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
Line 1,054: Line 1,054:


'''Note:''' Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious [[WP:COI]] issues. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
'''Note:''' Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious [[WP:COI]] issues. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

: All I have asked for is a chance to add a refutation to a pack of lies put up about me. This is only fair, is it not?
I see that you yourself have now agreed to allow me to refute the allegations. So why, if I may ask, if you have now agreed to put it in, did you object so strongly to me putting them in the first time around?
Anyway, as long as it stays like that, I am satisfied.
[[User:Arthur Kemp|Arthur Kemp]] ([[User talk:Arthur Kemp|talk]]) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:15, 10 January 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

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


    Melonbarmonster2 reported by Jeremy (Result: Editors warned about tags)

    Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{disputed}} and {{POV-section}} tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

    I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for other histories of this user

    --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Could you provide diff links please? — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as Kuebie (talk · contribs), and KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--Caspian blue 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per WP:Truce, and am working on a mediation request, etc..
    • Comment - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the 3R policy, his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to disruptive editing. The sum total of his behaviors is edit warring which is the problem we are dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.

    Please note that I asked for a

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=260623905&oldid=259731575


    Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute disruptive editing and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.
    Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here[[1]].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be respected, but no-one is bound by it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point but this block of editors are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who are disagreeing with them and are revert warring, and stonewalling discussion in the talk page. This is why I suggested that we try to come up with a list of issues to be mediated and move this into formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support WMC's suggestion that if he continues, I think he should be blocked. This would imply that M2 would be blocked the next time he restores the tags. His commitment to WP:Dispute resolution is very hard to discern, given that he was the only one to reject the mediation. He seems to feel that he is entitled to do infinite reverts because mixed views were expressed in the last RfC. *Active* search for dispute resolution should immunize an editor from blocks for warring, but just sitting around and repeating the old reverts is not actively seeking consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just false. I have worked hard in trying to move the discussion toward dispute resolution protocols and have refrained from making changed to text or moving the subsection in the talk page. If you take a careful look in the talk page sections about Christ's mediation request, I explained that while I agree with mediation, I do not agree with the "issues to be mediated" listed in that particular request. I also proposed we take our eyes off the article in WP:truce and suggested that we work together on a issues to be mediated list TOGETHER and file another mediation request. That truce had worked and was in effect until Jeremy instigated this last spat of reverting. Unfortunately, the block of editors sitting on this issue are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who disagree with them(ignoring RfC results) and Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Melonbarmonster2, just promise that you would not persistently revert to include the templates from now until the dispute is settled. If the other two editors who support your view reverted to your version, you may have stood on a better positon. However, they just left their onions to the talk page. The content itself is not disputed, and you're against its "categorization". However, the templates serve for "content dispute". So please present your solution for the dispute rather than reverting at this time. Chris has tried to compromise with you as changing the header, Staple foods to Foodstuffs, but you have not shown anything to end the dispute. I think further insistence only may invite you a block.--Caspian blue 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually suggested that we create separate section for "fringe food culture" that includes dog meat along with other fringe foods to no avail. Instead of relevant responses all I've been getting is Jeremy and other revert warring and refusing to even bother consider that categorizing dog meat along with vegetables is factually inaccurate. I honestly think categorization and subsections qualify as being "content". I've been working hard to move this discussion toward a resolution and have held back making changes to the text of the article or moving the "dog meat" subsection without consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're currently shooting your feet. Drop it now.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The editor attempting to remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article, and his/her supporters, state that it's not eaten every day in Korea. Neither is sujeonggwa or many other dishes or drinks mentioned in that article, yet they are highly notable and worthy of mention. The section heading was changed from "Staple foods" to "Foodstuffs" at the urging of Melonbarmonster2, in an effort to generate consensus, but that still was not enough: s/he wishes all mention of dog meat to be removed from the article, despite the significant tonnages slaughtered and consumed per day, the thousands of restaurants, etc. We either aim to be encyclopedic or we do not. Excluding, or censoring content because it makes editors from certain ethnic or national groups feel bad about themselves due to being seen in a negative light by other cultures (ironically, this editor claims that s/he supports the legalization of dog meat consumption and sale) is not a business we are in at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never asked for censoring or exclusion of content. But this is the strawman that this block of editors have created for themselves. Even in spite of my many explanations that this is not my position they've ignored my real position and have repeated this false mantra over and over again stonewalling any progress on this article. Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Badagnani is deliberately saying such the untruth from bad faith. It should be noted that Badagnani and Melon have made a long-term rivalry over one year which is indeed disruptive to the article. As far as I've known, Melonbarmonster never claimed to exclude the whole section, but the section should be moved to appropriate space. Unlike your false claim, Sujeonggwa is mentioned in the article (see Korean cuisine#Non-alcoholic beverages) Also your comparison is totally false. It has been sold in canned item for over 10 years, can be found anywhere in any grocery store, convenient store, or vending machine unlike dog meat. It is also irony that Badagnani was blocked for disruption at the article by Jeremy's report.