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 871: Line 871:


:: Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with date delinking: he violated 3RR on his primary account (Ohconfucius) and was blocked and subsequently used his alternate/sock account (Date delinker) to evade that block and continue editing. BTW: Is the autoblocker broken, I'd have thought he shouldn't be able to do that while blocked? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with date delinking: he violated 3RR on his primary account (Ohconfucius) and was blocked and subsequently used his alternate/sock account (Date delinker) to evade that block and continue editing. BTW: Is the autoblocker broken, I'd have thought he shouldn't be able to do that while blocked? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] reported by [[User:Moni3|Moni3]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Lesbian}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lihaas}}

<!-- 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&oldid=245096852

<!-- 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=Lesbian&diff=246409619&oldid=245096852
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=246842281&oldid=246830721
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=246854166&oldid=246847083
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=247945475&oldid=247879744
* 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253538710&oldid=252916691
* 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253540276&oldid=253539917
* 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=253819191&oldid=253709514
* 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254113168&oldid=253923056
* 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254221005&oldid=254114482

<!-- 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:Lesbian&diff=246859401&oldid=246858333
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254221020&oldid=254221005

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

Revision as of 13:34, 26 November 2008


    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.


    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


    195.210.193.210 reported by Eklir

    This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: [6], [7]. [8], [9]; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.

    This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. Eklir (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user also operates under 195.210.193.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 195.210.193.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eklir (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chuvash language page ended up protected. A cursory check-up on the anon. reveals that he has a long history of vandalizing the Tatars page where he has been accused of sock puppetry. He is using the whole range of 195.210.193.x (where x stands for a number between 1 and 254), thus avoiding getting blocked. He is also active on other Turk related pages, always with an anti-Turkic/anti-Turkish/pro-Russian stance dismissing opponent opinions as propaganda. The IP address 195.210.193.x points to a location in Ljubljana (Slovenia) operated by the ISP TELEKOM SLOVENIJE D.D. Something should be done about him. Eklir (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He came back as soon as the protection expired, so we either protect this and all other pages he edits until he tires of his crusade against "false information" (evidently a dictionary he doesn't like), or we deal with him as an edit warrior. He's also blanking the discussion page of any mention of him. He is not a sock AFAIK, just using a variable IP address. I've been blocking the addresses as he uses them, but that's rather pointless. Do we protect the discussion page as well?? kwami (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)

    • This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does however meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot has seemingly stopped delinking dates, so no use blocking it; however, I'll make Ohnoconfucius aware of this discussion for his input. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this may be a subject better covered at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's already indicated it's not a bot performing these edits (or at least, that was the original reason for his unblock) so the Bot owners' noticeboard wouldn't really apply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint is just part of a campaign mounted by certain users against anyone who dares to do anything which they disagree with, and includes various types of harassment such as spamming our talk pages, reporting us to WP:AN. I refuse to submit to the bullying of people who habitually use edit-warring to get what they want. No, I do not use a bot, and have been cleared of such. It can be see from my Mission statement, the pattern of edits, and what is actually being changed that I am executing the policy of removing links which do not belong in articles. I may also be changing [incorrect] date formats to ones agreed upon for country-specific subjects. No-one has validly pointed out in what way my edits are in breach of any relevant policies and guidelines. Whatever "warnings" have been issued to me by certain individuals are founded on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and policy- and guidelines- 'wishful thinking'. I believe previous dismissal of complaints they have made against other editors performing similar tasks, and the decision here not to take action against me are sufficient vindication. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really quite simple and I fail to see how you can't understand it: Wikipedia operates on consensus. The present wording at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and currently going through an RFC. You have been asked to stop performing these disputed edits until the situation is resolved (at the end of the RFC). You have chosen not to. This is edit warring. It is disruption. It's violating a previous ArbCom decision with regards to forcing your changes during an ongoing dispute. Whatever else you may think of me, my actions or whomever does not change these singular truths. There is no excuse to continue making disputed and disruptive edits especially when you're aware of the ongoing dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are trying to pick off your opponents one at a time. You failed with User:Dabomb87 and you have also failed here, so why don't you quit while you are ahead! ;-) I am inclined to tell you to do something to yourself which is physically impossible, but I realise behavioural guidelines prevents me from doing this, so take "GO AWAY" as the civil response. God spede, Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully anyone following this will note you've failed to address my statement as to which policies and guidelines you are violating by performing these edits. Hopefully they will further note that you don't appear to be agreeing to stop but rather seem to be taking joy in bringing disruption to hundreds of articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it would be a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that simply because you weren't blocked that it's a "vindication". You were spared because you "seemed to have stopped", not because what you were doing wasn't a violation of policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucius: please stop with the ad hominem. Attacking Locke due to his block log or whether he's out to get you or not is not the purpose here. If there isn't consensus on changing something, do not use your other account (I thought it was a bot but that has been clarified now) to change it anyway. Oh, and stop it with the incivility. I'm not blocking anyone now but that can change if you keep putting out veiled insults. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'm not vindicating anything you've done. I didn't block your account (just to be clear, your main account would be blocked in this case as you are the one facilitating the content dispute, not the alt account) because it stopped disputed activities. This doesn't mean it can continue; sort this out first. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has resumed his disruptive date delinking activities, in contravention of this edit warring case and this warning. See, for example, his edits to the following articles: Federico Luzzi, Francesca_Schiavone, Andreas Seppi, Roberta Vinci, Tommy Robredo, and Federico Luzzi. See this user's defiant statement of intent to continue the edit warring. Not only has this user resumed the disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the AWB rules of use. See this related edit warring case. Tennis expert (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Three things: Firstly, someone's being a nasty little snitch here. I'm not deliberately delinking dates, I'm primarily cutting down overlinking, and putting all dates into dmy format for certain category of articles. E&OE, there are no cases of deliberate date-delinking going on. Secondly, the RfC is well under way, and is headed for a landslide against Cole's side. Following his inexcusable attempt to bury Tony's RfC, I assert that Cole is totally lacking in good faith (and has been from the very start). Thirdly, mine is an AWB account approved within the last 10 days. In my application, attention was drawn to my Mission statement. I am certain that if the mission was considered 'unacceptable', they would have flagged it or blocked my application. They did not: ergo Quod erat demonstrandum. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my last post here, Ohconfucius (the owner of the Date delinker single-purpose account) has continued to engage in large amounts of date delinking activities. See, for example, his edits to the following articles: Veronika Martinek, Bianka Lamade, Julia Görges, Marc-Kevin Goellner, Andrea Glass, Otto Froitzheim, Benjamin Ebrahimzadeh, Hendrik Dreekmann, Isabel Cueto, Bettina Bunge, Ingo Buding, Karsten Braasch, Michael Berrer, Anca Barna, and Angelika Bachmann. There are undoubtedly many other articles affected by his date delinking activities given the large number of articles he has edited during the last few hours. Tennis expert (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see where this is a case of simple edit warring, and this page is not intended as a battleground. If there's a bot issue, take it there. Better yet, allow the RfC to continue, and if it supports undoing the edits, do so. Regardless, I don't see any issue here that a simple administrative intervention is going to solve. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you actually look at how Master of Puppets (MOP) has been dealing with this issue before you posted? If so, are you saying that MOP (an administrator) is wrong and should be overturned in favor of your opinion? Tennis expert (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I made it specific that "any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator." I do find the recent mass edits (from the 24th and back) to be pointy, although the edits are schemed to convert the American date scheme to the British date scheme. There is this blip regarding the British/English dates that can be found at WP:MOSDATES:


