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
Keizuko (talk | contribs)
398 edits
Line 601: Line 601:


[[User:Keizuko]] has repeatedly reverted my contributions to the [[Historical powers]] article. Their account, going by their history, seems only to exist to revert my edits. If it wasn't for this fact I would be much more sympathetic but I cannot be where it's a case of an account that purely exists to revert the many contributions I've made over time. They have not used to talk page nor given clear reason for their reverts. The user has a history full of breaking 3RR and edit warring. [[User:Signsolid|Signsolid]] ([[User talk:Signsolid|talk]]) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Keizuko]] has repeatedly reverted my contributions to the [[Historical powers]] article. Their account, going by their history, seems only to exist to revert my edits. If it wasn't for this fact I would be much more sympathetic but I cannot be where it's a case of an account that purely exists to revert the many contributions I've made over time. They have not used to talk page nor given clear reason for their reverts. The user has a history full of breaking 3RR and edit warring. [[User:Signsolid|Signsolid]] ([[User talk:Signsolid|talk]]) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:Shouldn't SignSolid have his account blocked for making false reports of 3RR? Also, contrary to SignSolid's false accusation here, I don't have a history of breaking 3RR (check my block log: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Keizuko]), whereas SignSolid has already been blocked once for breaking 3RR ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3Asignsolid&year=&month=-1]). It's really annoying to discover completely false accusations made in my back by a guy who has himself broken 3RR in the past. [[User:Keizuko|Keizuko]] ([[User talk:Keizuko|talk]]) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Ufuncecu]] reported by [[User:ElKevbo]] (Result: 31h) ==
== [[User:Ufuncecu]] reported by [[User:ElKevbo]] (Result: 31h) ==

Revision as of 13:53, 2 August 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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


    Violations

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


    User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours)

    Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 17:34, 28 July 2008 (all times given in Australian Eastern Standard time - ie UTC + 10 hours)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 06:49, 29 July 2008 Note this editor is very familiar with 3RR breaches (see blocklog) so a templated warning would not have been appropriate.

    Skyring claims that the edits breach BLP. The content has been discussed on the article talk page and editors (other than myself) disagree with him. He has now escalated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard. I do not believe that his assertion of breaches of BLP justifies his breaking of the 3RR when this is a much watched article with other people in the debate. I do not believe thus that the exceptions to the rule apply. Matilda talk 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on talk page shows that the material is contentious, with several noting WP:BLP violation. I have asked that it not be reinserted without a decision on whether BLP has been breached. Matilda prefers to edit-war rather than follow wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear from the article history that I have not indulged in edit warring. I added the material (referenced) following discussions on the talk page. I have followed the discussions on the talk page and contributed there. I have reverted Skyring twice. I have not breached 3RR, nor been provoked into breaching it. --Matilda talk 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got a bit involved in this situation, so I won't take official action, but I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary. Otherwise, can we freeze this request for a few minutes while we try to work towards a consensus, please?--chaser - t 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I disagree that Skyring should be exempted regardless of his deeply held beliefs on BLP violations. Several admins are involved in the discussions on the talk page. None of them reverted the material despite holding opposing views. (ie Gnagarra and OIC). The issue of the material should be discussed elsewhere. --Matilda talk 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert only because I thought someone already had. Orderinchaos 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The same does not apply to Gnangarra who quite clearly left the material in when editing it [1] . Moreover I count over 10 editors editing on the talk page at the time and presumably watching the article - the 3RR states: if an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. No issue if other editors had joined in the revert - I do have issues with Skyring single handedly imposing his view. --Matilda talk 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The inclusion of the report in this article might be (at most) silly but certainly not defamatory. Depending on which 3RR-closer wants to address this one, I can assert you'll find no unanimity that a BLP defence will work in this case. Reverts are exempt from 3RR limits only if the material actually *does* violate BLP, not just because the editor's personal opinion is that it does. I would give Skyring a chance to self-revert first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyring has been advised of the invitation and appears to wish to ignor it [2] --Matilda talk 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it. --Shot info (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a member of a clique thanks. I would appreciate you clarify your rationale for me to be sanctioned. --Matilda talk 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours 3RR violation. After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally I would have called for an immediate review on this, but as the block began at the commencement of a twelve hour night shift, I didn't see any real benefit. There are three key points.

