Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 8 thread(s) (older than 72h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive99.
→Abd reported by MastCell (Result: prot): rm discussion: did you mistake this for a talk page?
Line 477: Line 477:


::The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either what Abd is thinking. He said that he wouldn't edit the article until certain condiciones were met in May 11 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=289187157][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=289297571], May 12 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=289382859] and May 15 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=289187157] where he said that he would work in a draft.

But he negated this making a reversion during an edit war in May 11[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=291234469], then reverting back a see also link in May 13[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=289620161&oldid=289590716], and then making controversial edits in May 19 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=290941802&oldid=290940596][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=290942275&oldid=290941802]. And now he goes and edit wars in May 21..... sigh.... I wonders if he even remembers that he said that he wouldn't edit. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:Consensus changes, so does my mind. Enric doesn't mention why I said I was stopping editing the article. It was because I would put hours into an edit, and then it would be yanked by Hipocrite in a minute without any attempt to salvage any of it. The arguments shifted. I'd satisfied the first argument ("undue weight") by drastically cutting down the material. So then it was taken out on the basis that the source was unreliable, though, for the issue of what cold fusion researchers and theorists propose, there is no better source than what I'd used, and it meets [[WP:RS]]. So, today, I took the same material and, it did not take long, added additional sources. Any other editor could have done this, it was not hard to find these sources. They were all RS. And, of course, it was still all taken out, at first. Anything that is truly about cold fusion is being removed from the article, not matter what qualifications are placed on it, nothing was being asserted as fact, this was about proposed theories, and, believe it or not, there are proposed theories, published by independent publishers, which makes them notable. But this is not the place for this discussion. The report here has been resolved, to my understanding. To speak directly to Enric, I am still not working on the article in the sense of the massive rewrites that it needs. I have made some simple edits to the article since I made that statement, and most of them have stuck. Indeed, part of what I put in today is still there. And, I'm pretty sure, when consensus settles, the rest of it will be.

:This is my problem with Enric: Since May 1, there has been edit warring used as a method of controlling the POV of this article. He talks about my edit warring; I believe I could defend against a charge of edit warring here, but also recognize the appearance. However, Enric has said nothing about Hipocrite's behavior. By consensus, we had removed the NPOV tag from the article; on May 1, Hipocrite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=287253967&oldid=287088560 added one] signaling what became an obvious intent to destabilize the article. That day, Hipocrite started small by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=287257320 removing] a source that had been accepted by consensus. I didn't put that source in, and wouldn't have. (Nevertheless, what was being sourced was the kind of fact that sometimes allows self-published sources, it was simply a proposed theory.) However, it started the process where I identified more reliable sources, and that triggered all this edit warring to keep the material out, hang the sources. Today was only the most recent tip of the iceberg. Generally, I gave up when reverted by Hipocrite and others. This time I didn't, because the issues had become clear. Article protection is fine with me. It may encourage us to find some kind of real consensus. Thanks, Mr. Connolley. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::"an obvious intent to destabilize the article" is an assumption of bad faith.... maybe he just placed that tag because he thought that a certain POV was given too much relevance, just like he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=287254331#POV_tag_placed explained] inmediately in the talk page?

::Meh, most of this belongs to [[Talk:Cold fusion]] so I'll just comment about the removal of that source: Hipocrite inmediately gave his reasons in the talk page (the employer of the author has a huge financial COI in making the science look viable)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=287257668&oldid=287254331]. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not an assumption of bad faith, Enric, it's an observation, this editor has been harassing me ever since he stirred the pot with ScienceApologist, trying to get SA blocked for making spelling corrections. (This is exactly what SA wanted.) (I had dared to revert back in a spelling correction to [[Cold fusion]] made by SA that had been reverted out by Hipocrite based on the fringe science topic ban, and I had also mentioned the SA ban in a discussion in [[Talk:Cold fusion]] (where it was quite relevant and still is; SA was banned for exactly what Hipocrite ''and some others'' have been doing, but Hipocrite is far and away the most blatant.) I'll substantiate all this when it becomes important. For now, trust me or don't. He showed up at Cold fusion, not to help with the article, but to make trouble, to assert an extreme position, and his article edits since May 1 show it clearly. He pushed with skill, attempting to provoke me to break 3RR, claiming that I was "blind reverting" when, in fact, I had answered objections, had rewritten and had provided substantial additional sources (which, in one section, he eventually accepted, after reverting twice). --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

:(edit conflict with above) Now, to the substance of this report. First of all, no, the alleged 4th revert contained an error, but wasn't an error. I simply was in a rush and signed it, probably because I've done more discussion with this article than actual article editing. No excuse there!