    It seems though that this account has been engaging in not only the conversion of the formats, which is not the issue here, but has been delinking en mass. You know very well there is a RFC ongoing, and that another will soon occur, and that those RFCs have not run their course yet. You are also well aware of the numerous AN/ANI/AN3 threads that have been ongoing regarding this controversial issue. Because of that, I have blocked for a period of 24 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elysander reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 24h)




    User:Elysander has been warned more than once about 3RR. He very rarely ever gives a viable reason in the edit summary for his reverts other than the fact that he believes his version to be the "stable" version. Although he can change the article in which case his changes become the new stable version. He also accuses people he disagrees with of making disruptive edits. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for E and I William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Switchintoglide (result: warned)

    User:Switchintoglide is a new user, like me, and is not responding to requests to stop removing my content from David_Ferguson_(impresario). I am attempting to add a well cited *Legal History* section to the article and requests for citations. The new section has had a Third opinion and mostly all of the recommendations were implemented with the exception of once which was not relevant since the information it requested was clear in the context of the article, but the review read the addition out of context. I have warned the user just now about the 3 reverts rule and have reverted the vandalism, putting me in violation of the 3RR myself. Please advise. I'm trying to play by the rules

    Cassandrar (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Presumed newbie, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightmouse reported by Tennis Expert (Result: )

    • Diff of dispute warnings: (1), (2)
    • Lightmouse has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the five diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR
    • My notification of Lightmouse about this edit warring case can be found here.

    — Tennis expert (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The admin who chooses to review this should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Special:Contributions.2FTennis_expert, where the general dispute recently received extensive administrative attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was largely sabotaged by an admin who not only blocked an editor but proceeded to engage in assisting pushing the other sides POV. Obviously the more background information people have on this the better, but hopefully nothing there will be used to excuse this disruptive behavior (when most people seem to be trying to help with the RFC). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note See also: Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#Locke Cole. And note two other reports by Locke Cole above, both of which were closed as no vio. You should really choose your wording more carefully LC; I was the blocking administrator and I failed to see how I "sabatogued" the extensive edit warring on both sides. In fact, and I've asked this three times already and have yet to receive a response (outside of "look in the archives"), but can you provide a link to a page that states consensus towards keeping the date-links? seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seicer you misrepresent things: the admin (Master of Puppets) of the Date delinker report above was quite clear that the only reason he took no action was because the editor appeared to have stopped. It wasn't a "no vio" as you claim... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Somewhere up above, I said Hmm, OK, from [17] it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. [18] appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) and I can't see any reason to revise that. Its not clear why Lightmouse's edits don't fall into the same category. Furthermore Lightmouse does appear to be in breach of the use conditions on AWB. This needs to be sorted out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC or Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) oe whereever William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note (e.c.) I'm sorry that the time of admins and others is going to be wasted here; this is part of a political campaign by several users at MOSNUM talk to threaten and bully those who work to have articles comply with community decisions that date autoformatting be no longer used and that date fragments not be linked (a battle that was resolved quite some time ago). Several users, among them Tennis expert and Cole, have been waging a war of intimidatory notices on talk pages, stalking, edit-warring and loud complaint. They are few in number, but make up for this in their loudness. They seem to be picking off users they disagree with one by one and taking such quasi-legal action as this, without success thus far. I can provide evidentiary links on request. Tony (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone is interested in the AWB guidelines, please note the following two extensive discussions on this topic here and here. The discussion included but was not limited to contributions by Tennis expert and Locke Cole. Lightmouse (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The guidelines are fairly clear: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding. You are very clearly doing something controversial. Everyone else seems prepared to wait for the RFC (no?); you should too William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to see a debate on ANI as to whether date delinking is a breach of AWB guidelines. But it would be a duplication of a previous debate within the AWB jurisdiction itself i.e. here and here. The outcome was that date delinking is not a breach of AWB guidelines. There is nothing to stop ANI duplicating AWB debates about AWB guidelines or finding another guideline that wasn't mentioned in the first debate. But it seems to me that if ANI is discussing a challenge under AWB guidelines, we need to go back to AWB and tell them they made a wrong decision. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doing controversial things is a violation of AWB guidelines. If date delinking is controversial, and it is, then date de-linking is a violation. Previous discussions about "inconsequential" seem... inconsequential. I don't see why it should go on ANI. Please join everyone else in waiting for the RFC William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is something controversial when one person stands up and shouts loudly in protest, or is two three or four enough? There are only 2 people standing on rooftops, jumping and waving flags, and I totally disagree that that is sufficient to make something controversial. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused. The AWB people said date delinking is an acceptable use of AWB. If the AWB decision was wrong because they forgot about the 'controversial' guideline then they need to be told of their error. I certainly don't think that date delinking is controversial despite vocal disagreement from editors like Tennis Expert and Locke Cole. If a challenge is to be made under AWB guidelines then the AWB people need to be told that their original decision is being looked at again. Lightmouse (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Since all editors have been notified in some fashion or another, and since this has gone on long enough at EW/AN/ANI with three reports that were all closed at one point or another, if there are any further de-linkings or linkings by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, or other involved editors, they will be blocked for a period of 24 hours. Gain consensus for this at the RFC, not by revert-warring. Furthermore, I suggest that all editors involved refrain from posting on each others talk pages; some of the comments generated on both sides is nonconstructive and unhelpful. seicer | talk | contribs 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I find it a regrettable and lamentable pronunciation - To grant what is effectively an injunction to delinking is capitulation to two loud bullies. We are just doing my bit to tidy up WP in accordance with guideines. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note (e.c.) TE's complaint above cited certain 'problematic edits': However, it would appear that the problems relate more to the incorrect date formats which litter WP. He complained about 5 here and another 5 on LM's talk page,which I have analysed as follows:
      • 1st edit: [19] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
      • 2nd edit: the [only] date link in [20] was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
      • 3rd edit: [21] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
      • 4th edit: [22]
      • 5th edit: [23]
    In User talk:Lightmouse#Follow-up_on_previous_warning_about_delinking_dates TE also warned about certain 'problematic edits'. It's the same story as above, I have analysed those cited as follows:
    1. Apollo 17 was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout;
    2. Royal League 2004–05 refers to Dutch Football, and was correctly converted by LM to dmy;
    3. the [only] date link in Secret Intelligence Service was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
    4. the [only] date link in Royal Knifefish was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
    These cases, chosen apparently at random to illustrate the 'offenses committed' by Lightmouse are actually symptomatic of the lack of consistency between articles, and clearly illustrates the important work LM is performing to effect compliance with WP:MOSNUM. It also illustrates the disruption being perpetrated by the complainant in concert with User:Locke Cole whether in terms of edit-warring, stalking or other actions against all who disagree with their stance. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr. Anymouse reported by Dlabtot (Result: user warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

    Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned There is no evidence that user was aware of the rule before this report was posted. I have reverted the user's post 3RR violation edits, warned the user of the rule and for the significant incivility on his page towards Dlabtot. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonies Chris reported by Tennis expert (Result:no vio)

    • Diff of dispute warning: [35]
    • Colonies Chris has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    and

    Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

    — WP:EDITWAR

    Tennis expert (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Since this is the fourth reported incident regarding date de-linking/linking, and the three were given no-vios, I've given Colonies Chris a warning and any further de-linking will result in a block. This applies to all involved in the AN/ANI/EW disputes; further edit warring will result in a block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Fourth incident, yes. But reported by the same two Spidermen acting in concert. Take that as you will. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A content dispute is a content dispute. Putting down the other side isn't going to change that. Anyway, let's not (de)link anymore until this whole mess is over. Sound good? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I come here to find that while I was sleeping I have been accused, judged, found guilty, warned and threatened with a block, all without any chance for me to reply. I will repeat that all my edits have been in line with the MoS. Tennis Expert and a very small number of others who don't like this part of the MoS have been trying to obstruct its implementation by repeatedy relinking dates (in clear violation of the MoS), harrassing editors and claiming that there is 'controversy' and 'no consensus', and going around putting official-looking warnings on the talk pages of editors who continue date delinking. And their obsessive relinkings have been supported by who else? No-one else. In fact, many other editors - including several who have not been involved in the autoformatting discussions, to preempt any accusations of there being an unlinking 'cabal' - have also unlinked dates in those articles (you might like to look at the edit history for any of the tennis articles that TE has repeatedly reverted), in an apparent attempt to overcome the disruption that TE was causing. Is there controversy, or just a lot of noise from a couple of very vocal opponents? I have hard evidence. In the month of October, I edited around 8000 articles; of these I estimate some 70% involved some form of date delinking. And how many editors complained to me about it? Six. About one in a thousand. Does that indicate that delinking is controversial, or does it indicate that there are just a couple of very noisy and determined people who won't accept that policy has changed? Tennis Expert did not mention that his earlier attempt to get me banned from using AWB was rejected. At least he has learned some civility - at that time, he took action against me behind my back, without even bothering to notify me. It is outrageous that I should be threatened with a block for implementing Wikpedia's own agreed Manual of Style. Both Tennis Expert and Locke Cole should be warned for harassing editors who are quietly trying to make this a better encyclopaedia for our readers, in full compliance with its own rules. If they don't like the MoS, they have a right to try to get it changed. And if they succeed, I will comply with the new rules, but until then I comply with the rules as they stand. I ask the admins to withdraw entirely unjustified warning and the threat of a block. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. Firstly, you don't have definite statistics on who supports this and who doesn't; the RFC is still ongoing. Secondly, if some editors have issues with something then you discuss it. Anyway, clearly the MoS isn't agreed on if this is happening. I appreciate that you are passionate on the delinking of dates but please respect the terms laid down until this is all over or then it starts raining blocks and generally unhappy things take place. Can you agree to wait this out? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and a note; edit warring is unacceptable, whether policy backs you or not. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been edit warring, despite TE's contrived attempt to allege that. Please withdraw that statement. I have simply been making edits in line with the MoS that TE does not like. Also, TE's statement that I have 'refused to participate in discussion' is completely untrue. I have been very much involved in the discussion, as my edit history on WP:MOSNUM etc. shows. And TE's suggestion that I am trying to 'enforce my POV' is nonsense. In the first place, POV has nothing to do with it, this is a disagreement about formatting, not content, amd in the second place the MoS is clear - autoformatting is deprecated. There's no room for 'POV' claims on that. Threatening to block me or other editors for implementing the MoS opens the door to any disruptive editor who's prepared to kick up a fuss to get their own way. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well... once again, having multiple editors agree with you does not give you free reign over any article because "policy says so". If users object, they object. If you continue to edit against their wishes, that is edit warring. Oh, and yes, he did accuse you of that. See this (this response probably doesn't make sense, editor changed previous post [36]):

    Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.

