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
No edit summary
Line 718: Line 718:


In this BLP of [[Joe Wurzelbacher]], the editor was repeatedly deleting the subject's own words as reported in an interview with a reliable source, KARE11, October 16, 2008, Copyright 2008 by NBC. I've therefore blocked the editor for 12 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amwestover&diff=246308974&oldid=246202004]
In this BLP of [[Joe Wurzelbacher]], the editor was repeatedly deleting the subject's own words as reported in an interview with a reliable source, KARE11, October 16, 2008, Copyright 2008 by NBC. I've therefore blocked the editor for 12 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amwestover&diff=246308974&oldid=246202004]

== [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] reported by [[User:Ottava_Rima|Ottava Rima]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Nicolò Giraud}}
* User: {{userlinks|Haiduc}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: [link]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246270758&oldid=246233495]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246310627&oldid=246308957]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246314480&oldid=246310999]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246323482&oldid=246315503]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246332762&oldid=246324701]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANicol%C3%B2_Giraud&diff=246325037&oldid=246318570]

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
This is not the first edit war the user has been involved in on that page within the past ten days, but edit warred over the inclusion of the individual in the category "History of pederasty". The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory. The major scholars in the field feel that there is just not enough information for various claims. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:10, 19 October 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:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son

    User:Inigmatus reported by User:LisaLiel (Result: 31 hours)


    With all due respect, the user's 4th revert was 15 minutes after the warning. He couldn't have avoided seeing the notice that he had a message on his talk page. I removed the "result" note because adding the 4th revert makes this a new report. I hope that's okay; the instructions weren't clear on what to do in that kind of situation. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it appears that he made another revert after I declined this case. AS such he has been Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Cheers! Tiptoety talk 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. User was previously blocked for 3RR. It was a while ago, but, although there doesn't seem to be a templated warning, one would hope that a block would provide time for reflection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Collect reported by Cumulus Clouds (talk) (Result: Decline, diffs are BLP exempt)

    Charles Keating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 17:37, 14 October 2008
    2. 13:58, 14 October 2008
    3. 09:35, 13 October 2008
    4. 08:42, 13 October 2008
    5. 08:29, 13 October 2008

    gap here - rest of results provided by toolserver

    1. 15:01, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "Keating Five is not properly part of Keating bio first paragraph, and is totally unsourced here.")
    2. 15:02, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "/* Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later */ added NPOF info")
    3. 21:07, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "/* Failure of Saving & Loan, the Keating Five */ Keating Five ius a stand-alone article and is now adequately summarized here per "summary" rules")
    4. 23:02, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 244005641 by TJRC (talk)")
    5. 23:03, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 243999669 by Cumulus Clouds (talk)")
    6. 23:03, 8 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 243999436 by Cumulus Clouds (talk)reversijkon as stalking is reportable")

    User has engaged in lengthy edit wars across numerous articles as they attempt to introduce a strong conservative bias into several articles, including Charles Keating, Dino Rossi and Sarah Palin. Users only edits on this encyclopedia have been to these and a small handful of other articles for conservative politicians or public figures. Largely they have been to remove sourced text and other negative information about those people. They have been unresponsive to requests for third opinion or the input of third parties and have reverted edits across several pages from many editors. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation Viewing diffs 1-5 above, every single one is exempt from the three-revert-rule because it removes unsourced controversial biographical information. CIreland (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CC has repeatedly threatened 3RR reports, even for a single revision. Every revision is accompanied by specific notes on the Talk page. Je repeatedly adds unsourced information, and insists "2007" is the same as "recent" ... I suspect he has a sockpuppet or meatpuppet "Arizona Biltmore" currently. Collect (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see User_talk:Lar#CC_made_bad_faith_3RR_report (permlink: [9] ) where Collect laid out the case for AB being a sock/meatpuppet of CC. I concurred the diffs presented justified a CU investigation, which I carried out. I found no technical correlation, but agree the diffs are at least suggestive of communication. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gurray reported by ApprenticeFan (Result: Stale. User warned)).