    1. The launching of a case against a recent head of government of a liberal Western democracy for war crimes should be front page news around the world. John Howard up there with Adolf Eichmann, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. The wikisupporters of this material as encyclopaedic had to resort to googling because nobody could think of anything off the top of their heads (the three earlier comments). The reason that this material was not widely reported, I suggest, is because only one journalist out of the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery, not to mention the international media, regarded it as worthy of coverage, and then only to the extent of a hundred words on a website, rather than being otherwise broadcast, printed or published. The results of a search on Google News is instructive.
    2. Mentioning such material in a biographical article is effectively giving it credence - maybe Wikipedia is not flat out branding John Howard a war criminal, but allocating a paragraph of seventy-five words is giving the allegation credence that not even the tabloid newspapers bothered with.
    3. The discussion at Talk:John Howard is highlighted by differing views. Given WP:BLP concerns raised by several editors, the correct wikiprocess would have been to remove the controversial material, discuss its merits (or lack thereof) until consensus had been reached, or raise it here for more official comment. The material should have been reinserted only after a positive decision for inclusion had been obtained. That's the essence of WP:BLP violations - we remove them immediately.

    The conduct of User:Matilda bears closer examination. He engaged in edit-warring to keep this material, ignoring the warnings raised by several regular editors, and then pushed 3RR to silence a critic. This is not due wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You commenced action here. I suggest you address the points I raise here. Your input into the BLPN notice has been tangential. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commenced action against your edit warring here , no more no less. I suggested (and others agreed) that your edit warring ws not justified as reversion of vandalism. If you wish to make accusations of edit warring do so - with diffs - I believe I have no case to answer on edit warring and had already stated that above. I have no interest in silencing you as a critic, if you didn't engage in stupid behaviour by reverting multiple times there would have been no cause for the request to be blocked. Moreover the blocking admin offered you an opportunity to self-revert and I ensured that you knew about that opportunity. You chose not to take it. Please don't blame other people for your block. --Matilda talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ignore the personal attacks above. Matilda asks for diffs showing edit-warring:
    This is after he introduced material that he knew would be controversial, and after notification that this was a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit-warring, he should have kept his cool and sought consensus. My position was that the allegations had very little weight and that repeating them in a biographical article was unjustified. As Matilda knew very well, having performed the google search mentioned above and finding only one brief mention in any mainstream media site. Whether Matilda thinks the ICC brief is significant is his own opinion. I need merely note the lack of interest by mainstream media, who would give this story tremendous coverage if it had any merit at all. Matilda's attempts to pretend that the material was significant and that accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is not an attack on that person's character are despicable and bring into question his judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens to be a personal attack to suggest that somebody's own behaviour is the cause of his block? However this editor has described me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. I am not a member of any group and I do not think my edit history bears out Skyring's assertions. The diffs do not match edit warring per Wikipedia:Edit war in my view but I am happy for a review and to be set straight.--Matilda talk 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I called your behaviour edit-warring because you reverted multiple times in quick succession. The record is there for all to see. Could you please address the points made above on media coverage and BLP? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, if you have one. --Pete (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that others can judge the "quick succession" I have added the time diffs. Reversion in excess of three hours time difference is not the normal standard of quick succession discussed on Wikipedia and my speed of reverting compares poorly with your speed as can be seen from the times against the diffs reported above. Moreover twice reverting is a multiple but a pretty low one. The standard threshhold is three reverts from an original - I am not close. I have received no warnings from anyone else .... (I have asked User:Shot info to elaborate on his call for sanctions but he appears to have declined the opportunity) I have already addressed the issues of BLP and media coverage and BLP in my view on the article talk page but I will address again briefly on the BLP page. I think there is no edit warring issues for me to answer any longer here. --Matilda talk 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's get some more eyes on it and take a look at what happened when. I think misbehaviour of an admin is a serious business. You must have known this stuff was bogus, given the almost complete lack of media coverage. I'll get a RfC going soon, once I sort out diffs. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • unindent It is now several days since Skyring accused me of misbehaviour and threatened me with an RfC in several places. I have voluntarily put myself on a wikibreak in response to this RfC notification from 21:19, 30 July . What counts as "soon" and what counts as an empty threat which is actually a personal attack complaining of misbehaviour : 3RR noticeboard 20:25, 30 July 2008 , BLP noticeboard 20:17, 30 July 2008 , suggesting he "would take it further" at User talk:Gnangarra 07:16, 30 July preceded by calling my behaviour "despicable and bring into question his sic judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator" at WP:3RRN (as well as other places) and he had previously called me in effect an enemy of Howard ... His response was to suggest that I in turn had personally attacked him.
      I do not believe I have engaged in personal attack, I had commented on his contributions by reporting him to 3RR for breaking the 3RR rule - he was blocked by another admin after declining to self-revert and in fact performing the same reversion again (of another editor's insertion of the material). I had commented on 3RRN that his own behaviour was the cause of his block and he should not blame others for it. I assumed Wikipedia:Silence and consensus on the part of other editors who were editing the same page and talk page at the same time as the edit warring was occurring - they have since indicated that my assumption was not correct. Others have also suggested I goaded Skyring into a 3RR breach deliberately - I deny this accusation.
      I am extremely disappointed at the ongoing community support of an editor who has personally attacked me and also of the lack of assumption of good faith from many editors of my actions. I will be posting this message in each of the places where Skyring has stated he will be lodging an RfC a well as his talk page - I have several times indicated that I think it is inappropriate to continue the same debate in several places but my request has fallen on deaf ears. --Matilda talk 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.122.81.237 reported by User:Miyokan (Result: blocked and page semied)