    — WP:EDITWAR
    I'm not up for arguing pointlessly over what edit warring is or who is right. There is a dispute here; stop the contested edits. Your understanding is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make the situation a little clearer. I am a gnoming editor. I make small changes to a large number of articles, on any subject. I rarely touch the same article twice. It is therefore significant that only a very small number of editors have objected, Tennis Expert being by far the most vocal of them. In cases where an editor has objected, I have explained my reasons to them, and then left the article alone. What's different here is that TE's objections are not limited to the articles he has an interest in, he's trying to stop me doing this at all, even to articles where no-one objects. And my experience is that in 999 cases out of 1000, no-one objects. And I'm now about to go to work, so I won't be communicating or doing anything else on WP again until this time tomorrow. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're exactly right; he dislikes the edits themselves, not the articles in questions. So as long as the edits stop, all will be well. Have a fun day at work! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So children, what have we learned today? We've learned that if you don't like what other people have decided, you just have to disrupt things by making lots of noise and repeatedly reverting other editors' work and complaining that they're all against you and making accusations in every available forum, and reverting their attempts to discuss anything on your talk page whilst accusing them - untruthfully - of not discussing things; and in a while a kind administrator will come along and give you what you want by stopping the nasty men from doing all those horrible things that are so upsetting you. And why? Because it's causing so much disruption! This administrator action sets an extraordinarily bad precedent Colonies Chris (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melkortheevil reported by User:Peter Fleet (Result: already blocked 24h )


    Comment User:Melkortheevil has already been warned for edit warring here and has chosen to ignore the warning. In the past two days he has reverted the Slipknot article 8 times and appears to be a single purpose pov account. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jamesontai reported by emerson7 (Result: pending)

    Template:Infobox University Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Jamesontai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 03:46, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 253326080 by Emerson7 (talk) image width for infoboxes are generally 225px. please don't change it. go2talk page?")
    2. 15:56, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253327072 by Jamesontai; Please do not undo my edit until you discuss this at WP:UNI.. using TW")
    3. 22:25, 22 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253408157 by Jamesontai; As I've said many times, please review this on WT:UNI. Further revisions of my edits will begin to be considered to be vandalism.. using TW")
    4. 08:48, 23 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7; I have already expressed my views on this issue on the edit summary. Any further revisions by emerson7 will now be considered as vandalism. See WT:UNI.. using TW")
    5. 03:24, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Emerson7 identified as vandalism to last revision by Jamesontai. using TW")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Note – Are you two seriously edit warring over— 25 pixels? Are 25 pixels seriously worth an edit war? Would the encyclopedia collapse and be lost forever if 25 pixels were either added or removed? I mean, it's not even a penis or something where size would matter anyway. Since you are both otherwise productive, rational, civil editors, I'll assume a solar flare or something else is interfering with your brainwaves, thereby somehow remotely causing this and do something I rarely do. You both have exactly two choices:
      1. You both get blocked for edit warring and this entire ordeal is subsequently added to our lamest edit wars ever page, or
      2. You both make use of third opinion or other dispute resolution steps, while I reserve full trout-slapping rights, even though I probably won't use them, because of how silly an edit war over 25 pixels is.
    The choice is yours. Continued edits to the page by either of you over any of that content without showing clear attempts at dispute resolution will likely get both editors blocked. Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels.
    ...and would you please make that redlink for the template's talk page disappear? Thanks.
    --slakr\ talk / 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (conflict here, was going to post a warning and protection result) Frivolous fight over the format of a template. Reporting user behaving no better than reported user, but both contributors have good records, and it would be a shame to block them over this one dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The only thing I've asked this editor to do, was discuss the changes the 25 pixels would do to the articles. This article concerns BLPs, which stretching/shrinking the 25 pixels could make a difference (by making a person's face seem fatter/slimmer). I've really done this by the book here. I've asked the editor to comment to WT:UNI#Template:Infobox University Chancellor or Template talk:Infobox University Chancellor. Since this template does effect many articles, a simple explanation of what exactly this will do to the other articles should not have been that hard to type out. I've posted on the template's talk page, WikiProject Universities' talk page, and have extensively commented my point of view on this issue on my user talk page. All I've asked for was an explanation, and since I did not get that response, I honestly cannot assume that this editor's intentions were honorable, which resulted in the reverts I have made. I have no intentions of creating or participating in an edit war. I personally recommend to have the template reverted to how it was before, have WikiProject Universities look at if this change is feasible or necessary, and move on from there - therefore taking myself and Emerson7 out of this process. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support protecting the template until WP:UNI has the chance to review it as well. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing, I think what I've done is the textbook definition of trying to reach WP:BRD, hence, not an edit war necessarily. Trying to get an editor to discuss his edit should not be considered edit warring. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly didn't see the part where I stated, "Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels., but if you wish to ignore that, I can help clarify:
    1. His edits clearly were not vandalism,
    2. In my opinion, you told, not asked the other editor to do something ([37]) by calling disagreement vandalism, and
    3. You also appear to have used rollback (or at the very least twinkle without using rollback) in what was clearly a content dispute— not vandalism.
    Page protection, although another admin added it, shouldn't be needed for something like this. In fact, I'm wondering why I'm still even typing this. You both know what you need to do: WP:3O, talk page, or pick a WP:DR step. --slakr\ talk / 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time you start a lame edit war... God orphans a baby polar bear
    Well, having WP:UNI look at it (which I made that request days ago) was essentially my attempt at WP:3O. But look, I don't want to drag this out any further, I'm not touching that template page. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment in all fairness--and in weak defense--i made several attempts at dialog with user:james l. tai, on his talk page where i pointed out that my edits were minor, and asked him for his specific objections. i regret not also posting to the article's talk, and not considering the toxic effects to wikipedia and endangered small fuzzy wildlife. mea culpa. --emerson7 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So... what now? We've stopped editing - do we agree to have 3rd parties look at this? And stop calling me James (both of you)... that's not my name. -_- - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Radeksz reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [38]