    Three-revert rule in violation of:

    Edits were considered false information. ApprenticeFan (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    202.72.213.22 reported by Esemono (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

    User is using various IPs:

    I've tried to get him to reach a consensus but he refuses to listen and blanket reverts a number of points in the article. Most of the points that he erased he refuses to talk about. -- Esemono (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation Second revert is by a different user. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Same user but using a different IP but that is beside the point as 1st, 3rd and 4th edits are by the same IP. -- Esemono (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I know it's the same user? Without that revert, the three-revert rule isn't broken — only if there are more than three reverts is there an issue. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, you, as closer, should have made a checkuser request. It's stale now, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there have been yet more reverts since the above decision was taken, I have fully protected the article for three days. Would welcome review. There appears to be a genuine content dispute here although there could be puppetry on the IP side. If the IPs collectively go over 3RR in the future I think semi-protection should be considered, since even a bona-fide dispute doesn't justify puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that per below 125.160.196.145 and Esomo had already been blocked. After the blocks I advised Esomo and the Ip now at 125.160.193.79 and certainly they see it as genuine content conflict going much into detail of the available sources between two editors with 125.160.192.0 - 125.160.207.25 a dynamic IP range and 202.72.213.22 a different location. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yaneleksklus reported by True Steppa (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]


    Before this day: [41] [42] [43] and the page was protected [44]



    Yaneleksklus, 86.57.141.1, 86.57.143.146 and 93.85.49.66 (has been blocked today for another edit war![47]) are the same person (all have absolutely identical edits). Yaneleksklus was already reported two times: [48] [49]. He is reverting back to his refs which is not consistent with WP:RS and WP:V (please check the full article history and talk page!) --True Steppa (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week A persistent revert warrior who never participates on Talk, and uses IP socks (all of which are from Belarus, according to WHOIS). He ignored a request to use the Preview button to avoid clogging up histories. Two IPs have been blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hi guys, this user is back under anon IP 93.85.48.186, same articles, same M.O. --Kaini (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:FisherQueen a few minutes ago. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    back again :( 93.85.51.220 --Kaini (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and again under 86.57.205.66 --Kaini (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about semi-protecting the article? Beve (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2-step garage has been semi-protected. Any others needed? EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps dubstep, dark 2-step, maybe UK garage and doo-wop too, as a preventative measure. this user's edits are pretty widespread. but really, it's your call. --Kaini (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep us informed, but I don't see any abusive edits on those four articles since October 15. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wow, i admire this guy's tenacity. could i get a checkuser, please? oh, and now he wants to talk :) --01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaini (talk • contribs)

    Discussion at Talk:2-step garage is good. So long as the talk continues, let's put off any more admin actions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly but he is not only discusses at Talk:2-step garage, see his talk page. --True Steppa (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gune reported by Goodraise (Result: 31 hour block)

    • Diff of two warnings by other editors on unrelated matters: [50] and [51]

    -- Goodraise (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uky123 reported by 124.185.148.41 (Result: warning)


    • Previous version reverted to: [52]


    • 1st revert: [53]
    • 2nd revert: [54]
    • 3rd revert: [55]
    • 4th revert: [56]
    • 5th revert: [57] (although he logged out first - violating WP:SOCK)


    • Diff of warning: [58]

    The guys is obviously a Slovene nationalist. He's going around to pages regarding Serbs, Croats, and other former Yugoslavs and doing things such as lowering population numbers, removing their achievements etc. At the same time he is going to Slovene articles and increasing populations, making up stories, and saying that famous Serbs/Croats are actually Slovenes. He's also changing Austrian and Hungarian names of cities/places to Slovene ones. 124.185.148.41 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. But you were far far too rude, so he gets off with a Stern Warning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Illyriandescendant and User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: threat)


    • Illyriandescendant's Previous version reverted to: [59] <---saying that the Šarplaninac originates, etc from Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia
    • User1389's Previous version reverted to: [60] <---saying that the Šarplaninac originates, etc from Serbia


    Illyriandescendant:

    User1389:

    This slow-moving edit war has been going on for a month or more; these are just the most recent 4 reverts for each user. Neither has recently reverted more than three times in 24 hours, but they've reverted each other probably dozens of times in total, without any attempt to discuss.


