on unincorporated communities in the Thumb area of Michigan. Yes, I made three reverts (not more). And discussion was ongoing, although it appeared that neither of us was making any headway in convincing the other. As such, I was disappointed that after a break in the discussion he returns and slaps a 3RR warning on my talk page when the last revert was nearly 13 hours earlier and the warning about edit warring could equally well have been applied to him. I thought that was a rather rude and needlessly antagonistic gesture, prompting my sarcastic observation[1] on my talk page. I apologize if that caused offense. I mean, it's not like either of us are complete newbies. If he were seriously contemplating reporting me for 3RR violation, a simple note would have been more appropriate and less confrontational. In such an impasse, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions.older ≠wiser14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Result - No violation. Neither party has gone past three reverts in a 24-hour period. I am concerned that neither side is using the talk page. If the issue is brought here again due to further warring, anyone who continues to revert who hasn't explained their reasoning on the Talk page is vulnerable to sanctions.EdJohnston (talk)18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I add the dates and time above for his reverts they were all on same day. don't closes this on a technicality, we did discuss it on his talk page and all he did is hand waving any arguments away. I even used the same arguments he used and he saw right though them but he can see through his own use of them.Spshu (talk)19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- You only list three reverts above. It takes four reverts within 24 hours to violateWP:3RR. The fact that you discussed this on his user talk page is not sufficient. Admins will generally look at the article talk to judge the good faith of the participants. A recent addition to theWP:3RR policy says,"discuss the matter on the article talk page."EdJohnston (talk)19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) I'll let others decide the technicalities. But your dismissal of my reasoning as "hand waving" while at the same time completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting that reasoning in your responses (as well as your directive to "stop junking up" the article with postal service details) perhaps indicates a lack of maturity in how you are approaching this.older ≠wiser19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only reason he didn't go to 4 is that I understand theedit warring rule as it states: "However edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule." The 3RR is only a benchmark. So I should have edited again to force him into a clear breach? But in do so I can be consider in breach of the rule too. So to techinical meet the rules I should have move the discussion to the Tuscula Township article instead of leaving it on his talk page.Spshu (talk)19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Had I taken the bait, it likely would have resulted in both of us being blocked. The proper thing to do would be to continue discussion, and if appropriate, follow the steps outlined atWP:Dispute resolution. As I said above, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions. I'm going to move the exchanges from my talk page to that of the article's talk page, as that is a more appropriate venue for such discussion.older ≠wiser19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[2] (the last version before the edit warring started, reflecting consensus since8 October 2007)
- Diff of edit warring warning:[6]
- User has been blocked before for engaging in edit war, when he actually violated the 3RR rule. SeeUser_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block.
- I would like preventive action to be taken,before we get trouble with a real edit war or the 3RR rule. I propose a warning toUser:William Allen Simpson to refrain from making edits while consensus is being build. Notice that both onWikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_6#July_6 and on this article consensus seems to be against him, as witnessed by the fact that another editor apart from me also has reverted himhere. Protection of the page seems to be unjustified, since the problem is caused by this one editor only.Debresser (talk)12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
n.b. User notified, see[7].Debresser (talk)12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Result - No vio. Removing unsourced controversial items from a BLP article is an exception under theWP:3RR policy. Now I see atTalk:Wieland Speck#LGBT that someone has found a book reference to show that this director is gay, so the controversy should be over.EdJohnston (talk)01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the source has been added, I hope this issue is now finished. ButEdJohnston is mistaken, becauseUser:William Allen Simpson didnot remove unsourced information. The unsourced information was left in the article, just the connected category was removed.Debresser (talk)23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Please refer totalk page sections 12-19. Two editors: Mish and myself have attempted to stop Destinero's violations of copyrighted material and his unwarranted deletions without discussion. This has failed. This article is personally of little interest to me and I have removed it from my watch list as apparently has Mish...and Destinero's edits continue...Tobit2 (talk)22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Destinero is rather new and had not received a 3RR warning. I have now taken care of that.EdJohnston (talk)03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Result - No action. Destinero has not continued to revert since this report was filed, and anyway he is a new editor and was not warned. If he continues to ignore the opinions of other editors, report here again and link to this discussion.EdJohnston (talk)18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've justified my edits under the Wikipedia policies in edit summaries. Please clarify, why is needed an opinion of editors with little interest in these topics and with whom I should discuss it when both engaged editors leaved these articles. That is irracional. The Wikipedia policies are clear in this issue. --Destinero (talk)08:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[8]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[13]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[14]
The anon refuse to belive Filipovic has signed with theUltimate Fighting Championship overDream despite multiple sourced to the contrary. See alsoUFC 103. --aktsu (t / c)23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I should add, he has not actually reverted after the warning and discussion started on his talkpage. --aktsu (t / c)23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Now he has though, and he's also over 3RR atUFC 103. --aktsu (t / c)23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 31h byLaw (talk ·contribs). --aktsu (t / c)00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Chidel (talk)21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks.Fyunck(click) (talk)22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- No violation of the three-revert rule has occured here.J.delanoygabsadds23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding! Fyunck clearly has been edit warring. Did you look at the diffs?Chidel (talk)23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- User:J.delanoy believes thatthis page may be usedonly to report violations of the three-revert rule. Is that true? I thought this page could be used to report edit warring also. If this page is not the appropriate venue, what is? Thanks.Chidel (talk)23:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence?Chidel (talk)23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would be surprising if Chidel was new to Wikipedia - 16 days on and already here and a number of less than normal pages for newbies - no this is an editor with some history, and possibly an interest in picking at old bones of contention.--VStalk08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
His edit warring is continuing:
Edit warring still continuing:
- Previous version reverted to:[15] (10 Jul)
- 1st revert:[16] (10 Jul)
- 2nd revert:[17] (11 Jul)
- 3rd revert:[18] (11 Jul)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[19]
Ksyrie has carefully avoided 3RR for several days, but since July 6 he has been slowly edit-warring, first with the addition of "terrorist" categories to the Urumqi riots article, and then with "pogroms" categories, starting on July 10. (See his edits[20][21][22], EW warning[23], andrelevant talkpage discussion for the July 6 stuff—notice that the linked discussion actually begins with my post, n ot the one above it that was added 2 days later.) Coming in today and making 2 unexplained reverts, and never having posted on the talk page, after having been warned twice about not doing so, indicates clear intention to edit war even if it doesn't break 3RR; I am asking that the user either be temporarily blocked, or permission be given to block him next time he reverts.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to have stopped now. Given last warning. Needs block if he repeatsWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he does generally seem to "stop" for a day or two and then comes back and starts again. Just for clarification... doesthis warning you gave him mean that if he starts again I should just drop you a line and let you take care of it? (I assume that's better than me doing the blocking myself.)rʨanaɢ talk/contribs21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- YesWilliam M. Connolley (talk)20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[24]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[30]
RamiR17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours — Aitias // discussion17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[31]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[41]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[42]. This is not much of an attempt to discuss a dispute resolution as the user just simply ignored warning message and continued to revert and add the info. At least three other users, including two admins, did revert this user's attempts to addWP:OR to the page. Also, the vandalism warning was after this blatant vandalism[43] that the the user quickly reverted to reinsert the same disputed information.Brothejr (talk)22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-07-12T23:10:54 King of Hearts (talk | contribs | block) blocked BenSpecter (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: Early life and career of Barack Obama)William M. Connolley (talk)23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Refer to items 10, 13, and 15 on the article discussion page, where this issue has been discussed for the last two years, resulting in the article being stable until Fyunck reopened the issue unilaterally a couple weeks ago. Also,Refer to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, and 20 on the List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions article discussion page, where this identical issue has been discussed for the last two years.
Chidel (talk)22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks.Fyunck(click) (talk)22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence?Chidel (talk)23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do not observe clear edit-warring here (although the final set of 4 edits are the same they occur over 3 days). Fyunck should probably go into further discussion on the re-adding of this reference but there is certainly no breach of 3RR in this complaint.--VStalk09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
His edit warring is continuing.
- You know, I could be just like Chidel and total up the reverts he and Ryoung122 have imposed on my sourced material but it seems counterproductive and petty. Those two must have one more revert than mine. It seems Chidel and Ryoung122 should be at the top of their own list and that there might be a bit of bias in his posting this here. This is why I brought this to a mediator's attention long before this. Chidel, are you ex Tennis Expert?Fyunck(click) (talk)09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
9th revert by Fyunck(click):11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Chidel (talk)23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank youTennis Expert/Chidel. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced.Fyunck(click) (talk)00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Fyunck(click)'s edits have included such unsourced fantasies that the French Open began in 1925...yet even the Roland Garros website says 1891:
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html
His edits are, therefore, unsourced, because the sources he is adding do NOT support his contentions.
Clearly, what he is doing is edit-warring, but trying to get around that on the technicality of not reverting several times in a day. Nonetheless, his edits are damaging to Wikipedia and those that read the articles because he is not following the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect major, mainstream sources, not one's own POV bias. Sources as varied as ESPN, the World Almanac, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the major winners, back to the start. Thus, his deletion of the names of French pre-1925 winners is a particularly egregious offense.
Also, Fyunclick has overemphasized "grand slam counts" when most major sources vary in their presentation...some count just open-era; some count all titles back to the start. Some don't count those before the advent of the challenge round. Historically, the idea of the "Grand Slam" did not even exist until Don Budge won four major tournaments in 1938, when the idea that these were the top-four coalesced gradually, over time. Since all sources do not agree on the second major issue...counting career slam titles...the appropriate response, in line with Wikipedia's calls for a pluralistic approach, is to have lists for any major way to count. This has already been done with pre-Open and Open-era counts. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be done with the pre-1925/post-1925 French Open winners. To do so would allow the reader to decide which version of events they wish to support. Currently, Fyunclick is attempting to impose his WP:OWN-violating, single "hardline" POV, which is also biased because though it excludes early French winners, it includes the early winners of other tournament that were no open to international competition, such as the US Open in 1881.Ryoung12208:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Every source counts "grand slam" titles since before they were called "grand slam" titles. Every source. Just like the triple crown in horse racing does the same since before they were called the triple crown. The question is when before. You can certainly change the date of inception to 1891 and if you had done that we would have left it stand. But it started international play in 1925 for slam purposes. I have mentioned dozens of sources and list 10. This was all put in my contacting wiki mediation a week ago. You POV is certainly not helping this article nor is your constant reverting. I noticed that for the last year, before two charts merged, that when non-slam winners names were left grayed-out people were constantly changing counts and totals. How many did you and Chidel change back. Zip. I had to do it all for 2 years. Some I wouldn't catch for weeks and weeks. With the charts moved together (also against my will but fairly talked about and voted on) if this article is going to be accurate it needs to be truthful with a preponderance of sources verifying it. That has been done by me in a friendly manner, not with constant snide remarks and threats on my talk page. If I owned this page you would think I'd be the only one writing to it as opposed to dozens and dozens of others. Please stop the reverting. Thanks.Fyunck(click) (talk)10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Fyunck's edit warring is continuing, sadly:
And his "mediator" or "higher up" is a no-show. Not on Fyunck's discussion page. Not on the article discussion pages. No where to be found. Who is this person, anyway?Chidel (talk)00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have noted that sources as varied as the World Almanac, ESPN, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the French "grand slam" winners back to 1891. Consistent with Wikipedia's calls that their articles must be pluralistic (including multiple major points of view), all you have to do is list the pre-1925 winners but put an asterisk next to their name and a footnote. But while you're at it, the US "Open" in its early years was open only to Americans. For you to exclude early French winners, but not early winners elsewhere, is hypocritical. Further, as one pointed out: should we exclude Wimbledon when it didn't allow blacks?