    This editor is making repeated ongoing reversions of WP:OR material for days, despite consensus that its improper; see e.g., opinion offered [43] Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Might be slightly more than 24 hours apart, but the user is clearly (by his/her own edit summary) aware of 3RR and is acting disruptively. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ewps. I also Page protected the page for 1 week, before having seen your block, mainly because it looks like Piotrus (talk · contribs) is also involved, plus ominous "ally" phrasing gives overtones of wikibattle. --slakr\ talk / 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to that either, hopefully will give it some time to cool down. I would of course encourage all parties involved to engage in civil discussion, and if that cannot resolve the matter, to seek dispute resolution rather than continuing this edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I support protection. Please see this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1RR_violation_report thread for some additional facts. Also, while not a 3RR violation, skirting of 3RR by that user may deserve at least a stern warning: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff cited earlier as evidence of 3RR is clearly a warning to Malik Shabazz about his editing, not an acknowledgment by Radek of his own error. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A link cited as "Diff of 3RR warning" is there to demonstrate that the editor in question knew about the rule. And indeed it shows Radeksz warning User:Malik Shabazz about the rule two days before violating it himself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All active editors are aware of the rule -- even the admin who blocked Radek was, himself, blocked at one time for 3RR. The question is whether Radek was aware that his actions were in violation of 3RR -- if you assume good faith, it would suggest that he did not. In any event, it needs to be pointed out that Radek's last edit was at 1;12am, the article was locked at 7:09am, and Radek was blocked at 7:12am. Six hours passed between the final edit and the block. Considering it is now impossible for anyone to engage in edit warring on that article and that Radek was not cited for edit warring elsewhere, the block against Radek can be seen strictly as punishment rather than prevention of a continued edit war on that specific article. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was clearly aware of 3RR, he was clearly aware that he was edit warring. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to come as close as possible to vioalting it in the course of your edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you writing about Malik? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm writing about the editor who violated 3rr in the course of repeatedly restoring material that violated WP:OR and in the course of repeatedly restoring his own personal viewpoints into the article. That would clearly be Radek. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    64.85.234.166 reported by Goodraise (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [52]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [57]

    -- Goodraise (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    93.133.95.57 reported by Kman543210 (Result: 31 hours)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    User made almost the exact same edits and engaged in an edit war on 26 and 27 of September. Continues to force same edit deemed not relevant by at least 3 different editors without discussing the changes on talk page or providing any kind of edit summary. (Kman543210 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Blocked by Tikiwont. Mangojuicetalk 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Threeafterthree reported by Factchecker_atyourservice (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: There were dozens of deletions. In each case there wasn't any specific "version" that was being restored; just a section of material being deleted.


    Reverts/deletions:

    Deletions of the material in question:

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


    • Removal a POV tag (here) which I added due to the ongoing deletions. User cites lack of consensus to add POV tag as the reason for removing the tag!
    • Deletion of source from the article here, followed by addition of {fact} tag here since the statement no longer had a source after he deleted it, followed by another deletion of the source after it was added again.
    • Discussions of previous blocks for edit warring or deletion of talk page comments here, here, and here.


    This is an issue of edit warring, not specifically 3RR, but from the FAQs it seems this is still the appropriate place to address edit warring. A formal 3RR warning was never issued, as this has been an ongoing and long-term pattern of behavior. I am not sure there were ever actually 3 reverts in 24 hours. However, I repeatedly requested that the user participate in the discussion and efforts towards compromise rather than simply deleting the material over and over again.

    The material in question has been the subject of intense debate among editors working on the Palin article, with large numbers of people either feeling that the published analysis and opinions on the subject should be reflected, and others feeling it was not relevant. Over time we reached a modest compromise in which the material was reflected in a few brief and conservative sentences. However, during that whole process, this user's primary contribution was to simply delete the material over and over.

    You may notice that nearly every single edit summary is "Rv per talk" or "Please see talk", but his comments in the talk pages are largely limited to "this goes in the Fannon bio", or "Deleted this". The user's argument, which he offers as a rubber stamp to legitimize the repeated deletion rather than actually seeking discussion, is that this issue is completely irrelevant to Palin, even though the numerous sources are discussing it in connection with Palin and based on Palin's notability and political office, not Fannon's. The material changed over time, as editors wrestled with (and argued over) the question of which published opinions would be reflected, and to what extent, if at all. However, ThreeAfterThree's response was always the same – deletion of the whole section. Recently, after being warned to stop deleting the material, he initiated an RFC seeking support for his deletion, and then simply resumed deleting the material after a grand total of TWO comments were posted.

    Simply put, in my opinion, this is an ongoing pattern of abusive edit warring, and I believe his ultimate goal is to continue doing this until other users get sick and tired of opposing him and simply let him have his way. My own experience has been that discussion with this user proves fruitless. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "I will continue to revert your vandalism based on about 12 separate wikipedia policies including most of the 5 pillars. Please see again my warning on your talk page and do not delete that warning again. Consider this to be an additional warning that I will seek to have you blocked if you persist in deleting this material which was achieved by arduous consensus among numerous editors" and similar remarks at Talk:Sarah Palin should be ample evidence that FCays is not an innocent in this. Collect (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Some of those deletions you point to are very old. I can see people reverting, including you. I can see Tom starting an RFC. I can you saying "see the consensus", but I can't see the consensus. Please point it out, rather than shouting THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN which is not very helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion in which the two opposing sides compromised on a brief rendition can be found here. The actual portion where a compromise was reached can be found under the subsections "Fcreid's proffered language" and "Was there a controversy?" I'd like to point out that the "other side", i.e. the one that preferred not to include it at all, participated extensively in shaping the wording, and the discussion was closed with them being satisfied that it was reflected conservatively, albeit with stated reservations that they did not feel the media coverage reflected the issue fairly (on this, I strongly disagree).
    I recognize that my use of all caps was poor form, but it reflected my intense frustration at having participated in such a long and in-depth discussion, only to have the result wiped out with only a token comment such as 'See talk.. this goes in the Fannon bio' or 'this is a non-issue'. So much work to discuss and compromise, repeatedly nullified by a single user. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the edits that you adduce as evidence of misdeed predate the consensus you point to. No vio. This is a content dispute; both sides are reverting and are equally liable to block. Your consensus can be re-opened; sorry if thats frustrating. Further discussion on the article talk, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the possibility of revisiting the discussion that bothers me; it's the fact that a user may make any argument at all, and it need not be actually based in policy to have force.. resulting in Wikipedia ultimately relying on a vote among users who care about the article topic but not necessarily about policy. The only thing, apparently, that can prevent this from happening is for a conscientious user to invest vast amounts of time and take extraordinary measures just to ensure that policy is observed. This is quite disturbing and I fear it means that Wikipedia is simply a medium for free advertising or free publishing for those who wish to use it as such, while those who wish to preserve editorial integrity essentially serve as free labor for a large, monied foundation that makes scant effort to enforce its own stated rules. Truly a Wild West where honesty is rewarded with scorn and plenty of extra work. Oh well. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BSCOUT13 reported by Foofighter20x (talk) (Result: 24h)