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have said most of what I have wanted to say on the talk page for Korean cuisine. As stated I compromised and changed the heading for the "staple foods" to foodstuffs, which I actually agree was a good change. Melonbarmonster2's argument is that dog meat is not equal to the other animal proteins as it is not consumed as often as they are. I say, let's ask the Buddhists in the country then if they feel that any of the animal proteins should be consumed, they might argue that their version of Korean cuisine should not have any meat included in the Korean cuisine article. The issue here though is not content dispute, it is the fact that Melonbarmonster2 is not actively discussing what he/she wants done to the article, only that they feel that dog meat isn't presented properly and continues to just repeat it over and over and over again while reverting the tags a multitude of times. Maybe it wasn't in 24 hours, but as the policy states, multiple reverts outside of the 24 hour time period constitutes edit warring, which is held in the same context as the 3RR. The editor refused to take part in the mediation I proposed, stating they did not believe the issue was represented properly, although all of the other editors agreed, and then their contribution to the Rfc was pointless as well as they made a statement, but made no academically sound rebuttal. Instead he/she is just instigating edit warring, wehter intentional or not, they have been given ample room to expalin themselves and they have not. As I am involved with the content of this article, I do not feel appropriate in enforcing any Admin. responsibilities as it would be a conflict of interest.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically stated that I agreed with the mediation but not the issues listed in that particular request. I've stated this clearly from the beginning.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that this report should have been on ANI, not here. Well, Jeremy, Chirs and Badagnani reverted more than once (twice or triple) for the templates which are also edit warring.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you disagree with how the mediation request was framed. What initiative will you take to reach the next step? Believe it or not, when there are more people on the other side sometimes that indicates that *consensus* is against you. ("Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.") EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, RfC results clearly show I'm not alone in feeling this categorization is factually inaccurate. I also proposed from the VERY BEGINNING in the first mediation request page that we should come up with a list of issues to be mediation that is acceptable by involved parties and file a new mediation request. But discussion is currently stonewalled, not by me, but the block of editors are refusing to move beyond strawman positions, claiming consensus in spite of at least 3 editors who have voiced dissent and refusing to acknowledge different views. They are not even acknowledging my good faith disagreement on the edit issue because they outnumber me and they are trying to push their POV through on technicalities. I really wish we could get beyond claiming consensus by ignoring dissenting editors so that we can move forward to dispute resolution protocols.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Melon, if you agree not to revert the article for your POV, this issue would be already ended. I think you're not currently acting wise. --Caspian blue 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than happy and willing to agree to stop edit warring on these tags. Specific edit issues on tags or other content should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to stop doing things that go against consensus, independent contributors have agreed that this is what is causing the whole issue.
    You will need to do the following:
    • Stop posting the tags;
    • Actually engage in the conversation as opposed to stating your opinions over and over;
    • Stop parsing words, in the case of the mediation request join in and put your reasons why you disagree out there. Ask that the proposal be modified to address your concerns if you feel something is missing from the request, and tell us why;
    • Please insure that your reasoning meets the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:PSTS. Also, please do not engage in WP:OR.
    and finally:
    • Accept that your position may not be the winning one, and let the result stand.
    If you had done this from the first, none of this would be going on. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More claims of consensus in spite of RfC results and multiple editors expressing dissent... This is why we need mediation. Jeremy broke the WP:Truce and instigated this last spat of reverts. You need to take your own advice and stop your disruptive behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no claims. I am stating what we expect of you: good behavior and civility. What I am saying is that if things do not go your way, you will be expected to live with it. Can you do that? Can you work well with others? Can you assume good faith that what my purpose here is to help the article? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you tell people to not to "go against consensus", you are assuming consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Close? I suggest this thread be continued elsewhere, perhaps on the article Talk. In the near future, if any dispute tags are changed on the article without consensus to do so first being obtained on the Talk page, I suspect that one or more admins will take action. We won't know for sure until that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, the only editors who have been "changing" dispute tags have been Jeremy and his friends. Their position is that there is "no dispute" and I am not respecting consensus(ignoring dissent of multiple editors) and so the dispute tags are inappropriate. That is why they have repeatedly removed the dispute tags.
    I admit to my part in the revert war. But Jeremy and others who have left comments here have been fully engaged in revert warring. Progress to discussion has been constantly stonewalled due to Jeremy and his block of editors who are refusing acknowledge, respect the dissent of other editors and are reverting dispute tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We should know, Dog meat is not considered as normal Korean diets, most Koreans don't even try Dog meat. Even Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos all consumed more dog meats than Koreans but they don't included in their cuisine topic. I think we all know person who edits Korean cuisine to includes Dog meat is to make mockery on Korea. --Korsentry 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
    I am closing this report with the result, Editors warned about tags. Anyone who adds or removes tags, after first explicitly verifying that that there is a consensus on Talk:Korean cuisine in support of their changes, has nothing to worry about. Those who have not yet found a consensus but revert anyway may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result:)

    • Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan
    1. RV 1
    2. 8 RV 2
    3. RV 3

    Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist account.There are enough proofs show this user is against Albanians and Kosovo. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: 3 Jan
    1. 4 December, 22:51 ("reinstated old...")
    2. 5 December, 01:44 ("data ... reinstated...")
    3. 5 December, 14:05 ("undid...")
    4. 5 December, 21:36 ("rv...")