As for the counts, personally I believe the French champs should count, so why would I revert something I agree with? Also, it seems a lot of other people agree with myself and Chidel, or you wouldn't have had to revert so many times. That you did, shows that you are not being constructive but instead being an obstacle to having a consensus article. You should consider that the point here is for Wikipedia to put all the information out, and let the user decide.
Ryoung12203:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[44]
Attempted to get discussion to article talk page, but was thenmet with more accusations of racism and hostility. Asked for page protection to resolve dispute, but has not been addressed at this time.Cactusjump (talk)00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Stale User hasn't edited the main page in over 24 hours, thus there's no ongoing edit war and no need for intervention. If you're having issues with the editor on the article's talk page, then consider reviewing thedispute resolution procedure, particularly consider filing Wikietiquette alert, etc. Cheers.Nja24712:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- User keeps arguing and threatening to change the article without gaining consensus on the talk page. They are not a regular user--they do not show up daily. Yet it is extremely disruptive on both the talk page and the article itself.Cactusjump (talk)21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Filed a Wikietiquette alert. I'm at a loss of what else to do.Cactusjump (talk)21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[49]
Warning by me onuser:Scientus talk page[54]
I have reverted all of those as my own user space is exempt from the 3RR rule.
This user has been accused ofWP:Vandalism,WP:Edit warring and tendentiousWP:Disruptive editing on theOffice Open XML article (see also:talk:Office Open XML which has included obsessive fact tagging, deleting sourced information and has now moved to personal attacks against me on my talk page. This is another sign of a disruputive editor. (seeWP:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing.
These disruptive edits led, after me reverting as perWP:Disruptive_editing#Dealing with disruptive editors, to me being blocked for edit warring and alsouser:Scientusbeing blocked for edit warring.
An example of the disputed edits then[57] whereuser:Scientus added 12 tendentious critisism citations on Office Open XML citations in theOffice Open XML article lead to a neutral sentence
Microsoft developed the over 6000 page [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] standard
which did not even need a citation. Removing these 12 unnessesary and tendentious critisism citations led to me getting a block for edit warring (as some how an admin reverted the 12 tendentious citations back in and blokced me for reverting them). Since then another user has also removed them of course and hasUser:Scientus put in other effort to delete information from the Office Open XML article and put the removed links back in on some other place.
This user has taken his disruptive behaviour from theOffice Open XML article now to edit warring on my user talk page with the example 6 reverts listed above.hAl (talk)06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Since then another revert has been made
7th revert[58]
This increases the continuous edit warring byuser:Scientus on my user talk page.hAl (talk)15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Continuing story. This guy keeps reverting:
8th revert[59]
hAl (talk)18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[60]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[67]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[68]
- Diff of comment on user's talk page, asking to bring dispute to article talk:[69]
This user appears to be engaging in edit warring behavior similar to that ofOrsahnses (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), who previously was blocked for warring over this same article and issue. While the final diffs listed aren't technically reverts, they are edits to the same material, blatantly ignoring requests to discuss such changes on the talk page. Please see the previous edit warring report regarding Orsahnses when deciding what action to take here. Many thanks,Vicenarian(T ·C)14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of24 hours — Aitias // discussion18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stubborn POV-pushing reverts against long-standing status quo and consensus of multiple users. Two 3RR vios on each of two days, 11 and 13 July:
- 11 July, 20.25 (rv. to immediately previous[71])
- 11 July, 20:28
- 11 July, 20:30
- 11 July, 20:36
- 13 July (slight variation of previous edit)
- 13 July, 16:03
- 13 July, 16:20
- 13 July, 17:43 (rv to intermediate edit[72])
- 13 July, 18:13 (yet another variation of the same edit)
Fut.Perf.☼19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked account indefinitely. He is not here to help, he is here to push his point of view. If the article gets out of hand, I can protect it. A rangeblock may be possible as well if he decides to follow you around, but it would not be desirable (a /16 on of one of the largest ISPs in Greece).J.delanoygabsadds19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[73]
Currently, he is even edit warring on the POV-tag, as he also notes in the referenced talk page discussion. Appears to be fallout fromVerifiability Noticeboard issue andNeutral POV Noticeboard issue. --Yaf (talk)05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- 72hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Following appeal, I've reconsidered and am not comfortable with this block. In particular I don't like the fact that Yaf failed to report this[74]William M. Connolley (talk)08:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which was overwritten through SaltyBoatr's subsequent repeat of the same reverts, restoring the same content that he self-reverted this one time. Whether there were 6 reverts or 5, there was still a clear violation of 3RR. But, no block. It appears that the 3RR bright line doesn't apply to some editors.Yaf (talk)15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[75]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[76]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[77]
The user has been edit warring in this and other articles for several weeks. He has been warned by several users (User:Mountolive,User:Dúnadan,User:Maurice27) and politely invited to discuss his proposed changes ([78]). He has ignored all warnings and invitations. He has even tried to delete the discussions ([79]) and has attacked those who were trying to make him understand that his behavior wasn't appropriate ([80],[81]) breaking Wikiquette with offensive words like 'idiot' and 'retarded'. --Carles Noguera (talk)13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It'll be pretty easy to run out of "reverting credits" when Cnoguera double teams someone with his comradeUser:Dúnadan. Moreover, I've said like a dozen times the former version was NPOV (and factually wrong) and clearly stated the reasons. They decided to team up and revert like crazy. And he's unable to understand that I can remove his trolling from MY discussion page if I want to (he kept on spamming like crazy). --Taraborn (talk)14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can't say I like the idea of "reverting credits". But you seem to have stopped for now; don't continueWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Editor Gorillasapiens continue with vandalism of misinterpreting several most reliable sources possible relevant to the topic. He repeatedly tries to discredit scientific research. His behavior is unacceptable under Wikipedia policies. See relevant Talk Page. Thank you. --Destinero (talk)20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're obliged to at least pretend to follow the instructions: please list some reverts, ideally 4. Also, I caution you that your edit summary here[82] accusing Gs of vandalism is inappropriate; the edit is not vandalism, merely one with which you disagreeWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just listed many his reverts. The reasons why his reverts are unacceptable under Wikipedia policies are clarified on Talk Page:Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits --Destinero (talk)05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[83]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[89]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[90]
The IP edit is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account anyway. Despite this content also beingremoved by an administrator and two editors on the talk page being against inclusion, this single purpose account continues to push the ridiculous fringe view that theJuly 2009 Ürümqi riots were a terrorist incident, supported by a vague Chinese state source. I've asked for multiple independent neutral reliable sources to show this isn't some fringe view, all I get is revert after revert.O Fenian (talk)01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24h for bothWilliam M. Connolley (talk)07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a BS block. Edit warring disruptive IP using alternate accounts, and a first class content editor. This is not like with like and rewards disruption IMHO. --Domer48'fenian'07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[91]
(The above is the first instance of Rocknroll714 inserting a list of slang into the article against previously established consensus. There are many other edits in the history today, but the reinsertion of these terms by Rocknroll714 happens 4 more times below, completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page by several other editors.)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[96]
I've reverted this user for other issues (removing a ref with no edit summary, overlinking of common terms, etc.), but other users have reverted Rocknroll714 for this exact issue. They are involved in discussion on this issue on the talk page, but Rocknroll has been silent on the talk page.NJGW (talk)03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:English-language_surnames
Category:German-language_surnames
In the English case, Badagnani removed the{{Surnames by language}} template, and was promptly reverted by Good Olfactory. Since then, he's been engaged in a slow motion 1 or 2 removals (page blanking) per day. Also, has used an IP surrogate.
More recently, he's started doing the same removal (page blanking) in the German case – once per day so far.
- (repeat offender, previous subject ofRFC, blocked for edit warring several times per year for 3+ years.)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
With the recent removal of WP:3RR, nobody knows what to expect (looks like that was a bad idea). Obviously, this slow motion page blanking isn't exactly covered. But isn't page blanking still vandalism by definition?
--William Allen Simpson (talk)05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Although Badagnani did not respond here, certainly sawnotice – about 1.5 hours lateredited own Talk, andwas taken to WP:WQA by 2 more editors (administrators?) for that infraction, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk)12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48h, per this andWikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:BadagnaniWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
NB,this edit was part of the third revert, which restored textpreviously removed.
Liu has twice been blocked for edit-warring on this page. We also had adiscussion with him on the talk page, but because he couldn't gain consensus for the change he re-started edit-warring. He has now tried to continue edit-warring by simply removing the text he doesn't like, claiming it's not a revert (despite the fact I've explained to him that policy says it is).
He isn't listening, so I had to bring it here.John Smith's (talk)20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have not broken the 3RR rule. I have only made 2 reversions then stopped. My third edit towards the article was to restore the previous vandalisation done by Smith. My 4th edit was to remove information and POV that had no consensus reached or evidence to back up. I did not break the 3RR rule, all my edits were done in response to discussions in the Talks as well as to fix and revert vandalisations done by others.Liu Tao (talk)20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have not started edit war either. About the consensus, none was ever reached. I had pleaded and begged for them to continue discussing about the issue, but they refused and chose to ignore my discussions and points. They are the ones who have refused to discuss the matter and chose to edit the article by their own wills. There are multiple of them but only one of me, for each edit they make are multiple reversions I have to make to remove their unsupported and non-consented edits.Liu Tao (talk)21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Form. 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Checkuser already requested.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator[101]
B@xter908:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Gorillasapiens appears to be on a continued campaign, using the talk page and this article as a soapbox as well as continuing to revert other editors with the same issue and disrupting improvement to the article. I have offered some suggestions as to how to proceed on the talk page but they have been ignored. In addition to theabove list of reverts given byDestinero, here are the most recent two examples:
- 8th revert:diff 16 July 2009
- 9th revert:diff 16 July 2009
—Teahot (talk)10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note,User:Gorillasapiens has recently raised a request onwp:3O. However, I believe their history of reversions on this page still requires review.—Teahot (talk)10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:25, 15 July 2009(edit summary: "restored corrections") (Version generally reverted to, also a revert)
- 21:52, 15 July 2009(edit summary: "once again undoing the work of reckless, anti-science vandals")
- 09:50, 16 July 2009(edit summary: "restored corrections and removed uncited allegation that scientists have accused him of pseudoscience")
- 09:52, 16 July 2009(edit summary: "/* Reception */ restored censored statement from two biologists in support of Sheldrake") (These are two sequential reverts, hence count as one)
- 10:31, 16 July 2009(edit summary: "")
- 11:39, 16 July 2009(edit summary: "restored material censored by anti-Sheldrake fanatic")
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Rupert Sheldrake User has been warned and reverted by at least three different editors who have questioned his contributions.