    91.122.81.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.87.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.93.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


    The same user editing from slightly different IP's.--Miyokan (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This anonymous IP is continuing to revert war in the Russia article. He has since reverted the same thing two more times. Krawndawg (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miyokan reported by User:IP (Result: No violation)

    Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The second and third edits are not reverts, check for yourself. Obviously he is trying to get "revenge" for reporting him above.

    --Miyokan (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krawndawg reported by User:anonymous (Result: no violation)

    Krawndawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


    Both users User:Krawndawg and User:Miyokan seem to be expirienced edit warriors by theirs block list. They behave this way in different articles. And trying to collaborate in that [3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This 06:33, 28 July 2008 is not a revert, he slightly reworded the passage citing the relevant policy, not reverting it, and it did not become an issue. Anonymous IP is obviously trying to get "revenge" for being reported for violating the 3RR above. Instead of seeking WP:CONCENSUS when anonymous IP added a controversial edit to said article, which he still has not got, this anonymous user thinks repeating the same defeated argument over and over at talk while reverting will help his case.--Miyokan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP's reporting for rule violations? Is this a joke? FYI this anonymous IP has appeared out of nowhere and started revert warring non-stop on issues that he can't make an argument for in discussion. Now he reports two regular contributors? If anyone should be blocked it's his series of IP's. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 24h; on repeat vio, socks now blocked for 72 + semi)

    91.122.81.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.87.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.93.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

    Block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here [4] but now he is block evading by reverting under yet another (89.110.20.7) IP [5].--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:48 hours )

    Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Additional notes: Wikiarrangementeditor has been blocked on three separate occasions for either edit warring or 3RR violations. He's been warned over 5 times on his talk page for these specific acts. All of this from strictly editting only two articles over the last several months. This tells me that, even after the next block is lifted, he will continue to break these policies. His last block was for 31 hours. Is there nothing else that can be done here? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And with comments to his edits such as this and this, he seems emotionally invested and hell bent on making sure his edits stick. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours given he's got a history. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

    Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: varies

    The user has been warned of 3RR and blocked already for past violations and edit warring. Seems he is back at it again (he is also revert warring in Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. The user is also engaged in personally attacking me: he is not only criticizing me on talk pages ([6] - I have a skin thick enough for that) but has just send me an email with content "Your editing tactics are abhorrent and disgraceful for a so-called teacher." That is way over the top (I can fwd his email to any admin that wishes to receive it and confirm it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus regularly instigates edit wars and files 3RR complaints as a tactic for pushing his POV. the edits cited concern different sections of the article. As for Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, check the article-he instigated the revert warring. I even specifically asked him here not to use his usual tactic of baiting a 3RR comlpaint by edit warring. To no avail. His tactics are indeed abhorrent and disgraceful and unworthy of an admin. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Piotrus is edit warring over these two articles himself. WP:3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions. If anybody is punished because of this matter, I recommend that punishment be meted out to both parties. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Boodlesthecat clearly reverted four times in whole or in part, constituting a 3RR violation. Malik, you are correct that 3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions, and I will be reminding Piotrus of this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to avoid reverting when possible, but Boody has demonstrated in the past he will not change his opinions, and will revert to his version until he breaks the 3RR. With editors like that, there is no other way of dealing with, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always mediation... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes two to tango, Piotrus. You are just as rigid in your position as Boodlesthecat is, so please don't act as though he's the problem. You and several other editors seem determined to white-wash Polish antisemitism, or to blame it on the Jews, and Boodlesthecat brings quality sources that refute your assertions. You're not an innocent victim here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    Quality sources like Gross? I and others have always been civil and willing to negotiate; Boody is convinced of his own self-righteousness and that Poles are evil. His level of discussion is well shown by the latest email he sent to me: "you are such a dick". It's hard to dance to that tune, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit rich, Piotrus. To begin with, there's nothing wrong with citing Jan T. Gross, the Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University. More to the point though, Boodlesthecat wasn't quoting Gross, despite persistent claims by you and others that he was. I suppose BTC got a bit fed-up with the egregious victim blaming that's been going on on various pages related to Poles and Jews; apparently it is the Jews who are responsible for any antisemitic acts committed by Poles. I can understand his frustration with that view. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.6.173.150 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 31 hours)

    65.6.173.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    I have explained in depth on the talk page why this user's edit is inappropriate. The user has responded with insults and attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Page semi-protected for 3 days and editor blocked 72h)

    91.122.81.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.87.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    91.122.93.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    89.110.23.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

    Repeated block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here [7] and for 24 hours for block evasion (and he broke the 3RR again) here but now he is block evading again (and breaking the 3RR again) by reverting under yet another (89.110.23.40) IP.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get a semi-protection of the article and a rangeblock, this is getting ridiculous.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Please take a look at here and here, before making decisions. You may find this one also interesting. Thanks! 89.110.23.40 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: he just revert again, far beyond breaking the 3RR for the umpteenth time (and while block evading) 22:26, 30 July 2008--Miyokan (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection shouldn't be used in content disputes, Miyokan, only full protection is in order, rangeblock of such width (tens of thousands of IPs, apparently one of the largest ISP of the second largest Russian city) is equally inappropriate. I am not even sure that they belong to the same user. Possibly a bunch of coordinated meatpuppets. Try to reach consensus on the talk page, this is the best way. Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it shouldn't be used in content disputes, but it should be used to stop block evasion. Concensus doesn't matter to this guy as he has been opposed and reverted by multiple users.--Miyokan (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as you 91.122.83.159 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are as many users who have opposed your edits, so apparently consensus doesn't matter to you either. How can semi-protection of a single page prevent block evasion? This is something new. Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are not, he has been the sole person reverting this edit against many, and he clearly doesn't care about the 3RR rule as he keeps so horrendously breaking it nor sanctions as he keeps block evading. As his IP's are all 89.110.x and 91.110.x, a rangeblock of 89.110.x to 89.111.x and 91.110.x to 91.111.x will do the trick.--Miyokan (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are. I am one of them. I am reluctant to take part in edit-warring, though. You may be surprised, but it is not the same thing to be opposed and to do edit-warring. BTW, these ranges amount to 4*256^2 = 262,144 IPs. Too many, sorry. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great Miyokan! And what you've done after got your requested semi protection? Reverted article to revision that satisfies you best! Nice tricks you using for content disputes. Unfortunately they are working pretty well for you. Thanks to administrator! You are doing a good job of supporting experienced edit warriors at wikipedia. But unfortunately it somehow doesn't benefit to the project. If you would not be so rush about actions, and take a time to read the talk page of that article... well nevermind. Thanks for unleashing nationalists to pushing theirs POV! 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Miyokan, you've just violated 3RR on that same page. ;) 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3 days. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Blocked – for a period of 3 days as this was directly after release of previous block. --slakr\ talk / 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DannyMuse reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DannyMuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 19:20, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "/* Statement */ Balancing comment added to maintain NPOV")
    2. 19:33, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Then please provide an acceptable citation. BTW, I took this from the RD Wikipage, so you'll want to change it there too. Watch the video. He uses them interchangeably.")
    3. 22:28, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 228873679 by Dave souza (talk)")
    4. 22:30, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 228900055 by Orangemarlin (talk)")
    5. 22:39, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Used publisher citation")
    6. 22:47, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Not my research, as YOU said, it's Richard Dawkins' research. What are you afraid of?")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Darrenhusted and User:Nick_Cooper reported by User:86.56.122.205 (Result: Malformed report )