    Experienced user, no warning necessary.

    Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology with a nationalist agenda. Has been pushing this agenda for years. Long previous block log, please treat with utmost severity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has form; incivility. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "extremely problematic POV editor", "pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology", you are not talking about yourself, are you Fut. Perf? ...Walnutjk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.250.22 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Stealthound (Result: Link removed, no 3RR vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [2]


    • 1st revert: [3]
    • 2nd revert: [4]
    • 3rd revert: [5]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

    the source is [7]. It uses google's cache to circumvent the blacklist filter placed by Wikipedia. It additionally fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This source is discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Associated_Content.2C_gettin.27_paid_to_spam. Please help. Stealthound (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I have asked Badagnani to undo his last edit, the one where he restores the Associated Content link to the article. He is only at 3RR so far. If he puts the link back again he would be at 4RR and possibly in violation of WP:SPAM as well. A block would be logical at that point. There are ways of getting a link put on the 'local whitelist' if you can show it is appropriate for a specific article. Associated Content as a whole is blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article, that's the only source I can see that has much information on the subject. Discussing the issue on the talk page would have been a good thing, although there was some back and forth in the edit summaries. Is there a question about the accuracy of the content provided in the source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not supposed to bypass the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist without getting approval. The page about Douglas Spotted Eagle, while informative, is hosted on a forbidden domain, associatedcontent.com, that has been used for spamming. You can request approval for individual links. See Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Associated Content links Fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Additionaly, Associated Content articles;
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Would think that repeated reinsertion is disruptive per policies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the Linking policy on Restrictions on linking, See #2. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. However, with the other prominent content issues, there is little chance it will be whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: Link has been removed, there was no 3RR vio. Thanks for cooperation, and thanks Hu12 for policy advice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    83.254.20.63 reported by Curtis Clark (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [8]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [14]

    User has edit warred on Clade as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • 24 hours - this user's IP seems to be semi-static. If he evades the block by moving on to another IP, please note that here or ping an admin so that the next IP can be blocked and the articles can be s-protected. --B (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: Article is being restore from a redirect. He's adding more of the old page as he's reverting. First attempt is here.
    User violating 3RR on Yumi Ishiyama as well. warned again here. This edit, this one and this one are the first three. At least 3 more reverts after that. prashanthns (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective reported by User:Novangelis (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Further signs of non-collaboative behavior: profanity threatening to delete article suggests banning users he disagrees with accuses other editors of lying

    There haven't been any reverts since the warning was issued. I suggest we leave this one open for a bit and see what happens. --B (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, those are lies, see my categorical refutation of all allegations in the talk section at that page, or alternatively I can post it here if you like? Can I 'counter sue' Novalis for his lies? Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    As to the profanity, that was my son, who is at an age where that kind of thing is funny to him. I apologize on his behalf.Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    I was told I was welcome to oin the discussion; There doesn't appear to be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your son shouldn't be using your id. You shouldn't be calling people liars are you are doing here and on the talk page. You clearly broke WP:3RR and are fortunate that no one blocked you. The only allegations I can see are that you broke WP:3RR, that you threatened to wipe out text, that you said users should be banned, and that you called others liars. These are backed up with difs which seem to back them up. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and make sure that you don't break WP:3RR again - and note that 3RR is not an entitlement. dougweller (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I categorically refuted all those claims and proved he was lying, why do you continue to repeat his baseless, slanderous personal attacks? (I didn't know about the three revert rule btw, I am waiting 24 hours before I make any further alterations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interim result: Magnetic has not edited past his first 3RR warning. However, when invited to comment here, he has left a number of personal attacks on the noticeboard. I've invited him to retract his 'liar' comments. If he does not do so, he may be blocked for personal attacks. I don't have a good feeling about this editor's future on Wikipedia, but if he is willing to retract his comments, that would be a good sign. I am thinking of issuing a long block if he does not do so, and I invite comment on that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Ed. If I proved Novangelis's numerous personal attacks and allegations were unfounded lies, why can't I say he is lying? Please answer this. Thanks. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Result: After an extended discussion over at User talk:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective and after quoting of Wikipedia policy, Magnetic could not be persuaded to remove his comments above about 'lying' editors, so he is blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tanninglamp reported by User:Baseball_Bugs (Result: indef)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    The user has evidently been in a long-term edit war over this one item he keeps trying to insert into the article despite consensus and BLP concerns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanninglamp has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly 2 years now: [27] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm considering upgrading it to indef. Anyone interested in opining can take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tanninglamp. If he were making all of these edits from a logged in account, we would have indeffed him long ago, but unless we're going to range block his IPs (don't tempt me) incentivizing him to edit from dynamic IPs is only going to make it tougher to track him. --B (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason not to indef based only on the logged in edits. User has 3 blocks after only 44 edits made with this account. Only motivation here appears to be to post negative information about Rick Reilly and Keith Olbermann. --Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm convinced after fully reviewing everything. Indeffed. --B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support the indef. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, even if it's spread out over almost two years. And we'll deal with the fallout like we always do: one sock at a time. — Satori Son 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support the indef. He's a classic POV warrior, unwilling to listen or discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SmoothFlow reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 48 hours)

    Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SmoothFlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 05:56, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "sorry, couldn't sleep.")
    2. 12:36, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Subheading")
    3. 17:40, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Research */ why does this person keep reversing my addition? That makes, like, three times in a day!")
    4. 02:05, 8 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry */ I am talking - are you listening?")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit more information. User:SmoothFlow appears to be a single purpose account editing Syracuse University. Some of their edits, such as this one, are borderline vandalism to an article undergoing an FAC. I would suggest an extended block for more than edit-warring, but also for disruptive vandalism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a revision to this in that User:SmoothFlow is still at 4RR within the 24 hour period, including two reverts after the warning. Can someone please deal with this disruptive SPA? Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to discuss SmoothFlow's behavior with him, but I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere. Subsequent to the reverts OrangeMarlin posted above were these three edits, which contained a partial revert and a copy/paste from a source website. I am an involved administrator so I cannot make a block myself, but I do suggest that this seems to not be heading in a helpful direction. --B (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring. I am leaving it to some other admin to decide whether Orangemarlin ought to be sanctioned as well. (See the matching 3RR complaint below). As I stepped through all the edits, it was hard for me to believe that SmoothFlow was making a good-faith effort to improve the article. Orangemarlin must have believed he was reverting vandalism. I know the feeling, but these edits are not exactly vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. The article is up for consideration as a Featured Article, and SmoothFlow was adding eccentric stuff which seems (to me personally) unlikely to assist in its reaching that status. Numerous people were reverting his changes, not just Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow was hardly making much of an effort to persuade others to support his view on the Talk page. I am making this 48 hours due to Smooth's extreme persistence, after being reverted, and his apparent lack of clue regarding the opinions of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with this and with no block of Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow I think is acting in good faith, but he seems to be around 14 and so his edits just aren't very useful. (Apologies if I guessed wrong and this isn't to say that all 14-year-olds are too young to edit Wikipedia, other disclaimers as appropriate.) he is very inexperienced and his edits are not helpful. --B (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemarlin reported by SmoothFlow (Result: Not blocked)

    Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Like:

    One - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262404627&oldid=262400461

    Two - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262476875&oldid=262472517

    Three - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262548885&oldid=262527491

    Four - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262572860&oldid=262570551

    Five - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262572860

    Six - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262574114

    Seven - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262576756

    Eight - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=prev&oldid=262660797 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoothFlow (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everytime I try to add something, this person keeps removing it. Plus he's reporting me now, apparently. What can I do about this? SmoothFlow (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like he is reverting your edits because they are about 20% useful and 80% unhelpful. For example, "it's funny" is not a good reason to add nonsense to an article. --B (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See the case one above this one, unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'm just going to close this. (Nobody has touched it in the nearly 24 hours it has been here.) 3RR is about deterring edit warring, and OM was not edit warring. At this point, this is stale anyway. --B (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edito*Magica reported by Garion96 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [28]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

    I am involved since I removed the templates in question. But this is getting to 5 or 6rr by now. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anthonykimfan reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: blocked for spamming)

    Anthony Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anthonykimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 02:38, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 16:45, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 20:49, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 23:06, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    5. 02:59, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 15:24, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    7. 20:16, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    8. 22:31, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    9. 00:19 8 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthonykimfan has been blocked for spamming in response to my WP:AIV report. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IllaZilla reported by Oakshade (Result: Protected one week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [34]

    This user has been attempting to change the opening sentence to this article very much out of consensus and has now broken 3RR in doing so.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Protected one week - both sides violated 3RR and could be blocked (translation: don't whine that the other party isn't being blocked). This has been going on for a while and is a lame argument. Talk it out on the talk page. Figure something out. --B (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuackGuru reported by User:Backin72 (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