:'''The biggest problem is that the first edit of the day, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=291409038&oldid=290944866], was not a revert.''' The situation: I had originally inserted a long section on proposed theories, satisfying a long-standing request for detail on this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=287474361&oldid=287449495] (Notice the "expand section" template that I removed). Long story short, this was taken out as undue weight. Okay, I boiled it down, taking a different approach.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=289014436&oldid=289001458]. This was, again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=289041842&oldid=289021490 taken out], this time with the edit summary ''(These are fringe sources that cannot be used for scientific fact. Discuss your bold edits on the talk page and seek consensus, restore reliable source.)'' (If I accept the argument that this is a fringe source -- only one reliable source was asserted, Storms, ''The science of low-energy nuclear reaction,'' [[World Scientific]], 2007) -- it would be a notable fringe source stating what notable fringe theories there are, precisely what we could use fringe sources, of quality considerably lower than Storms, to do.) At this point I largely abandoned editing the article until I would have time to deal with the edit warring. Today, though, I had a little time and recycled the older material, rewriting it to take possible POV edges off of it, and added additional reliable sources to it, to answer the objection about sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=291409038&oldid=290944866] '''This wasn't a revert, it was an attempt to satisfy objections to a prior edit.''' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|and then what happened? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]])}}
:It wasn't enough. It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=291409038 baldly reverted], with one small new change. The section header, "Proposed explanations" was changed to "Explanations." Hipocrite believes, and has been asserting with edits, that the only explanation for cold fusion is experimental error. That is actually a position rejected by the majority as of the last general review by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004. Hipocrite's edit summary: ''(Proposed explanations: not reliable sources, Abd's blind reversions include the same paragraph twice the same paragraph twice.)''

:This was a provocative edit, both from the summary and from the change of the section header. He rejected all the sources, without discrimination, he called the new sources, ''more reliable,'' "not reliable sources," and he called the edit a "blind" reversion, which would refer to a total restoration of old content, just pushing an undo button. The very fact that, in my zeal to make sure that I included the old material that Hipocrite had added, I had duplicated paragraphs, shows the contrary of what Hipocrite asserted.

:So, comes my next edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=291429536], ''(this wasn't a blind revert, it was rewritten and additional sources asserted. Please negotiate consensus in Talk.)'' By this time, I knew what Hipocrite was about, but I still assume good faith. He must not have looked at it closely, I thought. This edit could easily be considered a revert, even though I removed a duplicated paragraph (and missed one!).

:Again he reverted, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=291432998 bald revert], ''(rv - rm undue weight, duplicated paragrahps. Stop blind reverting, please.)'' (A good faith editor would remove duplicated paragraphs, not revert the whole edit. Undue weight is preposterous as an argument at this point, with all the sources cited ''and the context, which is a section on explanations proposed for the phenomena known as cold fusion.'' Note that Hipocrite included, in his revert, his changed section header, highly POV in context.

:Then I edited again, restoring the material without the extra paragraph. ''(none of these have been blind reverts. duplicated paragraphs wouldn't have arisen in blind reverts. Do not remove extensively sourced material based on subjective arguments.)'' This was a revert, in substance.

:Hipocrite now responded with his first proper edit. One of the sections included references to publications other than Storms and the Frontiers of Physics in China ([[Springer-Verlag]]) peer-reviewed source, and this time Hipocrite balanced them. His edit summary shows his POV, but the actual edits seemed basically okay. ''(→Proposed explanations: consensus on the talk-page has determined these are not reliable sources. Tempered Millsian garbage with you know, truth.)''