- User attempting to justify why his reverts aren't in violation of 3RRon my talk page.
—Verbalchat11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24 hours --B (talk)15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[102]
(I believe there are others earlier than the first one listed here)
Point of contention is whether it's "jerkwad" or "jerk wad." Muy importante. This is technically not a 3RR violation (given the 24+-hour window of edit warring). However, the sheer number of reverts and counter-reverts -- including one after a 3RR warring -- make this a clear violation in spirit.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[112]
I'll add as a PS thatUser:Montana's Defender has been the other half of the edit war. Although he hasn't technically violated 3RR, he's well aware of the policy and has thoroughly broken it in spirit, too. Per his MO, he's reverted the IP editor without initiating in any sort of talk-page discussion. He placed the warning on the IP editor's talk page, and I placed one on his for edit-warring in kind. Frankly, I believe both the IP and MD should receive the usual block. --EEMIV (talk)13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Added toWP:LAME, thanksWilliam M. Connolley (talk)14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! :-D --EEMIV (talk)16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[113]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:16:20 July 15 and subsequent posts
The user is seeking to reframe a mediation dispute by altering the content of the dispute by adding false information, and subsequently edit-warring about its inclusion.-Arcayne(cast a spell)17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – Edokter appears to have been acting in good faith, to keep to the required structure and to keep things in order. Would it not have been better to discuss his reasons for dispute with him?17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Argh. This is all a bit cr*p. Ed *has* broken 3RR and should know well enough not to do so. OTOH I had assumed that the links A provided to attempt-to-resolve and warning were valid; they aren't. Unblocking for now at least, anyone else wants to look please feel freeWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different fromthe initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. -Arcayne(cast a spell)17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different fromthe initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. -Arcayne(cast a spell)17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- As well, Edokter has been an editor an admin here long enough to be aware of something as simple as 3RR; my warning was to ask him to not refactor my posts - a request that Edokter promptly ignored. We do not refactor the article- or process-discussions of others, and - unless I'm grossly mistaken - we certainly don't violate 3RR to do so. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to think that this is anIAR situation. He was honestly trying, as I think WMC noticed (andthanks for unblocking, by the way!), to keep the flow and structure. It looked more like you were undoing all his separate honest efforts. I think we should just put this one down to a breakdown in communication and move on quickly!17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x2)I disagree. This is not the first time that Edokter has swerved dangerously close to 3RR in the past, this was no exception. He did not choose to discuss his edits, he just made them, and to hell with my comments and requests. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) This (as in, this situation that you've both got yourselves into) is stupid. You should both know better. If either of you reverts there again I'll certainly block you. However, you may both be reassured that without a doubt any number of eyes have now looked at that page. If there is any remaining problem, people will edit it. But not you. Should you feel like discussing the question further, why you could use the talk pageWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tried that in the mediation discussion. The mediator blanked it as "unprofessional"(1), effectively ending discussion. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC).
- And I would point out that the current version is the problem, and one that folk visiting it would not be initially aware of. Indeed, the version assumes its conclusion, and any folk visiting the discussion would have already been influenced as to the outcome. It is flawed on its face. Either way, removing clarifying instruction was a 3RR vio from an editor (andadmin) who should very well know better. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in talk, AFD, and user page, see below.
This warring is less of a personal dispute and revolves around mis-attribution to policy and poor summaries. User claimed his vast amounts of deleted material was simply OR, even though much of the content was cited thoroughly by theUnited States Department of Justice and other government/3rd party references. I tried to have himmove the content he disputed both at my userpage and the AFD so it would be easier to discuss, but he did not do this. I considered moving the content myself but felt that would be a breach of editing code.Wikifan12345 (talk)04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- User edit-warred almost every single one my additions and was adamant about not resolving dispute in talk and preferred to project it on the article.Wikifan12345 (talk)05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Contiguous edits count as one. You can try re-doing your report if you like, though it is likely to be stale. As far as I can see, people are using the talk pageWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean contiguous editS? Pelle has been edit-warring additions he doesn't agree with relentlessly. Using the talk page/discussion is totally irrelevant when it comes to edit-warring, according to you at least.Wikifan12345 (talk)23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Editor continues to war out additions. Will, you've had no problem doing what you are supposed to do to every other notice report, and now claim it is stale because you consciously waited. I know we have a history so perhaps another administrator can do their job.Wikifan12345 (talk)01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan is editing against consensus and in violation of basic policies. William is correct as well about contiguous edits, however if William or another admin commenting here thinks there is a problem with my editing in this instance please advise on how I need to change my behavior and I will comply.PelleSmith (talk)02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the diffs are contiguous, but it looks to me (after a cursory glance) that you have justbarely come in under the 3rr wire, and then continued to edit war afterwards. I don't think,pace William, that a new report is necessary, though Wikifan, you might want to make a note here of continuing reversion on the article, if applicable. I'd also note, the report is very far from stale. Admin intervention may well be required.IronDuke02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah Pelle continues to revert my edits,and dubiously said the additions were original research. I just think this is a double standard because Will has blocked me for far, far less. I'm scared to continue editing the article for fear of being blocked.Wikifan12345 (talk)02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, there is no consensus. Accusing me of editing against it is simply a lie.Wikifan12345 (talk)02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it might be good for you to stop reverting while you sort things out, and maybe pursue dispute resolution. I agree that WMC might not be the best person to intervene here. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin will weigh in/actIronDuke03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I stopped doing major edits hours ago. All I've done is minor edits (spelling, syntax) but those too are occasionally reverted. I filed a 3OO but no response. William has always been pretty consistent with blocking edit-warring regardless of reasoning and now he makes a dubious exception. Talk about a double standard. Everyone but Wikifan.Wikifan12345 (talk)04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No more reverts; staleWilliam M. Connolley (talk)11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
User:Wikireader41 has violatedwp:3rr by revertingKanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please seerevert 1,revert 2,revert 3 andrevert 4.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
This is a serious violations and need to be looked at.yousaf46506:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-07-16T05:33:10 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) m (45,543 bytes) (Protected Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: ew ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))William M. Connolley (talk)08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not enough. In pervious cases which I have seen it's both side as for yellowmonkwy is concerned a case is going on against him in which wikireader41 is [invloved]. Interstingly Yellowmonkey also brokewp:3rr there.yousaf465
- I was not aware if someone had already filed a complaint based on my rough/un-detailed contents which I had posted on some administrator's talk page and on some un-related notice board. I have gathered enough sources to document this case based on the template of this notice-board, I request Administrators to look into my contents and PLEASE DECIDE. As previously complained by another editor,User:YellowMonkey is already facingPOV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e.User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supportingUser:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint which I am putting below:
- July 9th 2009 – Initially the text was being tagged by editors butWikireader41 kept deleting the tags, seehere andhere
- July 9th 2009 -Wikireader41 asked forsome reference from opposing editors (ideally to accept their logic), which wasprovided to him
- July 14th 2009 – After receiving no further challenge fromWikireader41, another editorcut andmoved the text in question to the article’s talk page to reachwp:consensus butWikireader41, after putting an unrealistic demand for at-least1000-10000 further references, hereverted the article and kept on reverting it[1][2][3] . By doing so he has clearly violatedwp:consensus, by forcefully restoring the text (which was never deleted but actually preserved in the talk page) he has violatedwp:pov and by reverting this article several times he has violatedWP:EW.
- This editorWikireader41 and IPUser: 209.224.239.164 is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the accountUser:Wikireader41 anyway. Despite this case,User:Wikireader41’s previous history shows that he is a known violator ofwp:pov andWP:EW , which resulted in his previous“48 Hours of Blocking ” by respected Wikipedia Administrators. --99.51.223.161 (talk)08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As previously complained by another editor,User:YellowMonkey is already facingPOV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e.User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supportingUser:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint. Kindly consider it very serious.--99.51.223.161 (talk)08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- . --99.51.223.161 (talk)08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[119]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[124] (see Edit Summary)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[125],[126]
I am aNovice Editor, and this is my first experience with an aggressive editor. I believe Dr.enh has violated 3RR, at least in spirit anyway, but I am unsure. I copied the Diff's as best I could: hope they meet your requirements.Lionelt (talk)04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No technical vio (1st revert on the 14th) and no reverts since your warning. Will warnWilliam M. Connolley (talk)10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
See above. Don't re-add thisWilliam M. Connolley (talk)07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[127]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[133] (see Edit Summary)
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[134]
This editor, who has no formal experience editing on wikipedia according to his history, has put unsource, speculative, and rather inappropriate edits toRebecca Quick’s article pertaining to her martial status. I tried to undo this questionable edit by this edit, but everytime I did, it is reverted right back to the same controversial information. When I tried warning him, this editor still did not comply, and still continue with his ruthless reverts. So I told him, enough’s enough. There is no official source statingRebecca Quick’s martial status in the past. And this obnoxious editor is putting information that is unsource and in direct violation of the living person’s biography, and is unwilling to back off in his shrewd ways by engaging in this edit war that I don’t want. I afraid that if I revert for a fourth time, I would subject myself to the 3RR policy.KeltieMartinFan (talk)13:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of24 hoursEnigmamsg15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Long term edit warring over a content dispute with several other editors. Editor keeps removing verified assertion with multiple reliable sources claiming defamation and untruth in theMimi Macpherson article.[135][136][137][138][139] The issue was alsodiscussed at biographies of living people noticeboard but the discussion lapsed.Morbidthoughts (talk)19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.King of♥♦♣ ♠21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)- I'm not asking for 3RR. I'm asking administrators to intervene in a long-term edit war.Morbidthoughts (talk)21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: the user is not over the bright line, but has made over 4 separate, arbitrary reverts with really rotten justifications; and is making no effort to edit collaboratively, nor is he follow the relevant wiki policy.
User has been repeatedly reverting edits by arbitrarily removing non english language references. He quotes the policy, then acts as if it says something else. In effect, he's inventing his own policy and then enforcing it by deleting/reverting.
He edit wars while his subject line says 'Edit warring solves nothing.' He's insulting on the talk page, and acts as if he owns the article, while accusing me of owning the article (I don't consider the claim that I am owning the article has any merit at all, I've got literally a handful of edits there, he's on about 20 consecutive, many of them simply deletions or reversions). The user ViperNerd has been suspended for edit warring for long periods before. The user is being very tiresome, and seems to be using the 3RR rule contrary to its intended spirit.