    QuackGuru is a chronic edit warrior (see his block log) and abuser of talk pages with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The first two reverts are part of an ongoing effort by some editors to push the "pseudoscience" label as far as possible, no matter whether the sources meet NPOV's pseudoscience labelling policy. The last two reverts appear to be tit-for-tat; regarding the just-mentioned debate of label-pushing, I've been objecting on the talk page to some of QuackGuru's sources, so now he is reverting the NPOV inclusion of mainstream groups like WHO and NIH to balance out the opinions of advocacy groups like CSICOP. Thanks for your time, --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was not 4 reverts. Making consecutive edits ([46][47]) are not reverts. Making false 3 RR reports is not productive. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Backin72 has not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. I have asked more than once how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience label without any direct reply to my question. The article should not turn into a dumping ground for irrelevant non-specific references.[48] QuackGuru (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected on the "consecutive reverts", but hold that your two rapid-fire reverts that followed, taken together with your history, still violate the spirit of WP:3RR and deserve sanctioning. "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." As for the relevance of the sources to the article, that's for the article talk page; whether or not an editor is "right" is never an excuse to revert war. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Backin72 it is sanctionable for making reverts. Backin72 has made several reverts within the last few days. Backin72 has vanished but has returned to Wikipedia with his old account. When Backin72 thinks it is santionable he thinks he should be santioned because he has made many reverts. I hope Backin72 is not using his old account to try to get editors blocked. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My (in-process vanishing) on WP is irrelevant; I've got a couple loose ends to tie up, and that's my prerogative. Your insinuation that I'm gaming by using my old account is baseless, and I request that you retract it (unless you can produce evidence). Furthermore, linking me to my old handle is harassment, and you should stop it immediately. As for sanctioning for edit warring, your block log is awful, which justifies a block for edit warring. I've never been blocked because, although I'm not perfect, my mistakes are minor and infrequent. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is that your still editing with an old account. I thought vanished editors were not allowed to continue editing using old acounts. If you believe reverts is sanctionable then you believe you should be sanctioned. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant. I changed accounts, and am free to edit with the new one; once I've tied up some loose ends, I'll leave. What is relevant: I reiterate that your block log shows chronic edit warring issues. --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. The accusation re my editing with my old account is false, and QuackGuru has produced no evidence (because none exists). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR was not violated, but the edit-warring must still stop. As a reminder, the list in question falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which means that any uninvolved admin can place discretionary sanctions as needed. If the reverts continue, restrictions will probably be placed, so please, cut it out, and just stick to the talkpage, or try to make compromise edits, rather than just reverting back and forth. Remember, edit-warring is completely ineffective in terms of making longterm changes to any article on Wikipedia. A much better way to proceed is to engage in discussion, and try to find a compromise, which will lead to much longer lasting changes which are of better use for our readers. Thanks, --Elonka 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing as no violation per Elonka --B (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doktorspin reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Protected by VirtualSteve)


    • Previous version reverted to: [49] - after he first changed the dates to BCE/CE. The article was previously stable as using BC/AD, until someone added text using BCE/CE. After this was changed to conform, Doktorspin changed the whole article to BCE/CE without discussion[50], and has reverted to this version 9 times so far.


    Note the edit summaries!

    (rolling reverts, with the first & last 4 of the 6 both within 24 hrs. Warned after 4th revt.)

    The same revert has been made a total 9 times since December 25th, lastly today [57]. There has been extensive discussion with several editors at the talk page: Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus#Dating_should_use_the_neutral_scholarly_BCE.2FCE...


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [58], and by uninvolved admin [59] ("another editor" was not me btw). After a lull of 3 days, he has reverted again today.

    Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Protected by VirtualSteve - why a British/American solution won't work here (BC/AD in Christianity articles, BCE/CE everywhere else) is beyond me, but in any event the article has been protected so nothing else to do. --B (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to be dealing with the issues involved. --spin (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnbod's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]

    Carl Bunderson reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]
    5. [67]

    Quite a tag-team combo. Nice communications, boys.

    People who prefer to maintain errors by exploiting rules while overlooking aims and purposes of the Wikipedia institution are themselves violating the spirit of learning. So Johnbod has himself undone the dating system change three times, yet invokes the 3RR rule. Ironic.

    He cannot provide a rational response to the three reasons provided why the change to BCE/CE is necessary and improves the quality of Wikipedia. Briefly,

    1. BCE/CE is the scholarly system;
    2. BCE/CE is not biased against other religious positions; and
    3. BCE/CE doesn't have an inbuilt error (Jesus being born in 4 before himself).

    If one cannot deal logically with the argument for the change, one shouldn't engage in edit warring. It is merely abuse of the system. The notion of aiming for scholarly standards should be seen as improvement and should not be shunned.

    To understand the scholarly situation one should consult indiscutably scholarly sources -- such as peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see what they do.