    President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BSCOUT13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 01:02, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 253700327 by A new name 2008 (talk)")
    2. 20:44, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 253701451 by Evilhairyhamster (talk)")
    3. 20:47, 24 November 2008 (edit summary: "/* Electoral College */") This last one wasn't a revert per se, but an edit that went in and undid the previous revert removing this guy's vandalism

    —Foofighter20x (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. We can't have rubbish scrawled over this article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Orangemarlin reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [67]


    • 1st revert: [68]
    • 2nd revert: [69]
    • 3rd revert: [70] Complex revert, reverting edits by more than one user.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

    User seems to find it very important to give the reader the impression that fibromyalgia is a controversial, psychosomatic disease. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever. This user has been blocked 5 or 6 times for edit warring. These were legitimate edits for NPOV improvement, they were not the same edit, and this is pure and simply harassment. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation Only three reverts are listed above; it takes four to break 3RR. In fact, Orangemarlin has only three groups of consecutive edits in this period, so he can't have gone over the limit. I looked at Guido's numerous edits but could not tell which ones were reverts. Any admin is welcome to analyze the history further. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So nothing has changed. User is clearly editwarring, destroying all edits from multiple users, but if he only manages to put his reverts into three edits a day he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DHawker reported by MastCell (Result: 24 hours)


    Note there's a 5th revert in there, using an IP, which I'm pretty sure is related: 22:43, 24 November 2008 (undoes this earlier edit). In any case, long-term edit-warring from a single-purpose agenda account on colloidal silver. MastCell Talk 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a 6th revert from a diffent IP, but there are clearly 4 reverts here. (I'm an involved admin, so I may not block.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours There is a plain-vanilla 3RR violation here, since there are four 'Undos' by DHawker in the space of 24 hours. If another admin believes that there are edit-warring issues here that call for research on other participants, go ahead. Since 3RR can be observed without considering any IP socking issues, I haven't drawn any conclusion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (Result: Editor claims reform, meatpuppets are still being watched)

    Since his last block for disruption/edit warring, which is still listed on this page, Veecort has continued to edit war.

    Veecort has also been using sockpuppet IP addresses. SSP/Veecort

    There was no 3RR warning diff, but as he's been warned about both edit warring in general once and 3RR in specific twice, I believe it is safe to assume he knows better and simply doesn't care.

    McJeff (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This issue is also at ANI, SSP and RFCU just now. By this edit of 05:06 on 25 November, Veecort appears to be undoing some of his changes that had previously been criticized. Perhaps McJeff can comment if this means Veecort is giving up the edit war. This board would not usually sanction an editor who had promised to stop warring. If he has *not* stopped, this does look like a case for an edit-warring block. Veecort admits his dislike of ITT here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Veecort is undoing the edits, I don't think he needs to be blocked. Blocks should be preventive, not punative. I probably misspelled punative. ~Anyway, if he continues I can note it here, on ANI or privately, whichever would be best. McJeff (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to strikethrough my previous comment. Veecort's admitted meatpuppet 70.190 has not agreed to "edit nice", and instead has posted a personal attack and lie about my block log on the article talk page. When a user apologizes for bringing in meatpuppets, is he still held accountable for the actions of his meatpuppets after his apology? Is a meatpuppet considered to be a part of a dispute from the beginning or from the point he joined in? McJeff (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More admins have joined the corresponding ANI discussion since this 3RR was filed. That's also the thread where Veecort seems to promise reform. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No action. Veecort seems to have reformed, so the remaining problem is that he solicited help with this article on an anti-ITT forum. The article is still semi-protected by User:J.delanoy. Re-open the case if you see continuing problems with the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orderinchaos reported by Dissembly (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]

    This user has been engaged in edit warring, rather than simply violating the three-revert-rule.

    I have been editing this article at around the same time, and i have modified all of my edits to take criticism and disputes into account (e.g. refining references to include chapter and page numbers, changing disputed wording to reflect only source material and no original research, etc...).

    However, after each and any edit, User:Orderinchaos has clicked the "undo" button. User:Orderinchaos has made no new contributions and no attempt to compormise on wording with their own edits, instead using the "undo" button (this is the first reason i beleive this fits the "Edit warring" mindset). This has caused User:Orderinchaos to revert edits wholesale on two occasions, making it no longer possible to make even uncontroversial additions without them being deleted (see first and second reverts linked above). In addition, User:Orderinchaos has been using the comment field of the "Edit article" page to make personal attacks/threats, which can be still be seen in the History tab[76]. (This is the second reason why I suspect this fits the definition of an "edit warring" mindset.)