In short I've never seen a more clearcut example of edit warring, although he has not made 4 reverts my understanding is that this is not required, and this seems to be very clear cut edit warring by him.- (User)Wolfkeeper (Talk)00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reporting user has also been blocked more than once for edit warring, so if we're judging by past actions here, there you go. Also, this user seems to believe that just because the first source one stumbles across is non-English, that it's fine to quit right there and use it to ref statements in the article. In short, this editor is interpreting the guideline as he wants it to be, not as it was intended. It took me very little time to replace several Russian language refs in the article with English language ones (per WP guideline), is it too much to ask the same of others who want to edit this article? I did more to improve sourcing on this article (which is still in desperate need of more) in one day than this user has done in months, but somehow that's "edit warring" in the eyes of an editor who seems to think that article ownership and lazy, unverifiable sourcing are acceptable on Wikipedia these days.ViperNerd (talk)09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The user is simply aggressively removing anything that he wishes for a completely non policy reason; the policy says that non english references are acceptable, but English sources are preferred- the user is just edit warring them all out, and is being pretty insulting as well, as you can see. Examination of the edits to the article shows clearly that I am not owning the article in any way; but the same is not true of ViperNerd. The user needs to stop edit warring.- (User)Wolfkeeper (Talk)10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- If by "edit warring" you mean replacing utterly unverifiable Russian language sources with reliable English language sources, then yes, I'm guilty as charged. It's really not that difficult, maybe you could try it sometime. Policy states that foreign language sources are only acceptable if NO ENGLISH SOURCE CAN BE FOUND, and even then the foreign source must meet the standard ofWP:RS, so the burden of proof falls on the person providing the source. Like I've pointed out several times, I found English sources with mere minutes of looking for them, are you suggesting that you cannot do the same?ViperNerd (talk)11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Vipernerd vs Wolfkeeper sounds like some exciting wrestling federation title bout. Sadly its just a tedious edit war, but not a 3RR violation since they are well out of 24h. VN appears to be removing sources for spurious reasons. e.g.[144]: just because *you* can't verify it doesn't make it unverifiableWilliam M. Connolley (talk)11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- He's systematically removing all my edits, and has just done it again, immediately after your warning.- (User)Wolfkeeper (Talk)13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow...just, wow. "Your" (WP:OWN much?) edits/sources do not support the material you are attempting to add to the article, and this was explained in the edit summary. Either find a reliable source that verifies the material you wish to add, or stop attempting to add it. It's really that simple. I assumed good faith in believing that you understood that basic tenant of Wikipedia. Please read up on it if this is not the case. Thanks.ViperNerd (talk)14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
*That* is more like it - now you're living up to your names. And all caps too - extra points. 24h bothWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [Update: in view of past history, VN gets bumped up to a weekWilliam M. Connolley (talk)14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)]
- User:ViperNerd still seems to be edit warring while blocked.[145], I've put a sockpuppet request check in, and I probably going to call for semiprotection of the article as well if he does it again.- (User)Wolfkeeper (Talk)17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
This anonymous editor is using different IPs but is clearly the same person. The excuse for his/her reverts is WP:BLP, however the reverts are info describing the organisation he belonged to.
I have notified the user of this report, however it may change IP..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.109.97.127
Vexorg (talk)01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.King of♥♦♣ ♠21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Use this page to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors." - I wasn't reporting a 3RR, I was reporting an edit warrior.Vexorg (talk)19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
As recommended byUser:Jezhotwells over atWP:EAR (under "Censorship"), I report that there is continued edit warring atNational Holiday (Quebec) over content pushed byUser:Disfasia .
User:Disfasia edited two full paragraphs on June 16 which were first removed by AdministratorUser:FisherQueen ([146]) asWP:OR.User:FisherQueen attempted to explain the nature of the problem withUser:Disfasia onUser:Disfasia'stalk page. After edit warrring withUser:FisherQueen (and random others) all the way to June 21 ([147]),User:Disfasia complained of censorship (WP:EAR) and later disappeared.
He reappeared on July 14 and re-posted the same stuff, which I removed ([148]), which he reposted again on July 17 ([149]). This is where we are now. AsUser:FisherQueen seems somewhat on vacation ([150]), there has been no response to the re-occurrence of edit warring. Could someone who has time please take care of this. Thanks. --Mathieugp (talk)22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
WarnedNja24718:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
One detail:FisherQueen gave alast warning[151] already. Following this warning,User:Disfasia momentarily stopped re-adding his paragraph. Then he added it again on July 14. --Mathieugp (talk)18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that, but it was a while ago. Try to resolve the issue the best you can. Cheers.Nja24723:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:00:51, 17 July 2009 (two consecutive edits by Ferrylodge summarized in diff)
OK, I know this is 4 reverts in 24:01, but given that it's only a snapshot of the edit-warring, and given Ferrylodge's history, I've brought it here for review despite the 1-minute-beyond-24-hours grace window, which I'll assume is coincidental rather than an obvious gaming of 3RR.MastCell Talk06:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- There was no 3RR violation. What there was was this: Mastcell admitted that he was seeking "insertion of more extreme and partisan terms" into a BLP. I objected at the talk page, and another editor concurred that I am right about this. Mastcell is in violation of several Wikipedia policies such asWP:AGF,WP:NPOV,WP:CONSENSUS,WP:BLP, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk)16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[152]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[157] Also this user has previously been blocked for 3RR, so he is aware of the rule.[158]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[159] There's a discussion at talk, but Serouj does not seem to be willing to wait for the outcome of the discussion.Grandmaster08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- 48hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Repeat offender; report of their last WP:3RR violation
- Previous version reverted to:[160]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[167]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[168]
Samboy (talk)20:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This user appears to be reverting a properly sourced edit with a POV stance. Five times now in fairly quick succesion.Vexorg (talk)00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted a couple of edits to remove an attack site inserted by this user Vexorg. I have been defending the Wikipedia BLP from edits attempting to claim long term membership of an israeli group, my first edits were to remove Zionist claims, I have at all times in this situation attempted to move to the talk page and have started threads on this users page as well. I have repeatedly requested them to please provide additional citation to support their claims oflong term memdership . As far as accusing me of POV goes, my reason d'etre is actually to prevent harm to the person that is the subject of the WP:BLP (Off2riorob (talk)00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC))
- This user Vexorg has reinserted the cite that was flagged as an attack cite and also has come here and continued to revert the page after reporting here. (Off2riorob (talk)00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC))
- Blocked – for a period of2 weeks — Aitias // discussion00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note. The source I added is not an attack site it is www.haaretz.com, a reputable major Israeli media outlet.Vexorg (talk)00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kim Dong-hyun (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Gamechanger (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[169]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 22:03, 18 July 2009(edit summary: "")
- 23:04, 18 July 2009(edit summary: "")
- 00:16, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "")
- 03:56, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning:[170]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on use talk page:[171]
User was blocked yesterday for the same edits. --aktsu (t / c)04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of48 hoursNja24713:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[172]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[176]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[177]
I'm an uninvolved editor (other than agreeing that the changes byUser:74.83.113.209 violateWP:UNDUE.--Curtis Clark (talk)14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Aitias // discussion15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(cur) (prev) 18:18, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo)(cur) (prev) 17:14, 19 July 2009 PRRfan (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (Rv undiscussed img change) (undo)(cur) (prev) 17:08, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,093 bytes) (undo)(cur) (prev) 17:08, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo)(cur) (prev) 16:09, 19 July 2009 Massimo Catarinella (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (Reverting the lead image for the last time to prevent an edit war again. I've notified the user through his/her talk page and placed a note above the article.) (undo)(cur) (prev) 15:33, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo)(cur) (prev) 15:21, 19 July 2009 Massimo Catarinella (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (I've inserted a note concerning the discussion. If anyone knows which template to use and can fix, that would be great.) (undo)
In all cases the user removes the new lead image for his own old one. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article to decide which of the two should be the new lead image for the Philadelphia article. A majority decided so far that it shouldnot be his. Despite the note on the top of the article stating that a discussion is going on and the message I left on his talk page, he is still refusing to participate and keeps revering lead images vigorously. He probably used different IP-addresses before the page became semi-protected. I hope you could do something about it. I'm new at filing such request, so don't shoot me if I make mistakes.
--Massimo Catarinella (talk)19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- You've both broken 3RR. 24h eachWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Aryabhata (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Stopthenonsense (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:44, 16 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302394677 by195.229.237.36 (talk) restoring")
- 08:25, 17 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302445218 byAbecedare (talk) Sanskrit was not a spoken language. Don't confuse the readers.")
- 18:33, 17 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302585709 byShreevatsa (talk) so all people who are dead, should be tagged with Sanskrit? deleted")
- 18:34, 17 July 2009(edit summary: "kerala reference")
- 01:48, 18 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302644590 byAbecedare (talk)")
- 22:04, 18 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302798219 byAbecedare (talk) revert edit warrior")
- 22:55, 18 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302846903 byPriyanath (talk)")
- 19:21, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "restored")
- 19:34, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302996378 byAbecedare (talk) vandalism")
- 19:35, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302997877 byPriyanath (talk)")
- 19:40, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302998677 byPriyanath (talk)")
- 19:41, 19 July 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 302998904 by Vipinhari (talk)")
- Diff of warning:here. Earlier warning:here
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[178].