    • Diff of 3RR warning for Illyriandescendant: [69]
    • Diff of 3RR warning for User1389: [70]

    User:User1389 has not reverted since my 3RR warning; however, I am including him/her here since he/she has been an enthusiastic party to the edit war and I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is.

    keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned both, and attempted to start a section on the talk page. Hopefully these are newbie edit warriors who just don't know they can talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    124.185.148.41 reported by Uky123 (Result: 24h for incivility)


    • Previous version reverted to: [71]


    and

    • Previous version reverted to: [78]



    • Diff of warning by other user: [83]

    In first page, there are claims without source and he removed it without any sources. In second case, source was clear: Population 4,800,000 in Croatia (1995). Population total all countries: 6,214,643. [84] He changed it withuat any reason. Now they simnply removed this source... He also insult me [[85]], [[86]], [87]--Uky123 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is AN3, we don't care about facts. As it happens, I blocked for incivility anyway, but it was probably 3RR too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    69.203.77.71 reported by Floridianed (Result: 12h)


    Not a well-formed report ;-). Blocked anyways, for 12 hours only. I hope it drives the message home. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. Sorry for the short report. It was a "quicky". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inigmatus reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: rejected: numeration failure)


    This user has already been blocked for disruptive editing on the Messianic Judaism page for edit warring against consensus. As soon as he was unblocked, he has resumed the edit warring. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First instance: [89]
    • Second instance: [90]
    • Third instance: [91]

    As can be seen from the nature of the edits, he is trying to use edit warring to support a citation AGAINST the intention of the source. I have attempted to explain this to him on the talk page, to no avail. [92]

    The source does not and CANNOT support what he is trying to force it to say. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you count? Rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd reject it as a 3RR, but block as edit warring. But I think I'm involved, so I couldn't do it. If his first edits coming out of the block are continuing the edit war, reblocking seems to make sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    70.152.184.189 reported by Kmaster (Result: no violation)


    Constantly pushing his POV, rejecting a consensus made using sources, before he came by the editors of the article. His edits has been reverted by 2 editors so far, me and The Haunted Angel

    The sources completely support what the editors involved are trying to express. He claims that those sources are not reliable with no explanation at all as seen on [110] Disussion: [111] --Kmaster (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violaion: not 4 reverts within 24h. This isn't a page for reporting generic edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But he has done that before. --Kmaster (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what should we do now, wait for him to do 4 reverts within 24h? Is there another place where I can report this kind of behavior? --Kmaster (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Talk page at Talk:Metalcore is hard for outsiders to understand. You could try to summarize the controversy there in a more clear way. See if you can get more editors who know about the music to take a look. For example, you could post on the Talk page of a related WikiProject and get their opinion. To find out whether a source is reliable, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inigmatus reported by LisaLiel (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [112]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [117]


    The user is attempting to label Messianic Judaism as a sect of Judaism, as opposed to a religious movement that makes that claim. Understandably, it's a contentious issue. But he has reverted changes to his claim three times so far. This 3RR is a continuation of his edit warring of 13 October, which resulted in a 31 hour block. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes its a vio, user has form, 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nontrickyy reported by FactStraight (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: link