    In addition, i have been informed by another user that User:Orderinchaos has made references to collecting "offline information" about me. I have no further information as to what User:Orderinchaos means by "offline information", but this may begin to push it into the realm of RL harrassment/stalking, and constitutes a third reason to suspect this user to be engaging in Wikipedia with an "edit warring" mindset. (Updated to add: I have been informed that Friojolez8282 has submitted a formal complaint on this matter to Wikipedia Oversight.)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [77]

    I am not sure what penalties are due for this sort of behavior, but I believe that the innappropriate comments this user has been making in his "comments" field[78] should be removed entirely (is that possible?). I also wished to draw this to the administrators attention, as this kind of behaviour discourages users from returning to engage with Wikipedia edits at all. The reference this user has reportedly made to having an "offline" interest in me is particularly troubling. Dissembly (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have been perfectly reasonable in dealing with a person who, with a friend, is determinedly attempting to drive a far-left agenda on an article about a Minister of the Australian government and force violations of WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:NPOV into the article. I became involved as I saw the edit war the two users in question had gotten into with one of the Australian Politics project's regular contributors, and ended up concluding the latter was entirely right in their judgement that the content in question should not be in the article. The off-Wiki information, all available online through what I would consider to be both common-sense and non-intrusive means, merely demonstrated that the two users were closely linked and are student activists in the real world. I think it is important that Dissembly and his friend learn that process-warring (including bizarre allegations [79] [80] [81], wanton misinterpretation of policy, and meatpuppetry ([82] [83]) is not an acceptable means of obtaining a content outcome. The person has not shown any wish to negotiate honestly on the topic on the talk page, has rebuffed any attempt to intellectually engage, leaving questions about the edits unanswered on the talk page or using them as a springboard for more personal attacks. No page numbers, by the way, were ever provided.
    The user's claims are frivolous (I challenge anyone to find anything inappropriate in the edit summaries linked, or oversightable, for that matter) and should be dismissed as those of a person who failed to push their point of view on a high visibility article because an admin with some background knowledge in the field (Australian politics) got involved. As a user with almost 40,000 edits to my name, nearly all of them development of new content or expansion of Wikipedia's coverage, and with endorsements such as this, together with the user's own spotty history, I think there's some WP:AGF issues apparent. Orderinchaos 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing but a series of unfounded allegations and bizarre attempts to slander my name. Is there an administrator here? Dissembly (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Orderinchaos' comments. Timeshift (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no inappropriate edit summaries, rather I see removal of largely inappropriate edits. I would strongly caution Dissembly that making frivolous reports just makes his or her behavior more disruptive, and I would advise that (s)he take a close look at the situation before editing again. As to Orderinchaos, good job keeping cool in a difficult situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seraphimblade, i have made no innappropriate edits in my history with Wikipedia. In any case, it is not my behaviour that is being questioned here. I have never made a "frivolous report", and i find this assertion to be inappropriate and a violation of the "Assume Good Faith" policy of Wikipedia. Are you an administrator? Dissembly (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia does tend to work by the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" maxim. Orderinchaos 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To answer Dissembly's question - both Orderinchaos and Seraphimblade are administrators. Timeshift (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohconfucius reported by Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [84]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [89]


    Editor is repeatedly removing my comments from another editors talk page and refuses to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours, and some advice for both of you to leave one another alone as every interaction seems to end rather badly. In this case, however, Ohconfucius' behavior is far outside the bounds of what is acceptable, and has been repeated despite warnings. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I generally do try to steer clear of his edits, but unfortunately he appears to pick fights with me over seemingly trivial things (like these talk page comments). I will continue to try and avoid this editor if possible. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: this editor seems be evading his block using his sockpuppet. See Date delinker (talk · contribs) (note the user page makes clear it is owned by Ohconfucius). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note Ohconfucius was blocked at 06:10, 25 November 2008; his edits at Date Delinker post Ohconfucius-block have been dealing with overlinking, such as this -- not date de-linking. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohconfucius was blocked for a violation of WP:EW (specifically 3RR), not for his date unlinking activities. This is a case of block evasion (see WP:EVADE). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • I was not going go comment using this account, but seeing as this is no longer an incidental matter, I thank User:Locke Cole for the opportunity to respond to one in many of the ongoing series of attacks against not only me (and some other users) personally, but obstructing us from carrying out what is otherwise considered by the vast majority of users as cleaning up by running to WP:AN. The separation of functions between the two accounts is crystal clear, it always has been, and always will be. Date delinker was blocked for delinking dates, albeit as a secondary result of reducing the extent of overlinking. DD has never done anything which is not specified explicitly in the mission statement; the account has only been working on date-delinked articles since blocking was lifted. It will be clear from a review of Coles contributions that he has been working on all cylinders in an attempt to challenge, using all means at his disposal, the current consensus on deprecation of date-autoformatting. I will once again civilly mention that Cole has been persistently stalking, spamming certain users' talk pages including User:Tony1 and myself, but WT:MOSNUM and reporting us to WP:AN to the extent that several of us have asked him to desist in his harassing. Acting together with User:Tennis expert, they have filed cases against fure user who have been delinking dates or generally been opposing what they are doing, while none have descended to theur level by filing any counter-reports here. The block on User:Ohconfucius has not been lifted, which is a great travesty because my protagonist just got off with a wrist slap whereas I got slapped in the face. Even yesterday, before Cole started putting unwanted messages on Tony's talk page, he already asked Cole to stop his harrassment. I answered his call because I knew he was being tied up with clients, and Tony later specifically gave me dispensation to remove the spam posted to his talk page. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius)hard problemsproverbs 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gune reported by Kraftlos

    Gune has been repeatedly reverting sub-pages of List of One Piece characters that have been merged and redirected through month and a half long merge discussion. He has exceed three reverts of these pages and has received warnings for his actions, however the behavior continues. I'd like to see some sort of administrator intervention. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically here, there have [[]] been 3 reverts, however he's reverting other pages as well. He was blocked in October for doing the exact same thing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    Roronoa Zoro

    Sanji

    Tony Tony Chopper


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96] Warned by 2 editors.