:Okay, we made progress. Instead of removing reliably sourced material, it is being balanced. That's what should be done with all of it. Problem is, there is a shortage of balancing material on the Be-8 hypothesis, to my knowledge. I'd put it in if I knew where it was! I'd say, tough! It's only being proposed as a notable cold fusion theory, and notability within the cold fusion article is quite properly established by the two sources I asserted. We already know, it is not debated, that cold fusion is not generally accepted as a phenomenon, so it should go without saying that theories that explain it aren't accepted! (And, in fact, "experimental error" is often assumed, but not actually accepted as conclusive by the reviewers, it is simply considered one among a number of possible explanations.)

:So I put the Be-8 part in again,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=291448280&oldid=291435988], ''(Proposed explanations: accept balancing of hydrino theory, reassert doubly sourced Be-8 theory.)'' This is my third revert; I then noted on the Talk page that I'd hit 3RR, as had Hipocrite, and I had warned Hipocrite just before saving my edit. I can't recall the last time I've hit 3RR (2007?), it takes quite a provocation, obviously. Why did I do it? Well, I knew we'd have to hammer this out in Talk, and I wanted to see if anyone else was willing to take the stand that those ''two'' sources weren't adequate to source a ''proposed explanation.'' Hipocrite had reached 3RR. I matched it. As it happened, though, in my rush to get out the door to pick up my girls from school, I signed the thing! KDP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=291448280 reverted it] as possibly intended for the Talk page, so ... that's fine. '''The article is now protected, the issues are clear, the article has been improved with the notable [[hydrino]] theory (garbage or not, it's notable and is described in reliable source), and there is maybe a little more attention to what the hell is going on with [[Cold fusion]]. And remember, I didn't bring this report here! Hipocrite was eager for it,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=291448280] but MastCell beat him to it by two minutes. (And nobody warned me to stop.) Given how long it takes to write a report, I'd guess that the process started within minutes of my last edit. I'm closely watched, I know that.''' --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
((collapsebottom}}

Revision as of 07:08, 22 May 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

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


    Minimidgy reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

    I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amerindianarts reported by Uyvsdi (talk) (Result: submitter warned)

    Dorothy Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amerindianarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 04:09, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 04:25, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
    3. 05:16, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

    —Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd[reply]

    No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

    Errol Sawyer

    Please see this (and with this as background).

    I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Re User:QuotationMan (result: malformed)

    I will have gone into WP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted to WP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order , I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.

    Any advice help would be of interest. [8] [9] Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a 3RR warning for User:QuotationMan. He has been trying to remove a large section from Libertas.eu with no support from the Talk page. Another editor is suggesting a WP:COI, and the repeated removals do hint at some motive other than plain article improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Imbris reported by Hobartimus (Result: Protection )

    Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85Zed reported by J (Result: warned)

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

    1. 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
    2. 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
    3. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

    User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo).   user:j    (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you notify him of the 3rr? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.
    I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that you did revert, three times, on the issue of price. They are listed above for you to see. Revert is not the way to solve an editing problem, regardless of how certain you are about it. In this case, though, there are WP:RS and WP:V issues that I'm not sure you're familiar with yet, and I've gone into greater detail on the article's talk page. We can discuss it further there if you'd like.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    12.36.39.154 reported by Oli Filth (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]

    In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    194.46.181.124 and cohorts reported for vandalistic edit-warring by Dr.K. (Result: Semi)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR? Ikip (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - Semiprotected by User:Philippe. Looks like regular vandalism. Blocking the range is not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed for the technical information. Dr.K. logos 23:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days )

    A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

    • [added later] 23:26, 18 May 2009 Puts the project he was edit warring about up for deletion [21]
    • 21:52, 18 May 2009 [22]
    • 20:34, 18 May 2009 [23]
    • 10:03, 18 May 2009 [24]
    • 09:40, 18 May 2009 [25]
    history of repeated edit wars on this project page in the past two weeks
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    23:47, 16 May 2009 3RR warning: [26]

    For:
    07:36, 15 May 2009 [27]
    21:16, 15 May 2009 [28]
    21:28, 15 May 2009 [29]
    21:56, 16 May 2009 [30]
    23:09, 16 May 2009 [31]
    23:40, 16 May 2009 [32]
    [added later] 00:03, 17 May 2009 Then deleted the FAQ tag from the page itself: [33]

    07:12, 7 May 2009 3RR warning: [34]

    For:
    05:20, 7 May 2009 [35]
    07:01, 7 May 2009 [36]
    07:13, 7 May 2009 [37]