    Technically, a 3RR violation has not yet occurred, because it's 2 different users, but I'm trying to get an experienced and knowledgeable administrator to look at this, and the other pages pointed me at this place.

    In the more distant past, some editors appear to have removed a link to the full "The Power of Nightmares" video from the The Power of Nightmares article. The video is hosted with permission at the Internet Archive, an established electronic library institution which among other things also runs the Internet Wayback Machine and collaborates with the Library of Alexandria, the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress.

    Because someone had apparently removed the link to the video, I recently readded that link. I was then reverted two times by Nick Cooper, who seems to be totally unfamiliar with the IA, and appears to mistake it for some random YouTube-like site where every random Joe can upload videos and where they are not being reviewed and cleared in terms of copyright. I had a brief exchange with Nick Cooper, who does not appear to be willing to even read the Internet Archive article that I linked to. The third revert however was not done by Nick Cooper but by Darrenhusted, who also didn't appear to know the IA.

    I have not reverted Darrenhusted's edit, but I would like to ask a knowledgeable and experienced administrator to talk to both Nick and Darren and resolve the matter, and restore the edit. While the film is also linked from the Internet Archive article, a link really belongs onto the The Power of Nightmares page. Please do not involve me any further, and there is no need to notify me on my talk page. I would however appreciate if an admin could blank my talk page to remove the unsightly template spam that was pasted onto it. I edit as anonymously as possible, and will probably have a new IP soon, precisely because I try to avoid getting too involved in incidents like this. The two said editors' demands are like demanding that editors first prove that content hosted at http://www.loc.gov/index.html or http://www.bibalex.org/English/index.aspx isn't infringing, and this kind of affirmatively willful ignorance is exactly what drove me away. Hopefully the administrator actioning this will at least be familiar with the IA, though my hopes aren't high now. 86.56.122.205 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VMORO reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31 hours)

    Maleševo-Pirin dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier version reverted to: 29 July 17:10 (Complex reverts, common to all is the removal of an image, Image:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png).

    1. 00:37, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
    2. 13:06, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
    3. 13:12, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "Well, explain to me why you are deleting references from Trudgill and Schmieger (you accepted yourself) and why there are factual errors in the intro - yr compatriate has not even bothered responding")
    4. 13:46, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "Please discuss your changes and deletions on the talk page and refrain from making disparaging personal comments, I have asked for administrator's assistance.")

    Earlier reverts during the previous days: [8], [9], [10] et cetera. Old account, recently returned after two years of absence (was possibly present in the meantime under various sock accounts); no 3RR warning necessary; warning under WP:ARBMAC has been given [11]. Thoroughly disruptive, tendentious POV-pushing account that has never done anything but edit-warring on Macedonian-Bulgarian ideology topics. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.209.234.77 reported by User:ESkog (Result: already blocked - 3 hours)

    24.209.234.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


    User:Lalbal reported by User:Wikidas (Result: 24 hours)

    Lalbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Also warned in the Talk page for removal and disruptive editing:

    18:32, 2008 July 30


    User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 24 hours)

    United States Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [13]


    It seems clear -- four paragraphs were deleted with edit summary “deleted bullshit paragraph about Lincoln "reinterpreting" the Dec”

    Changed sentence FROM “Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.”” TO “Another historian gushes that Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.””