User may have used IPs91.130.188.40 (talk ·contribs),91.130.91.7 (talk ·contribs),195.64.23.130 (talk ·contribs) to edit-war on the same page over the last 2 weeks. See the diffs in this ANI report and thisSPI filing.Abecedare (talk)19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let's add Abecedare, Priyanath and Shrivastava to this report. Some may violated 3rr, some not, some may had sockpuppets at the same article. All were reported for a different case:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#user:Abecedare_user:Shreevatsa_user:Priyanath_at_Aryabhata . No action was taken so far. --Stopthenonsense (talk)19:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stopthenonsense is now up toseven reverts in the last 24 hours, reverting five different editors (none of whom came close to violating 3rr) against consensus. Please block him.Priyanath talk20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.Priyanath talk21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[179]
Also note that he himself handed out bad faith "warnings" and as an administrator certainly was aware of 3RR
Blocking the opponent in an edit war constitutes clear abuse of admin privileges and he should also have his admin privileges removed (to follow). The user in question is a Polish nationalist POV pusher who insists on massively and inappropriately adding the word "Nazi" to German geographical (not political) entities, and who is also pushing Polish nationalist POV in relation to Czech areas that were occupied by Poland.U158 (talk)19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked user avoided any discussion on Landkreis Teschen article, even when he was asked to do so ([189]), moreover his blatant incivility is striking, calling someone a "nationalist" goes directly againstWP:AGF,WP:NPA andWP:CIVIL to name some.Kattowitz (region), which was superior to Landkreis Teschen, is also called a "Nazi German" region in the article and it is no problem to anybody, because that's the way it was. Landkreis Teschen was not only geographical but also political entity, same asGeneral Government and many others across Nazi German-occupied Europe. User's actions on mentioned article constituted a direct vandalism and his personal attacks, together with lack of will for discussion and consensus only prove that. Fresh creation of user:U158 right after IP block also shows something and is evasion of a block. This user should be blocked as well. --Darwinek (talk)20:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[190]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[195]
This anonymous IP has been changing Kiev to Kyiv. The page goes in and out of semi-protection in order to prevent these anonymous IPs from constantly edit warring over the spelling. I suggest that the page be put in permanent semi-protection. (Taivo (talk)20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC))
- Thank you. (Taivo (talk)20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC))
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert:[196] 22:26 18 July et seq revert of H2g2bob
- 2nd revert:[197] 14:26 19 July revert of Collect followed by a revert of H2g2bob
- 3rd revert:[198] 19:50 19 July revert of John Maynard Friedman
- 4th revert:[199] 20:53 19 July revert of JoshuaZ
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[200]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[201] multiple efforts by at least four editors
[202] was filed by one editor. Each of the other accounts he cited has made quite similar reverts.Collect (talk)21:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note Could you please explain the background/reasons for this content dispute a bit further? Thanks, — Aitias // discussion21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- SPI ended with all of the accounts getting indeffed -- making this moot. The issue was raised on BLP/N about certain material which was found to really, really violate BLP <g> which this multiple-person wished to insert contrary to every other editor within a mile. See[203] Thanks!Collect (talk)00:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just before deletions:[204]
- 1st revert: 21:10, 19 July 2009[205]
- 2nd revert: 21:56, 19 July 2009[206]
- 3rd revert: 22:27, 19 July 2009[207]
- 4th revert: 22:47, 19 July 2009[208]
- The user posted a 3RR warning against me just before violating the policy himself[209].) Refuses to allow images that are more illustrative to the section and subject for more decorative "Pretty" images and appears to be too closely envolved with the subject. Member may be founder of theatre and may also be in violation of autobiography on the pageStephen Moorer.--Amadscientist (talk)23:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of72 hours — Aitias // discussion23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[210]
- 1st revert:[211]
- 2nd revert:[212]
- 3rd revert:[213]
- 4th revert: He won't answer on article or usertalk page, no reason to believe he won't revert again if I restore the sourced info
Also please review exact same process at[214]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[215]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page (2 sections, "ST:TWOK revert, and "First Contact budget"). (Also review the edit summaries of the two articles):[216]
Also, I just (finally) receivedthis on my talkpage, doesn't seem very likely to change his ways, does he? --Despayre(talk)02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The third "revert" listed was an extension of my second; I had removed incorrect information but accidentally left the ref used in. If you can't be bothered to actually look for quality sources, I'm sorry if I sound snippy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- My edits did not contain "incorrect information". You reverted my sourced verifiable edits with material that was unsourced entirely! As perWP:Burden, if you can't prove your material, I will have to remove it and go with reliably sourced material. If you only have a hard-copy of your source please provide a quote backing up your claim, along with your reference. If you have a problem with my sources, please discuss on the talk pages, that's what they're for. --Despayre(talk)03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I really can't bring myself to care about the tedious details of some movie. Yet again, I'm amazed at the tedia people edit war over. It doesn't look like a technical vio to me, but I think someone else should judge thisWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Got enough of the tedious details of some climate change topic, eh? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Impartial observer here: sheeesh! FWiWBzuk (talk)23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
Page protectedKing of♥♦♣ ♠16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[217]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[222]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[223]
EEng is a frequent editor of the articlePhineas Gage whose work has greatly improved the article. However, he has repeatedly reverted today to remove an image of a 160-year-old daguerreotype from the article on spurious copyright grounds (and attempted to have the image deleted on Commons, which I mention only to say that he is entirely intractable on this matter). It does not appear that he will cease edit warring to remove the image under any circumstances.—Gavia immer (talk)05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- WarnedWilliam M. Connolley (talk)18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, 3RR makes special allowance copyright matters, and I had and have good-faith reasons for believing those allowances applied here. I'll post full comments in about 24-48 hours. In the meantime, I note thatJohn Vandenberg has proposed at[224] that the image stay out of the article until the copyright status is resolved.EEng (talk)18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to have reached a result without waiting for comment from me. Is this process ex parte? Should I not bother to respond?EEng (talk)07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My response:
- User:Gavia immer filed this complaint after posting the warning, but before any further revert by me. In other words, the warning was meaning less (not that a warning is required, but it shows sloppiness and failure to understand what's going on on his part)
- The "diff of attempt to resolve dispute" shows various people citing Bridgeman and my asking to see any Wikipedia policy embracing it. No response to that.
- [225]: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, ..." Those uploading the files and posting them to article failed (despite requests) to give any justification for the PD or similar tags on the files.
- [226] "Exceptions to 3RR...Reverting the addition of clear copyright violations..."
- [227]:[ "I]n short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable."
I was acting in good faith consistent with the above policies and guidelines. The participants in Talk offered no argument other than Bridgeman, but were unable to show where Wikipeida policy has embraced Bridgeman (turns out it does, but since none of them apparently could locate that, I don't see how I could be expected to either).
I respectfully request that the Warning on this case be removed and if not, that an explanation be given. In answer to a comment posted elsewhere: iit was not primarily my purpose "to protect Wiki"; I was also attempting to protect the rights of the daguerreotype's owners.EEng (talk)10:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 23:22, 17 July 2009[231]
- 2nd revert: 15:53, 18 July 2009[232]
- 3rd revert: 18:06, 18 July 2009[233]
(Ironically, he posted a 3RR warning against me just before violating the policy himself[234].)
- 4th revert: 18:44, 18 July 2009[235]
There are some unusual items in this case:
Over the past two weeks, James Cantor added five self-promotional EL's to two articles[236][237][238]. Two were links to his own website. Three were to a website that he is involved with, in an undisclosed conflict of interest. I discovered the conflict, opposed the changes, and participated in discussions relating to the five ELs. Given the past two weeks, an attack against an article that I've contributed text and references to wasn't surprising.
I believe the two events are clearly related. He himself argued that coincidence is evidence of ill will, in the case of a third event. Specifically, he argued that my RFC on another article's talk page[239] was "clearly and simply a personal attack in retaliation"[240] for his deletions to the paraphilic infantilism article. I posted that RFC as a response to his edit, on the same day, in the same article[241]. This article received four of the five ELs mentioned and was the site of one of the discussions. As a result, we had both been watching it.
I have yet to receive his explanation about why he was so desperate to delete those old sections of the paraphilic infantilism article now. Some of that text had been in place for three years. The coincidence suggests a relationship between my not supporting his ELs and his urgent deletions. His actions have all the signs of, to use his own words, a personal attack in retaliation for my efforts.
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
He has dismissed me as an "activist" since I didn't support his addition of ELs to his website to two articles. e.g.[242] "Social activists don't like when science contradicts their social agenda, and in order to use Wikipedia as a tool for social change, they need to suppress any dissenting evidence or unflattering research results." During the edit war, I encouraged him to use the talk page. He used it to mock my grammar and repeat the "activist" dismissal[243].
Finally, please don't be swayed by his being mentioned as a notable sex researcher in a wikipedia article. He added that himself[244] under an undisclosed COI that was later discovered[245]. He is a professional, but his notability is in question. Note that since he is a professional, he can profit financially from self promotion on wikipedia.
BitterGrey (talk)21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- After dismissing all ofBitterGrey's poisoning of the well, it is difficult to see much else. What BitterGrey is calling James Cantor's revert is actually James Cantor's edit that'sgetting reverted. The full history is:
- James Cantor's original edit, removing long unsourced text:[246]
- BitterGrey's three reverts removing that edit:[247][248][249]
- James Cantor's three reverts reinstating that edit:[250][251][252]
- James Cantor's 3RR warning to BitterGrey:[253]
- BitterGrey's 3RR warning to James Cantor:[254]
- Neither editor reverted anything after being warned.
- Of the three uninvolved editors who then commented on the actual content dispute (the long unsourced text), all three (User:WhatamIdoing,User:MishMich,User:Jack-A-Roe) agreed with James Cantor's removal of it:[255][256][257]
- After the comments supporting James Cantor's edit, BitterGrey filed the present report.
- — James Cantor (talk)02:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment from uninvolved editor. The report byBitterGrey does not accurately reflect the situation from what I have seen. James Cantor's response states it more clearly.BitterGrey has edit warrred has to repeatedly re-add information that has no references, and that has been fact-tagged for 2 years. There are so far three uninvolved editors who have supported the removal of the unsourced information thatBitterGrey wants to include. Discussion atSexology project talk page andthe article talk page. (Disclosure: after reading the talk page, I noticed some non-reliable sources in other parts of the article and removed them, adding some citation-request tags. That was after the above incident and did not involve the content mentioned in this report - I have made no reverts on the article at all).
- Bittergrey (talk ·contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account with ongoing article ownership issues and COI on this topic as the operator of a website dedicated to the topic athttp://understanding.infantilism.org . There is information about that on the article talk page[258] and elsewhere.
- BitterGrey's website also came up on Google when I looked for references on this topic, including a page he posted on his website withoff-Wiki discussion of editing the article.
- I don't think any action is needed regarding 3RR at this point since for now the reverts have stopped. But if the article ownership issues continue, then action may be needed in that area. Overall, there is big difference between the academically sourced work of James Cantor on a range of scientific topics and the apparent ownership of this one article byBitterGrey. --Jack-A-Roe (talk)02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding Jack-A-Roe'snew accusation of an off-Wiki discussion[259], the tabular presentation was off-wiki, but the live copy of the text was in a workshop at the talk page here[260] and the discussion was on the article's talk page, e.g.[261]. I had been on wikipedia for two months back then, and a number of pedophilia-focused editors were demanding that everything on the infantilism article be referenced. They repeatedly deleted large sections of the article. I put my life on hold and started justifying everything line-by-line. As it turns out, their demands about the rest of the article only stopped when we reached a consensus about the section contrasting pedophilia and infantilism. Perhaps they were usingWP:V as an excuse to try to drive the non-pedophilia-focused newcomer off, so I wouldn't interfere with their agenda.BitterGrey (talk)05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, I've not been involved with this article previously; I've never seen it before today. I offered my impressions of the current situation as best I could. You had previously disclosed your involvement with that website. The link that popped up on Google seemed germane to the discussion, so I posted it here for reference. --Jack-A-Roe (talk)06:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly prefer a decision from someone who actually is uninvolved. After I stopped editing to avoid violating 3RR myself, James Cantor continued deleting[262][263][264][265]and was quickly joined in deletion by Jack-A-Roe[266] who then also started deleting references[267][268][269] as well. It isn't my article, but I am the one who put the time into finding most of the references it has (or at least had.)[270]
This filing isn't about control. Jack-A-Roe is correct in that James Cantor has a number of friends that can keep me from doing anything useful while he is blocked. It is about my faith in wikipedia. If wikipedia has become a place where someone can threaten another with a policy[271] and then violate it himself[272][273][274][275] with impunity, I would like to know. Now if we all could perhaps respect "Do not continue a dispute on this page?"BitterGrey (talk)04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- BitterGrey - I never wrote anything remotely like that comment about James Cantor's friends, please do not misquote me.