    Ignore All Rules simply and specifically says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --spin (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You should see my comment in another report - the article was protected; both sides violated 3RR so complaining that the other party wasn't blocked is not a good idea. --B (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I normally go about my business of trying to improve Wiki. I'm not up with all aspects of Wiki management. I merely thought perspective on the issue would be useful. I said nothing about the other party not being blocked. --spin (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My 3 reverts were over a period of 2 weeks, so I have not reverted 3RR. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. But then you had Carl! Getting reason out of you two was impossible. --spin (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Portayla and 68.111.15.230 reported by Agricolae (Result: Portayla indeffed, 68.111.15.230 not blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [68]


    Portayla:

    User: 68.111.15.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Word being restored by User: Portayla was originally placed in article by a sock-puppet of banned and blocked User: Yorkshirian, who has previously used sock-puppets to violate 3RR on this page. Pattern of edits and edit summaries suggest Portayla may be another Yorkshirian sock. Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    216.165.3.44 reported by RolandR (Result: Blocked for other reasons)


    • Previous version reverted to: [79]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

    RolandR (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Stifle (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    216.165.3.44 reported by Pedrito (Result: Already blocked.)

    IP-User keeps trying to remove category tags established by consensus.

    • Previous version reverted to: [88]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

    The edit summaries are a good indication that this user knows Wikipedia policies well. Perhaps a case for Checkuser? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 11:11

    We know the user's IP, so what could checkuser do? For some reason, my identical report above, which appears in page history and which can be edited by clicking the section link, does not display properly. And the user has been blocked following my ANI report of edit-warring on several articles, and abuse on my talk page RolandR (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser might ferret out what account the user originally used, but will probably be declined on the magic pixie dust ground. Anyway, Already blocked. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan
    1. RV 1
    2. RV 2
    3. RV 3
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [97]

    Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist [98][99][100].There are enough proofs show this user is against Albanians and Kosovo (Evidences: [101][102][103]). Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 3R and has indicated (qualified) willingness on talk not to revert further. Will warn. Might I further remark how heart-warming it is to see you making full use of the talk page to discuss your reverts and diffuse the situation? Its so common for people to neglect to do this in the heat of passion. Or, put another way, consider youself warned too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pedrito reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 55 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [104]


    • 1st revert: [105] - edit summary is "Undid revision 262728176 by ליאור (talk) "
    • 2nd revert: [106] - edit summary is "Undid revision 262737445 by Wehwalt (talk) "
    • 3rd revert: [107] - same as #1. edit summary says "removed".
    • 4th revert: [108] - edist summary labels it a revert.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: user is very aware of 3RR, having filed a report today, and blocked for 3RR previously.

    The edit summaries clearly indicate the editor knew he was reverting every time.

    information Administrator note 55 hours. — Aitias // discussion 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Pedrito has asked to have his block reviewed. I'm not an admin, but if one is out there, could you please take a look at his request. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mttll reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [109]




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

    I tried resolving it on the talk page, but all I got was unsourced opinion and personal attacks about my "agenda". --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're both edit warring on a sensitive article. Take a brief break and let someone else deal with it for a bit. 12h each for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur Kemp reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: no vio / warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [115]


    4th revert was on another page, but is of the same nature, removal of a COI, or Autobiography template.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [120]


    All of Mr Kemps contributions have had to do with either his own article Arthur Kemp, or another Clive Derby-Lewis, which mentions him. His edits seem to be somewhat self serving, with a serious potential for Confict Of Interest, and poor potential for Neutral Point Of View. Mr Kemp also seems to have a serious issues with COI and Autobiography tags. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its per-page, so he has only 3R. Newbie, will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 24h)

    The "reverts" relate to the map in the infobox, which this editor is taking offence to, but for which I received positive feedback from other editors.

    • Previous version reverted to: [121]


    • 1st revert: [122]
    • 2nd revert: [123]
    • 3rd revert: [124]
    • User acknowledges that they know about the rule [125]
    • 4th revert: [126]
    • Diff of 3RR warning 6 Jan: [127]
    • Diff of 3RR warning 8 Jan: [128]

    The fourth revert came - sadly - after this exchange [129] between us where it looked like we might make progress on the talk page, but instead he decided to revert a 4th time when he didn't like my response.