    14:56, 5 May 2009 3RR warning: [38]

    For:
    14:52, 5 May 2009 [39]
    12:44, 5 May 2009 [40]
    09:36, 5 May 2009 [41]
    Unrelated section deleted: 14:51, 5 May 2009 [42]
    Deleted other editors comments on WT:ARS:
    09:07, 5 May 2009 [43]
    19:37, 6 May 2009 [44]

    As per the instructions above:

    If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

    A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

    Ikip (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 9 days Also, Ikip (talk · contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification - although the edit summaries look odd on the face of it, the contents of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ were being discussed (kind of) at WT:ARS, the project talk page. pablohablo. 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Borcat reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [52]

    In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    87.196.45.78 reported by Odin 85th gen (Result: talk / warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [53]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]

    Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No technical vio, and no recent evidence for attempting to solve this dispute on talk. Please see WP:DR. Moreover, this [60] looks like a good edit to me, and removing it a bad one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wousfan reported by Galloglass (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [61]



    I warned the user last night prior to his 4th edit with the following.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. Editor Johnbull has gone out of his way to help Wousfan by re-writing Wousfans POV diatribe against Gladstone in as near a NPOV form as he can, see here[67]. It appears Wousfan does not accept WP:NPOV in any way shape or form and is highly abusive in his summary replies to Johnbull. In addition there is also a 5th revert here[68] which although technically outside the 24 hour period is still germane to it. - Galloglass 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lapsed Pacifist reported by Collect (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [69]


    • 1st revert: [70] 12:24 20 May "This view doesn't deserve anywhere near such prominence"
    • 2nd revert: [71] 12:54 20 May


    Each revert specifically removing over 4K of material currently in an RfC in Talk:Fascism


    • Diff of editwar warning: [72]

    This user has 10 entries in block log [73], has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable. [74] and [75] show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC. Collect (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why 2 reverts is supposed to count as edit warring on this article. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank1829 reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)



    The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books. Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violate WP:Reliable Sources and WP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violate WP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of Shia Here, which violates WP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violates WP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:neutral and WP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.

    Above all this, he vandalized my User page User:Sampharo in this diff link

    Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.

    Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))) . As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point out WP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JaniceMT reported by WLU (Result: 31h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [76]

    This is a huge mess, and there has been no engagement on any talk pages. JaniceMT knows the CCRC links should not be used based on extensive discussions on User talk:JaniceMT and talk:parental alienation. Edit warring from yesterday is continuing today on the parental alienation syndrome page, accompanied by the deletion of well-sourced materials, replacing links to news stories with inappropriate convenience links, bizarre removals of useful information [83], and inappropriate interpretations of summaries and policies [84]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I can confirm that multiple IPs and users have been editing to get references to the Canadiancrc website (often to copyrighted material) hosted there. See this blacklist report[85], and the very obvious blatant spam message at the bottom of this recent edit.[86] User:S-MorrisVP et her IPs were blocked for similar actions a week ago and the page semi-protected. This is a a bigger problem than 3RR but let's start here. --Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note the return to parental alienation which may be a 3RR violation on that page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also an interesting comment here, that I am asking for clarification on. This may be an ANI or COIN issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 19:52, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291193193 by WLU (talk)These are all valid links to papers published in reputable publications ie Canadian Bar Assoc.oc")
    2. 20:21, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291246759 by WLU (talk) Verifiable good linked content - Stop the vandalism")
    3. 20:50, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 291252520 by Slp1 (talk)undo vandalism")
    4. 22:03, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO| Why do you think the Florida Bar Assoc., Canadian Bar Assoc., and ABC news, and the courts of Canada decisions are "dubious" sources?")