- Wikipedia articles are created throughconsensus. If you want to make progress, you need to work with others, not treat everyone as adversaries. --Jack-A-Roe (talk)05:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please, let's try to stay focused on the present issue; James Cantor's violation ofWP:3RR, possibly including why he didn't try to reach a consensus before deleting so much of that article so many times. The text above instructs "Do not continue a dispute on this page."BitterGrey (talk)06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is now stale. As others have noted, there is too much personalisation above. On the main issue, the removal of unsourced text, I cannot see in the talk page any clear justification for why it is OK to restore the unsourced text. The obvious suggestion would be that sources should be found if the text is desiredWilliam M. Connolley (talk)12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Polaron has been engaging in low-grade edit warring to redirect valid wikipedia articles onNRHP historic district articles to articles on settlements. He is well aware of wikipedia processes including on edit warring, and well aware of merger proposals and processes of discussion at state-level and other Talk pages which address the "content issues" about NRHP HD vs. settlement articles. Today this is not yet over 3RR violation, but he was blocked a week or two or three ago for violating 3RR explicitly, on the same topic. He is a chronic edit warrior in my opinion.
Recent edits to the above mentioned articles are towards enforcing his view by re-implementing the redirect. These delete merger proposals tags on the Wyoming and Peace Dale pages, as well as all other content. He has additionally redirected other NRHP HD articles where merger tags are not present; I list just a few above. Merger proposals are the correct place to discuss those and other articles, IMO. I have invested considerable time in trying to corral widespread dispute into central discussions atTalk:List of RHPs in CT, and, after Polaron unfortunately extended edit warring to enforce one view into other states, atTalk:List of RHPs in VT andTalk:List of RHPs in RI. Also I opened an RFC on the behavior of an editor unilaterally judging without sources that such mergers must be implemented; the RFC remains open atTalk:List of RHPs in CT#rfc: NRHP historic districts vs. villages.
I am certainly involved in the dispute, which if you want to be extremely charitable to Polaron you could call a "content dispute". But, I think review by uninvolved parties will agree this is about Polaron's edit warring towards force unsupported, non-consensus mergers. Any dispute about content should be, can be discussed in merger proposals at Talk pages, without deleting the articles under discussion! It has been repeatedly been pointed out that these merger proposals are like AFDs, where it is explicitly forbidden for AFD participants to blank or redirect the article in question. There is in fact a way forward in each disputed case, the first step of which is to obtain the relevant, free NRHP HD application documents, but Polaron has never once taken that step as far as I know. There is room for disagreement, to be discussed in merger proposals, but the deletion of pages by redirecting is not with consensus and is seriously hampering development of the articles in question.
I would also like to note that in 3 to 5 or so edits just now I used the "Rollback" tool to revert Polaron's deletions/redirects more easily, and i would like to ask for feedback about that. The rollback privilege is something which i was granted fairly recently and have used only a few other times. I believe that the guidelines for use of "Rollback" are that it should not be used in content disputes, but I believe my usage just now has been in compliance with guidelines, as reversion of vandalism. The content dispute issues are to be discussed at talk pages; it is vandalism or at leastwp:disruptive to delete the articles under discussion for merger. I do not disagree with Polaron's right to make a case for merger in each one of these situations, although I do disagree in every case with his opinion. I would be happy to receive other feedback on my use of Rollback here, if anyone disagrees with my application in these cases.
- Update: I received and fully accept comment on this point fromUser:Acroterion at my Talk page.doncram (talk)04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow, I open this thread following instructions "If despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given them, or will not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard" is appropriate. I have used the RFC process and have repeatedly given feedback to Polaron at his talk page and in multiple discussions.doncram (talk)02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- If this is an edit war (and I believe that may be a valid description), Doncram has been a fully participating combatant. For just one example, see thehistory of his reverting activity at Wilder Village Historic District. Not only is he a full participant, but he has in fact been a provocateur, "firing the first shot" in several battles by creating minimal stub articles about historic districts in place of redirects to articles about the places for which the historic districts were created -- situations where he could well expect that his action would lead to a reaction because they were identical to situations that were being actively discussed. As far as I know, the "situation" started in June with disputes over whether titles of articles about Connecticut historic districts should be redirected to the relevant village or town article. This matter was discussed (mostly) atTalk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. Rather than allowing initial discussions (focused on a few articles) to arrive at consensus, it appears that Doncram has sought out additional redirects that he could either propose for deletion or convert to stubs in order to incite Polaron. In many such cases Doncram has taken unilateral action to replace the existing redirects with new stubs that he then insists must be retained due toWP:STATUSQUO.
- A few examples of his provocation include his first edit in that Wilder Village series andthis diff for Newbury Village in which he created a new stub. Some more recent provocation attempts, see the diffs fromWauregan andWauregan Historic District that I posted atUser talk:Doncram#Please desist from provocative editing, therecent edit history for Wauregan, andTalk:Norris, Tennessee (discussions regarding theNorris District stub that he created in an apparent effort to engage me in an edit war). --Orlady (talk)04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please, anyone, do read the consensus of comments against Orlady in that provocatively titled discussion she opened at my Talk page.doncram (talk)05:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here also are two other editors' comments to Polaron inthis diff, in the discussion section I opened aboutStony Creek-Thimble Islands Historic District, another article which Polaron just deleted/redirected, contrary to open discussion. Please see the other editors' comments.doncram (talk)05:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
All I have to say here is that in almost all cases here, the articles were created as redirects with the information discussed in the locality article. PerWP:STATUSQUO, when there is a dispute, the original state should be the one in place until a new consensus is formed. The problem is that if I let these slide, Doncram will then claim the split articles are the status quo. Doncram's style is to lock his preferred versions in place then claim that it cannot be changed back to the original version because a discussion is ongoing even though his edit is the one that is controversial. Is there a way to ensure the status quo is maintained during the discussion without resorting to continually editing to restore the status quo? I have proposed a way forwardhere to which Doncram has not yet replied to the substance and addressed each case individually on its own merit. --Polaron |Talk05:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- We are talking about approximately 300 redirects from NRHP HDs to settlements that Polaron set up in Connecticut, destroying the orderly process for creating NRHP articles from redlinks in NRHP list-articles. He has edit warred at first to protect all of them irregardless of facts and lack of sources for his assertions. It has involved many many many cases where the redirect was completely inappropriate, and that has been borne out in further discussion, with even Polaron eventually agreeing in many cases. About the merits of whether these 6 or 10 right now are more or less inappropriate to force merger upon than others, I am not going to discuss that now, and here is not the place. We are talking here about Polaron continuing to edit war on some CT ones, including the one under discussion atTalk:List of RHPs in CT#Stony Creek-Thimble Islands Historic District, and extending redirect creation into VT and RI states. Polaron's invocation of his unusual interpretation ofwp:MERGE andwp:STATUSQUO and various other wikipedia policies would be fine to discuss somewhere, if the edit warring stopped. I have made several overtures to Polaron to try to resolve the running disagreements, as his and my Talk pages reflect, but I can't stand this re-starting now, after all the work I put in. All the separate discussions about merits of particular article pairs could continue, but this attitude and edit warring behavior must be stopped.doncram (talk)05:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I inserted, above, diff of Polaron's 3rd revert of the Peace Dale article. Is he entitled to 3 reverts deleting articles down to redirects, every 24 hours?
- His edit summary "rv per statusquo -- this article was originally a pointer to the main article -- propose a split if you like" is, in my view, nonsense. There is a merger proposal on the page he is deleting! To suggest that a "split proposal" is needed before someone creates an article on a wikipedia-notable topic, is not per any wikipedia guideline. I suppose he thinks he is making a reciprocal, equal request in some way, asking for splits to be discussed to consensus rather than for mergers to be discussed to consensus, but besides the fact that is not wikipedia procedure, that process would simply not be equivalent. It would involve destroying work and preventing development of the one alternative article, preventing discovery of facts and material and discussion, rather than allowing two articles to be developed and permitting discussion. Help!doncram (talk)07:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing is being deleted. All the information is being merged with the main article. In fact, I have more or less been copying what is in the stubby redundant article. --Polaron |Talk12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your copying material from NRHP HD articles to settlement articles does not invalidate the NRHP HD articles. You have sometimes deleted and lost content; sometimes you have copied everything. But the material appropriate for the NRHP HD article is often not appropriate for settlement articles, and can be deleted there by other editors, and further development of NRHP HD material is certainly inhibited there. As has been pointed out by other editors. This 3RR report discussion is about your edit warring behavior, not about the content in any one case, which is to be discussed in merger proposals.doncram (talk)16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's what merging is. The redirect does not mean the article is gone. The topic is being discussed in another location. If there is appropriate content that is lost, then add it to the merged article. Nothing is stopping editors from expanding the topic. --Polaron |Talk16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't at all clear to me why you expect P to be blocked rather than you. OnWyoming Village Historic District he has 2 R to your 1. OnPeace Dale Historic District you both have 3R. Would like me to take you at your word that this is blockable behaviour?William M. Connolley (talk)11:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- The nature of Polaron's edits is to delete the article, replacing by a redirect, confounding development of the article, overriding the merger proposal tags in place in both these cases, and undermining consideration of alternatives. The nature of my edits reverting his is to restore the article, allowing for development and for orderly discussion. I have invested plenty of time and effort in trying to facilitate orderly discussion towards generating valid information; Polaron's actions undermine the potential for discussion to consensus to emerge. I am not an expert on what constitutes blockable behavior, but I do think Polaron's behavior is negative and in the nature of chronic edit warring, while mine is fundamentally constructive and not in the spirit of edit warring to get my way on something. Polaron is edit warring to get his way in a content dispute; I have been reverting him to prevent him from succeeding in that in the absence of sources and consensus in discussions set up for orderly discussion. I do think he should be blocked and told in no uncertain terms to stop that behavior.doncram (talk)15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Polaron now at 3R on Wyoming one, too, and I reverted him to restore the article again. Help, someone, please!doncram (talk)16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Either one of youcould decide to quit engaging in this business of wholesale reverting of articles and go back to the "negotiating tables."