    Same revert as # 2 plus additional reverts.

    Same revert as #2 and #3.

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [18]

    In addition, a warning in an edit summary at [19] was also given.


    The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles for several weeks -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits, although in today’s back and forth only I have been involved.

    The issue in this series of edits has involved one primary issue -- the mention of Abraham Lincoln as significant to the enduring legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

    This user was reported on a different 3R violation on July 25. This can be accessed through the following diff and then clicking on violation 1.12:

    [[20]]

    I questioned the accuracy of the original determination and responded twice to requests for additional information. Nobody ever replied to my second response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calperniaaddams reported by -MBK004 (Result: declined)

    Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calperniaaddams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 02:52, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Removed irellevant personal information, focused on the one incident of national notability, the rest of the information belongs in the "Barry Winchell" article.")
    2. 04:00, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Pared down in accordance with "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP")
    3. 04:13, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 229165088 by Otto4711 (talk)")
    4. 04:49, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 229167614 by MBK004 (talk) Sourced or not, see "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wik")


    • Diff of warning: here

    —-MBK004 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined – This looks like a biography of living persons policy content dispute, and may therefore be classified as an exception to the 3RR. I'm not personally aware of the argument at hand, the consensus on the page, the validity of the sources, or the COI of the subject involved. However, if the user continuously reverts, I'd probably say this might be better to report to WP:ANI to gather better consensus. As for here, I don't feel that this is a clear-cut 3RR violation due to the aforementioned (and the user and another editor citing) BLP concerns. --slakr\ talk / 08:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: no action )

    The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: The Thunderer is an abusive sockpuppet of User:GDD1000 being used to avoid scrutiny on his constantly biased editing to this article, and has previously been blocked for edit warring on it as GDD1000, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GDD1000 for more information, therefore no 3RR warning is needed, but one was issued at 12:21, 1 August 2008

    The first revert is clear cut, as is the second where he removes a source I had added. With the third revert he again removed the source I had added. The fourth revert is him removing tag I had just added. The firth revert is restoring information I removed in this edit, so another clear revert. BigDuncTalk 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take this to dispute resolution. There are reverts on both sides, and in the hope that both of you can work this out, I'm not blocking. But if it continues post-protection, then sanctions will be issued. seicer | talk | contribs 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HarryAlffa reported by User:Ashill (Result: stale )

    HarryAlffa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


    Repeatedly reverting to include wording like "Dwarf Planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system; the Asteroid Belt; the Kuiper Belt; and the Scattered Disc. There are four of them as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow."

    I'd endorse some sort of action here; the editor in question is repeatedly changing text despite valid concerns voiced by several other editors. (I would take action myself, but cannot at this point as I am one of those who have challenged his work.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale The last revert was about 5 hours ago, so any block would be punitive. I've left the user another note, and if they continue (one further revert), they will be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Keizuko reported by User:Signsolid (Result: )

    Keizuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    User:Keizuko has repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Historical powers article. Their account, going by their history, seems only to exist to revert my edits. If it wasn't for this fact I would be much more sympathetic but I cannot be where it's a case of an account that purely exists to revert the many contributions I've made over time. They have not used to talk page nor given clear reason for their reverts. The user has a history full of breaking 3RR and edit warring. Signsolid (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't SignSolid have his account blocked for making false reports of 3RR? Also, contrary to SignSolid's false accusation here, I don't have a history of breaking 3RR (check my block log: [27]), whereas SignSolid has already been blocked once for breaking 3RR ([28]). It's really annoying to discover completely false accusations made in my back by a guy who has himself broken 3RR in the past. Keizuko (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ufuncecu reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)

    Ufuncecu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 05:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    User:Carpaticus reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: )

    Carpaticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


    Note: I didn't list the fifth revert here as the text he changed here had been added a few days ago.


    User deleting/changing well-referenced material arbitrarily while adding unreferenced text himself (just like today). I tried to avoid edit warring and add new references instead, still I find the repeated deletion of text from an English language book published by a reliable university press unacceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be from BEFORE all the reverting started. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=229405651"