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Note that the last 4 reverts fall within the 24 hour time frame. I warned him not to violate WP:3RR twice. My edit summary stated my reason for reverting: The article violates WP:BLP and WP:OWN, specifically "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" and "Ownership examples...Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version". I had the edit summary refer back to my comment on the Talk page documenting this violation. Since the article remains in violation due to Nontrickyy's relentless ownership of the article, and since he continuously adds more anti-Michael propaganda to make the article even more heavily anti-Michael -- and therefore more out of sync with prevailing written assessments of Michael I in English, reverts of those edits are in order, and I made some of them. He continues to add more anti-Michael verbiage after his 3rd revert, claiming in the edit summary that he is merely compromising, not reverting. When I invited him to delete his 4th revert -- quoting the WP:3RR rule that says partial reverts are also forbidden -- or I would have no alternative but to pursue the matter, he threatened to accuse me of vandalism if I reported him. I am hereby reporting him. Please warn and block this violater, since he is obviously gaming the system by violating WP:3RR and denying that he has done so. I have refrained from violating WP:3RR. I have reported similar violations by Nontrickyy before, both on the Talk page and at what I thought were the correct complaint sites, but have gotten no response because of the vast, complex edits used and my unfamiliarity with the use of diffs. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of the last 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, only 3 are actual reverts, the 4th (9th in the above list) is not a revert, but a different edit trying to compromise both of our differing views. After all, this is what Wiki users are invited to do -- reconcile their views and compromise to reach a consensus: "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." I went even further in the compromise than the 4th edit shows and fully included his views as proven by this last edit. But no, this user does not want or care for a "mere compromise" (to quote his above post): he wants a total, personal victory by banning me under this 3RR pretext. He does not care about the betterment of Wikipedia or its consensus rules which advocate compromise: no, he simply wants to have me banned by way of 3RR. It is, thus, a personal vendetta, not a fight for the sake of Wikipedia. This is my 1st proof of his bad faith.
    Notice, please, that his reverts are sheer vandalism (deleting my well referenced statements and including his own peculiar speculation that has absolutely no references behind) as they do meet this criterion: "Adding new information to a page, or replacing or removing existing content in bad faith." (Types of vandalism) For what else but bad faith can make somebody to delete well referenced edits and replace them with sheer, unreferenced speculations?! He claims to be a pro-Michael or at least unbiased editor (by opposition to a presumed anti-Michael editor, i.e. me), but deletes references in which King Michael's own words support my edits?! This is a 2nd proof of his bad faith.
    Please, also check his Talk page out -- this user has a long history of aggressively pushing his own peculiar views bordering on vandalism on multiple articles, with or without references to support them, by reverting others' well-referenced edits. More of the same on this article... Yes, I did threaten to and will, indeed, report him of vandalism on the appropriate boards. I am just too tired at this late hour; will do so later on tomorrow.
    Last, but not least, my reverts comply with the BLP rules requiring removal of unsourced material. Nontrickyy (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    82.95.108.221 reported by NoCal100 (Result: Article protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: [118]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [124]

    IP vandal, has been blocked before for 3RR. I suspect this may be another sockpuppet of [[User:Bilinski], who was making the same edit prior to the IP, was blocked for edit warring, and subsequently resumed his edit war via at least 2 different IPs.

    Mountolive reported by LuisGomez111 /Outcome / no vio (yet)


    • Previous version reverted to: [125]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

    Mountolive keeps reverting (three times within 24 hours) a simple and well-cited fact in this article: that many people in Spain's Valencian region speak Catalan. LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User LuisGomez is pushing for having his preferred wording "the dish has become ENORMOUSLY popular" (despite lack of citation for "enormous", which is a peacock term which I removed) and "it enjoys moderate POPULARITY", which I changed into "acceptance" just to avoid being redundant with the immediately preceding sentence (which includes the word "popular" already). All in all it seems like a sulky revert by someone who won't accept the very nature of wikipedia. Please look into this [130] which I posted to explain my changes (without comment from him).
    User LuisGomez does not bother to discuss my reasons (he just claims that "they dont make sense to (him)", and, according to this [131] looks like he was willing to report and not being reported, while getting away with it in the end.
    As for the Valencian case, the convoluted wording "Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan, often refer..." is a really clumsy one, which, unfortunatelly, happens to be also of his preference, despite "Valencian speakers refer..." being much more easy-reading, synthetic and plain. At the Valencian article it is already explained in detail the filiation of Valencian and its status regarding Catalan. Needless to say that it is at the language article where these comments belong best, not at the paella article.
    I dont think he is understanding the nature of the 3RR. That does not serve to impose your point of view, but he should be commenting my reasons.
    All in all it looks like obvious wp:wikilawyering and wp:own case to me, and one of the most non-sense and stubborn reverts I've seen...but you may have seem worse, probably...
    I hope he is sanctioned for trying to put good-willed users into trouble with no other reason than his personal preferences. This kind of users are the very ones which make the wikipedia experience distasteful and break any given sense of community Mountolive le déluge 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Farcaster reported by Gogino (Result: Both editors blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [132]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [138]

    The user is experienced but behaves often against WP:Etiquette and defies all rules.
    He removed a notification of speedy deletion from his talk page [139].
    I complained and others did too: [140] [141] [142].
    But nothing helps. He threatened me in the edit summary: "If I have to, I will post your talk page here and neither of you will edit on wikipedia again." here. Gogino (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Closedmouth reported by User:Dexter_prog (Result: Semi-protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [147]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [152]