    —Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-05-20T22:21:03 Ruhrfisch (talk | contribs | block) blocked JaniceMT (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3rr) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    121.220.36.117 reported by TLCbass (Result: Incomplete report)

    REPORTING 121.220.36.117 AS SUSPECTED SOCK PUPPET, VANDALISM, EDIT WARRING AND COI

    If you will review the talk page of this person, 121.220.36.117, he does pretty much nothing else but revert Carbonne entries. I HIGHLY suspect he is a sockpuppet and the same person on the extended-range bass page who is overtly and aggressively advertising himself, with no supporting links. This person is not only uncivil (see his talk page calling someone else's header "stupid"), he is also stalking Carbonne on here, removing anything he finds about him. He has also accused ME of being Carbonne's partner, and therefore, implicating Carbonne in having something to do with the additions I added about him, which he DOES NOT. I have not added anything about Carbonne since I was suspected as having a COI (although I absolutely do not), and now some other knowledgeable contributor who I do not know - picked up the ball, and added factual information about Carbonne on the page. First, 121.220.36.117 accused me of having a COI, and now, because another editor has added factual information, he is removing valid, important information without any valid reason, except for the fact that he is stalking Carbonne. If the latest contributor who added the Carbonne info to the page forgot or did not know to add a link, I have. However,, with the spurious reason of removing Carbonne because there was no link, and other artists on the page have no links, it is clear that 121.220.36.117 's motives are very suspect. In addition, he removed information about Michael Manring, who is one of the best known Extended Range Bassists in the world. Please address this, and stop him from warring and stalking Carbonne. It is very clear he fancies himself as a competitor.

    Thank you.

    Here is his talk page:

    Extended report
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    (latest | earliest) View (newer 99) (older 99) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) 

    * 13:44, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (rev website.)
   * 13:38, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (remove this paragraph about Carbonne. No consensus for this material (see talk page) and Carbonne article was deleted as failing notability) (top) (references removed)

    * 13:37, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Michael Manring ‎ (reverting unsourced addition) (top) 

       * 13:34, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert unsourced addition about Yves Carbonne. Please resolve existing dispute re this material.)
   * 12:13, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Richard Tognetti ‎ (remove personal comments from end of page) (top)
   * 12:01, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Australian Chamber Orchestra ‎ (reverting copyright violation lifted from http://www.aco.com.au/?url=/about) (top) (blanking)
   * 14:50, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (fix) (top)
   * 14:47, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (make these pics a gallery to repair the layout of page)
   * 14:43, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (revert unencyclopedic editorial comment)
   * 07:38, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:81.86.68.253 ‎ (as with the userpage, use a soft redirect.. IPs shouldn't be redirected to user accounts as there always remains a possibility that someone else may use it...) (top)
   * 07:35, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:81.86.68.253 ‎ (turn this into a soft redirect as theres no guarantee it will always and only be used by this user) (top)
   * 13:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (→Mr Rent-A-Kill: revert unsourced additions that don't come from the book this para is sourced to...probably more Underbelly fiction. Please cite published sources. kthx) (top)
   * 13:34, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Sasha Alexander ‎ (revert external link)
   * 12:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) 2005 Cronulla riots ‎ (revert series of degrading edits - removal of bolding in intro, confusing language &c)
   * 12:33, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page ‎ (rvv)
   * 03:18, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (change stupid heading)
   * 05:26, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert recent spamming by someone with a blatant conflict of interest) (references removed)
   * 05:24, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (Carbonne article was deleted as not notable) (references removed)
   * 03:22, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)
   * 03:21, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (revert spamming by Carbonne's partner.) (references removed)
   * 03:20, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)

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

    That is all rather incoherent. Who is the anon supposed to be a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that this report must have been filed by someone who is a fan of Yves Carbonne. The IP who is being cited here for edit warring, 121.220.36.117, does not appear especially troublesome, though they have removed a couple of citations to the work of Carbonne, for instance here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, User talk:Jodel141 and User talk:TLCbass#Your comments at WP:AN3. I hope that User:JulieSpaulding will add a comment here if she knows what is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi EdJohnston, yes, I know quite a lot about this through some extensive investigation. What would you like to know? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to know if TLCbass has been editing under the username THSL. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is not the right place for sockpuppet complaints. Please file at WP:SPI and try to be as clear as possible. Under the circumstances WP:COIN could be a better choice. I caution User:TLCbass to observe WP:3RR himself. I suggest that this report be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of William M. Connolley, I think TLCbass is a little misguided as to what a sock puppet is. I think he believes 121.220.36.117 works for one of Yves Carbonne's competitors. Regarding the closing of this report, there is still a little bit of edit warring going on, possibly between Carbonne and some other musician's representatives. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - I'm closing this as an Incomplete Report. Please use the button supplied in the header entitled 'Click here to add a new report.' I think the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a better place to discuss this. Noticeboards are limited in their power of investigation, and we hope that users will get their material in order before coming here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:121.220.36.117 reported by User:TLCbass (Result: no vio)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871

    • Previous version reverted to: [link]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871

    • 1st revert: [87]
    • 2nd revert: [88]
    • 3rd revert: [89]
    • 4th revert: [90]
    • 5th revert: [91] He removed Carbonne on yet ANOTHER PAGE as part of a collaboration: It is crystal clear, he is stalking and targeting Carbonne.