    I should have kept a cool head this evening and not reverted myself, but I've been having constant issues with this editor ever since he joined the project a couple of months ago (see Wikiquette alert [130]). The latest example from this evening: after requesting he provide written sources for a map that he had drawn, I get this reply [131]. As someone who cares a lot about making Wikipedia better (I took British Empire to FA status the other week) it pains me to deal with people who think they are above providing sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok let's make something clear before anything happens, User red Hat of Pat Ferrick has been insulting and trashing me since the first day i joined Wikipedia, he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable and i have to say he is succeeding, sometimes he is able to drive me away from articles because i dont like the way he directs at me , he is very disrespectful and rude towards me (but not limited to, many users have said the same)if im allow to say.
    Today he says i reverted 3 times and i did because he wants to put a map that has gained no popularity or acceptance on the Talk page of the Portuguese Empire, what he did was to go to the talk page of the British Empire and asked if his proposed map was "okay" but shouldn't he be disscussing that in the Portuguese Empire talk page? out of 3 times he's asked for acceptance in the Portuguese Empire talk page he has been denied the 3 times, other users want to keep the current map until his map is fixed (i say the same , there are way too many errors on his proposed map), so in short he wants to put a map before asking any of us, i dont think that's fair to us .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not that i don't provide any sources at all, in fact i do most of the time he asks me, but today i told him to go ask somebody else for sources, apparently to him, when he doesn't know something he believes whatever is not sourced is wrong, in normal cases i give him sources but this time im sure he can ask somebody else oh BTW I GAVE HIM SOURCES ABOUT THAT ALREADY, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE CAN'T ACCEPT THEM(!!), only the sources he likes he is able to accept, the source was very accurate but he just can't accept, he says because its too old but i seen him doing the same, using maps from OLD ATLASES! my source was from the 1930s or 1950s but his source for a fact in the British Empire article was from 1897!!! [File:British Empire 1897.jpg] but i dont know why he can't accept MY sources... .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    83.254.20.63 reported by Why Not A Duck (Result: Semi-protected)


    83.254.20.63, apparently the same individual as indef blocked user Consist (Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), is edit warring again. On Clade, Monophyletic group, Holophyly, and Paraphyly. Recent edits on Clade are minor ([132], [133], [134]) but they're at the "heart" of the dispute. I'll also point out edits at the page Paraphyly ([135], [136], [137]). Was blocked yesterday for 24 hours (note: some of the diffs I refer to above are from before the block; as far as I know he isn't up to 3RR today) and has returned to it again. Has avowed ([138]) that he'll keep it up indefinitely. Some history: He's engaged in a long series of discussions on Talk:Clade trying to get his point of view across. As near as I can understand it, he's on a crusade to rescue Linnaean taxonomy from the clutches of "Cladism" which he insists is unscientific. His arguments vary. Generally people debate with him for a while, and get tired of it, at which point he states that they either don't accept or don't understand scientific rationalism (and usually that they don't understand some other thing, such as relativity) and either finds someone new to argue with, or goes back to edit warring. -- Why Not A Duck 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected four of the articles named above. Since Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indef-blocked for disruptive editing, a longer block for the IP is deserved but will have little effect, because his IP changes all the time. If he edits more widely, please ask for semi-protection of additional articles at WP:RFPP. When requesting protection you can link to the indef-block notice at User:Consist. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibaranoff24 reported by Prophaniti (Result: no vio)


    User:Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material from the mudvayne page. See diffs. I have accepted changing the opening line to a more general term, and expressed willingness to discuss other matters on the talk page. Ibaranoff24 is leaving the published book source, but continues to remove an NME source and a Rolling Stone source, both published music magazines, and citations also from popmatters and Metal-Observer, not ideal sources, but accepted review sites due to meeting the criteria of having an editorial and writing staff, and as such acceptable in support of other sources. I apologise if this is not the correct place to put a complaint about reverts removing sourced material, and if so would appreciate a link to where it would be appropriate. Prophaniti (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute and needs to be handled through some type of dispute resolution. This is the correct place to report edit warring, but this user has not violated 3RR. You need 4 reverts within a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, only two of these reverts are within 24 hours. There is no violation here. Landon1980 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No vio. Try (all together now...) WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has not violated the rule, but as the rule states, that isn't the only way to edit war. Top of this very page: "Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." Ultimately, he's simply removed sourced material repeatedly. I'm bringing it here because I've no doubt if I revert again I'll be the one getting done for edit warring. So if nothing is being done here, I want one of two things: a guarantee from an admin that if I continue simply to restore these sources I won't end up getting blocked for warring, OR a pointer to where precisely I should take this, as the user in question will not listen to me on the talk page, so what else can I do about this removal of sourced material? According to wiki rules it isn't vandalism, so please tell me precisely where to take this. Prophaniti (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This usually means that you have to build your case a little more. Try a few more times to discuss the matter and if the reversals and the refusal to discuss persist you can reopen the case. Dr.K. (logos) 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Honest Green reported by Chasingsol (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [142]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [150]

    Also using:

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

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

    Repeatedly re-adding unsourced and biased content. --Chasingsol(talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-01-09T11:58:45 EyeSerene (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Honest Green (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule on) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.30.163.113 reported by User:Mayalld (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [151]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [157]


    Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Smatprt 3RR violation (indef)

    Could you possible help out on Shakespeare authorship article. Smatprt is agenda pushing his Oxfordian theology into the article and is now guilty of 3RR violation.[158] Thanks very much for your time. JohnsonTrewA (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Home352 reported by Voltorb (Result: Indef blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [159]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [167]

    These user(s) have been repeatedly vandalising the Asterisk page. I know for a fact that these user(s) are part of a group of trolls from another site that emphasize "proper" use of asterisks. I noticed they moved to Wikipedia and started reverting it. After my third revert, I warned him of the three-revert rule. He then started reverting it from an IP. I reverted it again, but remembered the three revert rule and quickly changed it back.