- Regarding discussion, I'd like to suggest that it would be a whole lot less confusing if each pair of articles had its own discussion page. Not only would this preserve the discussion in a place where a person interested in the community could find it in the future, but it's a daunting challenge to navigate pages likeTalk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. --Orlady (talk)19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note the original state before the dispute started was a merged article. How should the status quo be preserved during the discussion? --Polaron |Talk16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll make some new proposal about process atTalk:List of RHPs in CT later. Yes, that page is now too daunting; I may try to archive some of it. I'll try to make some accomodation in the process to take note of the "original state" in each case, but I have to point out: if there was a "merged article", that still remains! Only now in many of those cases there is also an NRHP HD-focused article as well, replacing just a redirect (which is not an article).doncram (talk)20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the current page is daunting, but a page for every case? Aren't there like 300 potential cases? Polaron says above "this article was originally a pointer to the main article"...in my opinion a redirect is not an article at all. It's a tool. Therefore, IMO, Polaron is using a tool in place of a valid stub article. And, since it's not an article, status quo cannot be claimed. Also, please note that Orlady is far from an impartial observer in this situation. She is certainly behaving with some restraint, appropriate to her administrator status, but her support is certainly directly or indirectly supporting Polaron's position and his continued disregard of process and consensus building. As an mainly NRHP editor, I am frustrated by Polaron's wanton destruction of and disregard for a framework of article development that has taken months/years to develop nationwide. His insistence that valid articles be deleted (I don't accept his argument that they are not...the article of that name no longer exists and the appropraiteness of further development in the article redirected to is unclear, at best, to a potential editor, in my opinion) is impossible to fight without reverting him. Open discussions and attempts at consensus building mean nothing to him, and he repeatedly rides roughshod over them. I sympathize with Doncram's frustration, and share his bewilderment at just how he IS supposed to combat repeated destruction of perfectly valid, wikipedia-notable stub.Lvklock (talk)20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[276][277][278] Block for edit warring and warnings from an admin.
蘇州宇文宙武 suddenly appeared to add very biased contents from a unreliable source for his POV. His version does not have a consensus but the user pushes his POV pushing, and insults editors. The user was blocked for edit warring one week ago but violates 3RR this time.--Historiographer (talk)03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I won't formally act on this 3RR report since I've been involved in informally mediating this article for a couple weeks now. But for what it's worth, I'm not sure the user needs to be blocked for this; I believe he may have misunderstoodthis message I sent him before his last couple reverts (I was basically telling him to suggest a certain change at the talk page, but he apparently thought I was giving him permission to make the change himself). If edit warring continues, I think full page protection would be better than blocking this user (granted, blocking him would stop the reverting for now, but it would also make it impossible for him to discuss things at the talk page, and once his block expires we'd be right back where we started).rʨanaɢ talk/contribs03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rjanag, please be neutral. I gave my opinion on the talk page many times, but the Jptopal, new users and IP editors disruptively revering. After protection was expired, I only reverted one time to get to the original because the edit by them do not get consensus. But you only blocked me because of my one revert. The user ignored your several warnings, and reverted 5 times. But you think the block is not necessary? It is not fair, and I try to keep my cool and use the talk page, but the user is insulting Koreans and distort Korean history. The user violates 3RR and did not use talk page. I would like to see your neutral decision. Block is to prevent his disruption.--Historiographer (talk)04:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked this user before (in fact, I believe I blocked him longer than I blocked you). Don't accuse me of treating anyone non-neutrally. If you have seen my activity at this noticeboard in the past, you will know that I am not a robotic 3RR monkey; I only block when there is a constructive reason to do so, when some good will come of the block. In this case, I do not see why a block is necessary unless the user starts warring again right now (remember thatblocks are for preventing damage,not for punishing people).
- As for "taking admin action", I have already started a discussion at the article's talkpage in order to reach a compromise that will allow us to create a neutral version of the article and end this edit warring. Your time would be better spent working on the constructive discussion there, rather than pursuing a vendetta against one editor.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)note: Historiographeredited his comment after I responded to it.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for my honest opinion, but I still don't understand you do not block him after you find his violation. When you blocked me, I was immediately blocked without your persuation or warning on my talk page. I just required you to be fair. Block is to prevent ongoing disruption, so the second block would be to prevent his more violation. You gave him many opportunity unlike my case.Historiographer (talk)04:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- off-topic discussion continued atHistoriographer's talk page, my response is thererʨanaɢ talk/contribs04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- (out) The user has left me two messages[279][280] suggesting that he intends to leave the project, at least temporarily. Unless he suddenly re-emerges and starts reverting again very soon, I see no need for a block right now (given that blocks are preventative).rʨanaɢ talk/contribs04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- The user knows many Wikirules. He said he will leave Wikipedia after his 3RR was reported. Many new editors and IP users with same POV come to the article and leave the article and come. Please treat me nicely and equally. I just felt admin's help to stop his disruption. I already added my new proof. Please read it and help us. Thanks. --Historiographer (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
24h. If they have left, the block doesn't matter. If they haven't, then the block is usefulWilliam M. Connolley (talk)10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[281]
The "previous version reverted to" is not identical to the text recreated in the first listed reversion, but that edit adds back many passages, some lengthy, removed by other editors.
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[286]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:[287]
The editor has tried to evade 3RR sanctions by performing the fourth revision 24 hrs 2 minutes after completing the first, which in past 3RR reports I've read was not sufficient to avoid blocking. The IP editor's talk page makes clear that several other editors have responded to inappropriate editing practices across a range of articles, and that the IP editor has failed to engage in discussion. The IP editor has inappropriately placed comments on my user page[288]. And this comment from the user on her talk page[289] makes me wonder if the user account she mentions has been blocked over similar behavior.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)05:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Update: 5th revert[290]
The IP editor has violated 3RR again, revertingUser:Wildhartlivie's removal of unsourced content under BLP; reverts 2,3, 4, and 5 were all made within 18 hours. The IP editor also responded to warnings on her talk page by announcing "LISTEN, I DON'T CARE PLUS THAT IS NOT GOOD ADVICE!!"[291]Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Iqinn has been involved in a number of edit-wars this past week with at least three separate "involved users" who keep trying to revert him and patiently explain WP policy, only to be berated and re-reverted. Patience is wearing thin, as attempts to be diplomatic continue to fail. This includes six edit-wars on [Isa Khan, six onAbdel-Razzak, five onKudayev, three onal-Sharakh, four onal-Azmi and many others. Myself,User:Geo_Swan andUser:Jauerback have all confronted him and asked him to rely on conversation to establish consensus before edit-warring, and it seems to be non-stop.Sherurcij(speaker for the dead)05:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- The frequent removal of poorly sourced harmful material is not edit-warring. These are all edits where a removal of poorly sourced or harmful material needed to be done. I detected serious issues in this collection of more than 600 BLP's of relative unknown individuals all created byUser:Geo_Swan together withSherurcij. Most of the artivles have little traffic and have never been reviewed by the wider community. The problems i needed to address were:
- Poorly sourced harmful allegations[296]
- Personal medical records[297]
- Names and images of small children[298]
- These are all serious issues and i have extensively explained about the problematic of this material on the related talk pages. The discussion spreads over multiply pages. But they kept re-inserted it immediately. I could have explained my first removal in further details but i did not because i believed the other editors knewWP:NPF,WP:GRAPEVINE well and the problematic with BLP's of relative unknown individuals. So it was ok that it was re-inserted once. But doing it multiply times after i have given more than sufficient information is irresponsible. It put me under constant stress to remove it again. I have always and still believe that this material in the form as it (was) is presented in the article is harmful. Most of it is poorly sourced for a BLP and possible harmful material should always be removed and not re-inserted until all concerns have been addressed. To punish me would set the wrong signal for the community as i have acted responsible in accordance with our policies.Iqinn (talk)10:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Warned. Please be aware that edit comments like "squeaking in under 3RR" and indeed the actions they describe are a very bad ideaWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record I have never used the term "squeaking in under 3RR" or similar terms. This is wrong. And please specify your term "the actions they describe"Iqinn (talk)01:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
User:23prootie is a long-standing edit warrior, and has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring and using sock puppet accounts to continue their edit wars while blocked (as demonstrated bytheir block log). Last week they were blocked byUser:YellowMonkey for edit warring on thePacific War article and other articles to insert claims that the Philippines was a sovereign country during World War II, despite a total lack of support for this position during extensive discussion on the article's talk page. They had previously engaged in edit warring over this in February, and had been blocked for a week then. Last week's ANI post with more on the history of this is atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#User:23prootie edit warring again.
- As soon asUser:23prootie's block expired a couple of days ago they resumed their edit warring over this topic. Relevant diffs are[299],[300] and[301] (please note that the 3rd diff occurred after this report was made and 23prootie responded below).
- The status of the Phillipines and 23prootie's position that it was sovereign have been extensively discussed atTalk:Pacific War. 23prootie has failed to provide references that support his position and is ignoring the consensus of the other editors there that the Phillipines was not a sovereign country. Diffs of comments in which 23prootie has been asked to discuss their position and stop edit warring include:[302],[303],[304] and[305] as well as the general discussion atTalk:Pacific War. 23prootie's previous blocks for edit warring in this and other articles are also relevant as they demonstrate that they have been repeatedly warned that this behavior is not acceptable but have not responded to these warnings.
Given that 23prootie has a long history of edit warring over this issue and has ignored their recent one week block, I would recommend that a lengthy block be applied.Nick-D (talk)08:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification: My newer edits aren't based on my previous position on the sovereign status of the Philippines at the time rather they are focused on its original membership in theUnited Nations so the reason for the block is in-exact.--23prootie (talk)08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Personal note: I suggest if I were to be blocked again please let the blocker be notAustralian. I seem to havea lot of fans from that country.--23prootie (talk)08:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since I made the above report and 23prootie responded they've also started adding the Philippines as a sovereign country to various List of sovereign states articles. This is also a continuation of the exact behavior which led them to be blocked in February and again last week - they were also adding the Philippines to these articles against consensus. Recent example diffs are:[306],[307],[308],[309], and[310] (note that the last two have edit summaries of 'reset to July 1').Nick-D (talk)10:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked for a month (essentially, indefinite) and told him to explain how he is going to work with consensus if he wants unblock. No, I'm not AustralianWilliam M. Connolley (talk)10:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for thatNick-D (talk)10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1st revert:11:26, July 20, 2009
- 2nd revert:11:35, July 20, 2009
- 3rd revert:11:40, July 20, 2009
- 4th revert:11:49, July 20, 2009
- 5th revert:11:49, July 20, 2009
- 6th revert:11:51, July 20, 2009
- 7th revert:14:15, July 20, 2009
- 8th revert:14:38, July 20, 2009
- Blocked – for a period of24 hours — Aitias // discussion21:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[311]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[320]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[321]
The IP has been repeatedly reverting reverts of his addition of disputed wording. The editor clearly was aware of the 3RR before I warned him (after he broke the rule), as he wronglywarned me first. Nevertheless, I decided to give him a break. Now, he continues to revert, regardless of multiple warnings about edit warring on the article's talk page.Timmeh02:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which makes me wonder -- are we allowed to temporarily break the 3-Revert rule to stop a repeat offender who is going to the lengths that he is? At some point, we're all going to go up to 3 reverts, though I'm not sure how many of us are watching the page. It's currently him vs. the world at this point. --Frightwolf (talk)03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will push, though, for a long block. He trolled and insulted other users. He is also well aware of the 3-Revert rule as he's been warned by many people and is running a one-man show against a dozen people. --Frightwolf (talk)03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with blocking IPs for a long time is that they usually change, and someone else might be using this IP in a few days. It seems this person has a dynamic IP, but it looks like it stays within a small range. If he returns under a different IP, we could consider a range block.Timmeh03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of31 hours. Sorry this didn't get handled quickly, but it is quite late. Cheers, everyone.lifebaka++04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's all right. Thanks a bunch!—Precedingunsigned comment added byFrightwolf (talk •contribs)04:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
In all cases the user removes this particular text:
In 1481, one year after the Ottomans had landed inOtranto in southernItaly, the Himariotes rose against them under the leadership of Gjon Kastrioti, the son ofSkanderbeg, who attempted to regain the lands lost after the death of his father. The attempt failed, but the Himariotes rose again in 1488, and between 1494-1509, destabilising Turkish control but failing to liberate their territory. Following the rising of 1482 several Himariote families fled the town forSicily where they were granted land nearPalermo which became the town ofPiana degli Albanesi, descendents of these families still constitute the majority of the population of the aforementioned town as well as the village ofSanta Cristina Gela which was founded later by farmers fromPiana degli Albanesi. The local dialect ofAlbanian calledArberesh is still spoken in these communities ofSicily .