    121.220.36.117

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]
    You are clearly targeting Carbonne. You have removed 2 separate contributions on him by 2 unrelated editors repeatedly. You have repeatedly re-added unsupported, repetitive, promotional information about Garry Goodman, who is not a notable bassist, and who has little or no fan base anywhere on the internet, in favor of Carbonne, who has a HUGE fan base: He is the only bassist in the world to play a 12 string fretless sub-bass, with the lowest range in existence. But, it is clear that you know that and you fancy yourself as a competitor (I suspect actually, that you are a sock puppet). If you are the same person who is stalking him all over the internet, it is time to stop. The public has a right to know about his instrument and the contribution he has made to next concepts in bass development. It is clear you have a blatant conflict of interest. Stop immediately with your edit warring, and apply the same rules across the board. You are stalking Carbonne and you must stop IMMEDIATELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is per-article. Your 5th revert is a different article. Contiguous edits count as one, so 2 and 3 are the same. Revert 1 is before the dawn of pre-history William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many more reverts, mostly by the same person. If revert 1 counts as pre-history, it is one of several by the same person, less than a month ago. Revert 1 took place on April 28th, which is less than a month ago, and is the one in particular that clearly indicates 121.220.36.117 clearly has a conflict of interest. Thank you for your help.TruthBeTold (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't clear to me why rev1 indicates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, if that is the primary reason for a block, I think you're probably on the wrong noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See above header JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    REPORTING User:MrStalker for edit warring and 3RR violations

    We were asked to report any 3RR violations on The Sims 3. Ever since MrStalker's edits were reverted by many users for multiple reasons, he's violated this rule and the general rules on edit warring on at least 2 or 3 occasions, reverting back to his edits or removing others in what is nothing short of vandalism out of perceived anger. I warned him on it before, though obviously he sees fit to continue. In response to my warning him, he told me to "Go Fuck [my]self". Please address this as soon as possible so it does not continue. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to see proof of this so-called edit warring. --MrStalker (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Please use the report format provided. I can't see a clear technical vio from a cursory survey of the edit history - are you claiming one. OTOH [93] is clearly incivil, so I've blocked fo 12h for that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abd reported by MastCell (Result: prot)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Abd is well aware of WP:3RR; curiously, he chose to warn another user about edit-warring while in the course of racking up 4RR of his own in less than 4 hours.

    By way of background, Abd has been a central figure in a recent Arbitration case concerning cold fusion:

    I consider myself too involved to render an administrative verdict here, but I view this as problematic edit-warring in the context of a much larger, festering dispute. An aggravating factor is that talk-page discussion appears to be against Abd's reverts, and that he is handing out warnings about edit-warring to others while rapidly violating the rule himself. Note that Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has also edited the page heavily today; I count 3 reverts on his part, and will leave the handling to the reviewing admin. MastCell Talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abd's 4th revert appears to be an error - since he signed the edit, he appears to have desired to send it to the talk page. I am well aware I bumped right up to 3rr. Thus, I pledge on pain of enforcement of this pledge by block not to edit the article or its talk page for 24 hours from my first reversion except for obvious vandalism or blatent violations of BLP in the hopes that perhaps all of the parties in question can be convinced to discuss instead of reverting over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a toss-up between blocking Abd for 3RR, blocking Abd and H, or protecting the page. I've done the latter. Abd is urged to recall the rather weak and feeble Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG remedy 2.1, and to learn how WP:DR works before making unrealistic threats on talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I can claim to know what Abd is thinking, but the edit summary here seems to indicate that it was destined for the article itself, not the talk page. But whatever. MastCell Talk 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=291568501"