    Edit: Fixed the format. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. You both merged the pages with the only concensus being you two when multiple editors have disagreed. Besides this isn't breaking the three revert rule unless I did it once more time. Gune (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll let the admin decide. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that this has nothing to do with the merge discussion. We held it from mid October until now and he decided that it wasn't important enough to voice his opinion (though he were actively editing other articles the whole time). This is just a case of WP:ILIKEIT. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. Only the ships were agreed to be merged along with Franky and Brook. No other pages were agreed on. Only you and Goodraise supported all character merges. Multiple editors disagreed. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and just because you both think you own Wikipedia. In fact when Goodraise put the Sanji page up for deletion it was a reopen merge discussion consensus not merge anyway just because I like to think I own Wikipedia. Gune (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, we're not talking about the merge discussion. You had over a month to present arguments against these merges and you didn't take that opportunity. Edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RetroS1mone reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: no vio)

    • 1st revert: [97], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [98][99]
    • 2nd revert: [100], contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits: [101][102]
    • 3rd revert: [103], reverting the following edit: [104]
    • 4th revert: [105], reverting the following edit: [106]
    • 5th revert: [107]

    User is editwarring on multiple articles, basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. User seems to be stalking me, showing up at an article that he normally doesn't edit only to delete my one remaining edit. Between him and Orangemarlin on Fibromyalgia, they have deleted most of a full day's work. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guido has listed five reverts to five different pages in this posting and should probably be sanctioned for abusing this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this at WP:ANI and Guido has refused to modify or remove this frivolous report. Verbal chat 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do none of you ever read any policies?
    For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't shown edit warring occurring on any of those pages, let alone multiple pages. Verbal chat 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are right there, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So is your contention that anyone that reverts the same editor anywhere on the project, more than four times, within a "protracted" period of time, is edit warring? Because if it is I think your reasoning is highly faulty. There has to be some edit warring first. Verbal chat 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editwarring is an attitude; the number of reverts is by itself not decisive. The key element here is that user reverts my every edit on sight. What I content is that if you recognize the common denominator in all these reverts, you may better understand what is going on. That, however, requires some knowledge of the topic, which you may not possess. Wikipedia is weak that way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome and Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome in both cases R only reverted one of G's edits, so clearly isn't blind-reverting. In both cases an edit comment offered a plausible explanation for the revert, so I don't think basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. is a reasonable description of the situation. This is your second rejected report in as many days; don't make a third William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no way of knowing beforehand whether a report is going to be rejected, so basically you're saying that I should never again make a report but instead simply allow my every edit to be reverted without protest. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you to every one that defended me today, this is intolerable behavior for editor just off month block. Guido, you can know beforehand a report is going to be rejected when what you are reporting is not edit warring. Here is quote from WP 3RR, "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." so is obvious, Orangemarlin reverted most twice, I reverted most once. Pls do not waste peoples time like this again. RetroS1mone talk 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a separate edit on a 6th article!! I explained my edits, I was changing POV and original research by Guido and a IP. RetroS1mone talk 07:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgia (Result: No action)

    Irakli

    Georgia


    Dear administrators,

    I have a question to you:

    Does russian Wiki have the right to amputate two Georgian regions and subtract their area from the whole area of the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.169.110 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No action. We have no jurisdiction over the Russian Wikipedia. Please ask administrators there what to do. Here is what appears to be their Administrators' Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jamo9503 reported by User:195.58.69.62 (Result: 1 month for vandalism)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [link]
    • 2nd revert: [link]
    • 3rd revert: [link]
    • 4th revert: [link]

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.58.69.62 (talk • contribs)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    Blocked – for a period of 1 month Long-term vandalism. Two previous blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Thunderer reported by Domer48 (Result: 24h all round)


    • Previous version reverted to: [110]



    Thunderer has been told of the WP:IMOS and has insisted of reverting against consensus. They recently had 7 3RR reports on this very subject here. They were blocked and apologised, and the next day started again here and now the report above. They have been asked not to keep reverting here and to come back to the mediation we are involved in by the mediator here but with no luck. Reporting here is now the only option left open. --Domer48'fenian' 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    T is edit warring, but not against consensus. I'm very surprised you put in such a one-sided report. But nonetheless, 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you William M. Connolley I hope it helps. I had written up the 3RR for the other editor when I coped I had not given them a 3RR warning, so I could not file the report. It appears however, it was not nessary since you blocked them? As to consensus, it forms no part of this report. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As to consensus, it forms no part of this report - a bizarre statement, since you plainly did make it part of the report William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You said yourself T was edit warring, end of story. Your opinion on the issue of consensus forms no part of this report. And yes it was against consensus, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Domer48'fenian' 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    65.31.103.28 reported by Plastikspork (Result: No Blocks issued)


    • Previous version reverted to: [117]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

    I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but the user is unwilling to talk about it first before making edits. Instead, the user has threatened to "block me" if I touch the page again. See Talk:The Real World. I believe some discussion should take place before edits to this section continue. Plastikspork (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh! I never violated the three revert rule. The first one wasn't a reversion! Plastikspork is confusing the first time I added the info to the article with a reversion. Also, the first time Plastiskspork made the reversion, he didn't explain why. It was a constructive edit so I didn't see why he reverted it without at least giving me an explanation so then I wrote 'unexplained reversion' when I reverted it back. He merely replied in edit summary to "go to the talk page if you want to make this edit" without attempting to do so himself. I explained that every editor doesn't have to go to the talk page before they make an edit on Wikipedia. I then warned him that he would be violating the three revert rule at his 3rd revert this is how he has responded. Only at the last minute did he actually start up a discussion and explain to me what he had a problem with on the talk page, making no attempt to do so in his edit summaries. 65.31.103.28 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But the other three edits of course still leads to the edit war. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does seem that they are working it out now. I see no need to block.

    Actually, I'm 99 percent sure Plastikspork has resorted to sockpuppetry in order to get his way and make his forth reversion as this IP user here [123]. here he agrees with Plastikspork on the talk page [124] . IP user decided to make his first edits as a reversions and in our debate on the article agreeing with Plastikspork, if you'll notice his edit history: [125] 65.31.103.28 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit warring at Tatars (result: block; semi)

    This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:Fnr Kllrb 48h for edit warring etc. Also SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) which should help William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Ohconfucius

    Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR but proceeded to evade that block using a sockpuppet Date delinker (talk · contribs). I'm raising the issue here as my comment in the report above seems to have been missed. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not a sock, its an alternate account. Blocked 24h anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with date delinking: he violated 3RR on his primary account (Ohconfucius) and was blocked and subsequently used his alternate/sock account (Date delinker) to evade that block and continue editing. BTW: Is the autoblocker broken, I'd have thought he shouldn't be able to do that while blocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lihaas reported by Moni3 (Result: )




    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=254221020&oldid=254221005


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=254223879"