Athenean is not a new user, and is quite familiar with the regulations for edit warring and has also been warned before by admins for edit warring[326].
--I Pakapshem (talk)16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
AlthoughUser:I Pakapshem, has been several times blocked (the last 2 months) due to extreme nationalistic activity, he continues to keep a general disruptive behavior. Recently, he kept reverting articles likeSpyros Spyromilios, although being warned and blocked [[327]] because of that activity.
User:Athenean just asked for a single source, which was not given and -no wonder- the paragraph was deleted. Suppose Pakapshem cooperated with some ips (hope he was not himself, just trying to evade 3rr vio.)Alexikoua (talk)19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Let admins do their job, and stop empty accusations. And when exactly was Pakapshem blocked for 2 months??[328]. I guess for you 2 weeks means 2 months.--Sarandioti (talk)19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Did I wrote 'blocked for 2 months?' ('several times blocked the last 2 months' that's diferrent...). That's your conclusion, things are quite simple.Alexikoua (talk)20:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've semi protected the page. Everyone there is on the edge of being blocked for edit warringWilliam M. Connolley (talk)21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- ok, but you still havent added a result for this report.--Sarandioti (talk)22:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Frivolous, bad-faith report. My so-called first revert is not a revert: I removed an unsourced passage that had been there since the article was created years ago. This is also evidenced by the fact that I Pakapshem cannot show the version that was reverted to. My second revert is a revert of blatant vandalism by an IP. So in no instance did I break 3RR. I Pakapshem and Sarandioti are extreme nationalist, disruptive SPAs that between them have racked up 8 blocks for edit-warring in less than two months[329][330]. Both are one step away from being indef-blocked[331][332]. Why they are still allowed to edit is a mystery to me, as neither has made a single positive contribution to wikipedia. I Pakapshem is a rather sterile revert warrior, while Sarandioti is additionaly a talkpage irritant[333]. This report is nothing but a bad faith, vindictive move by an individual who still doesn't get this site and its rules. --Athenean (talk)23:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your empty accusations(once more). Now please wait for the result of the report. --Sarandioti (talk)23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Athenean it seems that whatever vices you have, you like to portray upon others in order to make yourself feel better. You should be the one that should be allowed to edit anymore for your consistent uncivil behavior, insults, accusations and blatant arrogant behavior. Edit warring is not confined only to the 3RR rule, as I have found out by admins. Let the admins do their job, and post a result. Alexikoua, when doing background checks on me, make sure to do them correctly. I haven't been a member of wikipedia for 2 months. --I Pakapshem (talk)00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- StaleNja24711:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing problems with highly experiencedYellowMonkey (talk ·contribs) user.
Have made extensive attempts to enter into content discussions atTalk:Roland_Perry
Requested Solution:
(1) Revert to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300
(2) All users to propose and discuss substantive edits atTalk:Roland_Perry with consensus required before take edits to Roland Perry article.
Haruspex101 (talk)01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
- This SPA is editing from the same city as Roland Perry and is probably the author himself. He is threatening legal action on the talk page because it has been pointed out that cricket experts have identified him for copying others work. 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I most definitely agree that Haruspex101 should be blocked for making a legal threat - his edithere clearly breachesthe no legal threats guideline. I should also note that I have not colluded with either Yellow Monkey or Mattinbgn at the Roland Perry page or elsewhere - indeed I have never edited that page. Whilst I could probably take the action of blocking Haruspex myself (given no previous conflict or involvement in the article) I would ask that another administrator take that action on this occasion.--VStalk01:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Looks to me both parties should stop editing the page. More than one editor has supported YM's version (for example, I see a revert by Mattingbn), so Haruspex101 is actually edit warring more than YM is. Also, personally I too think that Haruspex101's version looks somewhat like whitewashed promotional material. But given the amount of reverting that is going on...well, I would suggest that the article be fully protected, but since YM is an admin that wouldn't be fair. Can we get both sides to agree to refrain from editing the article directly? (While YM has accused Haruspex101 of being Roland Perry, I personally don't know if there's enough evidence yet to block just for that; someone who is more familiar than I am with this stuff would have to evaluate that.
The legal threat, though, is a blockable offense.)rʨanaɢ talk/contribs01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)- I do not feel obliged to yield to a SPA who adds unsourced autobiographical puffery or self-sourced claims that he has exclusive access to the KGB, or that he made a groundbreaking discovery when it was already printed in the original 50 years ago, or when he added cherrypicked reviews from random people over the top of cricket scholars, a la ID and pseudoscience not in proper journals.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!)paid editing=POV03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Rjanag - are you willing to take the required action on the legal threat?--VStalk01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I look more closely...I don't see a legal threat in the diff you gave, and the rest of the discussions (on both the article talk page and YM's talk page) areTLDR. Can you give me a more specific pointer to the legal threat? (I see lots of mentions of legal threats in YM's edit summaries, but I can't find the exact threat he's referring to.)rʨanaɢ talk/contribs01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problems - Haruspex's edit (dif in my first post just above) states the following words written by himAlso the following entry [see first edit sentence] is defamatory, libels the subject Roland Perry and invites legal action. Cheers.--VStalk01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Oh, wait, I think I found it: I assume you are referring to the line "invites legal action...". I'm not sure that's an explicit legalthreat, though. Granted, it certainlycould be, but someone could also say something like that just to suggest that the edit is questionable in a BLP. Sure, it wasn't a good comment for him to make, but I don't think it's egregious enough to warrant an immediate block in of itself. Perhaps it would help if the user could clarify what he meant by that statement.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs01:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I can understand your point. The legal threat is particularly COI and egregious if it is Roland Perry (and it certainly looks like it given the extraordinary level of posting in support of Roland by Haruspex across a wide parameter of pages). I understand that the posts are almost too long to read however I have read through much of it and Haruspex is almost certainly Roland Perry despite his denials - and even if not he is very very close to the subject at best.--VStalk01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- (sorry for the late response) Are there any other experienced Wikipedians who do a lot of cricket stuff and aren't involved in this dispute already? Personally, I also think the user'slocation, coupled with his interest in Roland Perry, does strongly suggest that he is the person (but, of course, it's not uncommon for people on WP to get their heels dug in over the randomest of articles, so it's still not certain), but I don't know enough about this to be willing to block him for that alone.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see you've blocked him temporarily, pending his response to my question at his talkpage. I think this is a good move, I have no problems with it.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Recording result:
- 2009-07-21T03:20:48 VirtualSteve (talk | contribs | block) blocked Haruspex101 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Making legal threats: until clarification as posted by another administrator is received as to why you are referring to legal threats) (unblock | change block)
- 2009-07-09T05:06:19 VirtualSteve (talk | contribs | block) blocked Haruspex101 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: despite discussion, warnings etc) (unblock | change block)
William M. Connolley (talk)07:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:[334]
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Comment: A rather straightforward 3RR violation. User participates in discussion, but still reverts. highly obdurate, debate with him is futile. Has shown no interest in participating in discussion since latest revert. Is also reverting onIllyrians[339], andGjirokaster[340]. Immediately started reverts upon logging in. Experienced user, 2 yrs experience. --Athenean (talk)07:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem comes when userAlexikoua andAthenean try to put a highly POV author (see Pettifer note 12 herea hihgly pro greek author)[341] in Albanian related articles. Actually this author's claims are not supported by mainstream community (If you take a look here)[342] you can see then by multiple authors his claims are not only not confirmed, but in contrary they tell something very different. A classical example is Borova massacre case. This is a very well known fact of German reprisals in Albania. While all authors English, German, Italian, maintain that was made by German as a reprisal for a Albanian partisan attack in July 1943, Ruches claims that Ballist and MAVI fought each other on October 1943(?!) and after the battle Balli forces burned the village(?!) (see above link on Talk:Northern_Epirus_Liberation_Front summarizing Ruches claims and his contradictions). I tried to explain them that this make Ruches not a RS because he is highly POV and is contradicted by mainstream authors, but that was useless they keep inserting him as a reference pushing a POV agenda. The same happened atHistory of the Jews in Albania article. Although Ruches claims are contradicted by others see sources here[343] they only keep inserting his reference, neglecting what mainstream sources say. In both cases I tried to speak giving them full citations, links, page numbers, books, but that didn't affect them. They are not interested on what other mainstream sources maintain, but keep insisting on putting Ruches and this makes them POV pushers(since Reference is highly POV author and moreover contradicted by mainstream school) actingWP:IDONTHEARTHAT and makingWP:Tendentious editing
As for the Illyrians article there was a two month debate and I only reverted to the version of the administrators, which themselves had reverted before other similar situations history here[344] while here you can see that my edit has no difference withFut.Perf.☼ version[345] or withkwami (talk version[346] while an editor changed the accepted version without taking the time to see or talk in talk page, I was just reverting to the accepted version, trying to not rise hot disputes again[347].
As forGjirokastër case, that is clear enough. A highly disputed POV author (see above for Ruches) is not enough to make you famous. Since no other sources are brought that person remains non famous or notable, it may have existed but you need some notability criteria and this was not the case moreover this was disputed before[348] while some editors agree that is not enough for a notability (exceptAlexikoua andAthenean as usual insisting on Ruches) moreover here[349] they remove more than well sourced materials[350] with comment(no article no notable as per talk) while they didn't talk at all in this case or here[351] with the argumenta source attests to his notability, what is your problem? i could say the same thing about your "famous people" while my concern was the only one disputed POV book used as a reference asking for more references(One book does not make you famous, others are confirmed by many published sources->famous, don't try to make a point here) again they behave as POV pushers while as I see now[352] this will lead again to useless nationalistic disputesAigest (talk)08:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- 24hWilliam M. Connolley (talk)12:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours — Aitias // discussion17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note Could you please explain the background/reasons for this content dispute a bit further? Thanks, — Aitias // discussion21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)