    The user is filling the article with wrong data (the band has not split up, but is on a hiatus) and continues to revert every edit made by any other user --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Semi for two weeks. Closedmouth has been reverting an IP vandal who was removing a large section from the article. The four 'reverts' above are not in the form of actual diffs. If the hiatus issue is important, I'd expect to see more discussion of it on the Talk page. Please continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stanazollo reported by Everyme (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [153]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [159]


    Stanazollo has been edit warring on Zeitgeist: Addendum about referring to The Venus Project, a project promoted in the Zeitgeist:Addendum, as communist in nature. This is a claim the website of the Venus Project itself disputes, yet instead of discussing it on talk, this user instead continually reverts the main article back to his/her preferred version. This user has even blanked the section I started in talk to discuss this and left "no point in discussing this here". Thanks, --Phirazo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, duplicated a report. However, I would like add another revert diff: [160], --Phirazo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came here to do the same. Added to list above as fifth. Everyme 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR violation plus removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    70.68.174.22 reported by Coppertwig (Result: Protected)





    70.68.174.22 (70) added several paragraphs in good faith to the Circumcision article, the first one beginning with "Circumcision of males represents a surgical ‘‘vaccine‘‘ against a wide variety of infections,..." However, 70 is continuing to re-add them against warnings and without talk page discussion(23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)). Circumcision has the Controversial template on the talk page to ask editors to discuss on the talk page before adding material. Other editors are reverting to the longstanding version, which is supported by myself, Pinkadelica, Pwnage8 and Jakew; no one other than 70 has expressed support for 70's version. Pinkadelica has reverted once; Pwnage8 has reverted 8 times and Jakew has reverted once. Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize: [161] 70 did participate in article talk page discussion. I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed. However, the other things I said still stand. Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know 8 reverts may seem excessive and irresponsible, but I was the only one keeping an eye on the page at the time. After Pinkadelica reverted the anon's edits, I was alone for a few hours and unsuccessfully tried to get the anon to discuss the changes before adding them. Even the warning messages didn't scare him away, and I had filed a 3RR report, but it just sat there gathering dust, while he continued the disruptive behaviour and I had no choice but to revert back to the right version and try to get him to discuss. Thank goodness Accuzier came along and gave him a warning, since I don't think the anon took me seriously because I was the only one. After that the anon stopped and I withdrew the 3RR report, partly because I was afraid of being blocked as well, and since blocking is a tool to prevent disruption, not punish editors. I guess RFPP would've been a better venue? I hope whoever reviews this case understands that I didn't want to revert so many times. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected 3 days full protection. Editors should try to get consensus on the Talk page before making large changes to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Spector reported by Wknight94 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [162]



    Standard single-purpose account POV pushing, blindly reverting, discussing nothing, pushing some political agenda on several political bio articles. Have a funny feeling a permablock is at the end of this road. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forayhoray reported by Mike Doughney (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [170]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [175]


    Single-purpose account pushing modifications to opening paragraph of article; previous version reflected consensus built over a number of weeks; this particular change, frequently attempted by anonymous contributors, has been consistently reverted by various editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected One day. Forayhoray is a relatively new editor who stopped reverting after the 3RR warning. The article itself is being chaotically reverted by all and sundry. There have been sixty article edits since the last Talk posting; most edits are reverts. Please take the active disputes to the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a semi-protection suffice? This blocks out virtually all editors because of the actions of a few mainly IP editors and apparently one relatively new editor. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To justify semi-protection it helps if you can show vandalism, socking or strongly POV editing from the IP side and not from the logged-in editors. Do you believe that is the case? EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some recent diffs from IP editors that have been reverted: [176]; [177]; and [178]. The editors with user names that were reverted were new accounts. Thanks for your consideration, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reduced to semi-protection, with a duration of one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Amwestover reported by dave souza (Result:blocked for 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [179]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [185]

    In this BLP of Joe Wurzelbacher, the editor was repeatedly deleting the subject's own words as reported in an interview with a reliable source, KARE11, October 16, 2008, Copyright 2008 by NBC. I've therefore blocked the editor for 12 hours.[186]

    Haiduc reported by Ottava Rima (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [192]

    This is not the first edit war the user has been involved in on that page within the past ten days, but edit warred over the inclusion of the individual in the category "History of pederasty". The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory. The major scholars in the field feel that there is just not enough information for various claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=246339213"