    I am not sure if he can be punished due to no specific IP/account reverting more than three times, but they are clearly the same person. -VoItorb (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Account indeffed, article s-protected. Blocking dynamic IPs isn't necessarily a fruitful endeavor, but if he/she trolls elsewhere, please let me know. --B (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. One question, if I accidentally violate the 3RR without realizing it, should I revert it back as I did in this situation? -VoItorb (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general yes, but in this case, when the edit is unquestionably vandalism/trolling, there is no need to. On an unrelated subject, it looks like your user name has been changed. Please log in using your new user name - it makes it incredibly confusing when you use the old one and they are so similar. --B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm on a computer that had "VoItorb" (with an i) still in the "Log in" screen. And I didn't know if it would be classified as blatant vandalism. -Voltorb (talk here) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's true - other admins might look at it differently, so I can only speak for myself - I wouldn't have blocked you if you had reverted it 50 times - it was obvious enough to me that it was trolling/vandalism. --B (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [168]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [173]

    An old dispute dating back to late November. I requested a dispute resolution via WP:3O [174]. The user later wrote that he didn't actually care all that much about the template and agreed to leave the then-current revision as it was. Then he changed his mind.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You both have 4R. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Gimmetrow reported by user:NancyHeise (Result: No Vio)

    Since early November, I have had a long running discussion with over 17 editors about note 1 of the article Roman Catholic Church. [175] [176] user:Gimmetrow, an admin, has perisitently opposed the consensus version of this note. A very nice Wikipediean, user:Richard has been trying to work out a compromise and has agreed, along with myself and other users to a form of the note that explains things more clearly and to the use of an author named Patrick Madrid as one of the POV's to include. [177] Gimmetrow has eliminated my insertion of this agreed upon WP:RS book three times.

    • Version previous to reverts [178]

    He has done this without even coming to the talk page to explain or argue his point and does not seem to care that we, on the talk page, have discussed this. I am only making changes that were suggested in the compromise. [183]. Those opposing the consensus version are Gimmetrow and two new accounts with very little activity except the RCC talk page. [184] and [185] I suspect they are sockpuppets of someone, no I don't suspect Gimmetrow but honestly I don't know now. NancyHeise talk 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    update: he has come to the talk page after I posted this. However his tone is not conducive to working toward a compromise which he seems adamant against considering his persistent opposition to consensus including this present set of reverts. NancyHeise talk 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The above list only shows three reverts. Four reverts are needed to break the WP:3RR rule. It seems possible that you could ask for advice at WP:RSN as to whether the Madrid source is reliable. The other side has been claiming that the Madrid source is not academic and is not an official church document. From a quick look, it is not obvious to me that the Talk page has reached a clear verdict on this matter. You might be able to find ways of bringing in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will echo the above, might I recommend WP:DISPUTE and WP:30? Tiptoety talk 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you I contacted WP:RSN. The opposing side has listed the matter at RFC twice already and the article was at FAC which is why we had so many editors chiming in on the matter with consensus in agreement over the use of sources and text that Gimmetrow disputes. [186] [187] He is abusing his power and not respecting either consensus or WP:RS. NancyHeise talk 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dodo_bird reported by User: Bob98133(Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [188]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [194]

    This is the second time in the past few weeks that this editor has reverted and changed text 3 or more times without explanation in the edit summaries while ignoring requests to discuss. Editor previously redirected his talk page to avoid being able to send him a message. He deletes any talk on his talk page almost immediately. Bob98133 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 24/31h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [195]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [203]

    Same as this. Apparently, the 12-hour block wasn't of much use for either side, the reverting spree restarted as soon as it expired, albeit this time I did try to discuss the question, but, alas, without success.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you've both gone back to edit warring straight off your blocks, so you're both blocked again, but for longer this time. You've made a token effort to talk (though I detected no real signs of any compromise) so you get a very slightly shorter block in recognition William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF


    • Previous version reverted to: [204]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [210]

    Discrimination against atheists

    Ok, we really need to discuss what the correct attitude concerning this controversy is. I would agree that there are some issues with the article, but those aren't wrote than similar ones at several other articles from the Template:Religious persecution. Other editors were bold enough to remove several sections of the article because they didn't show sufficiently that what was discussed in that section was actually discriminating. Well, I though, if they are so bold to do this, then I may be so bold to simply move the whole thing to 'Situation of atheists. I was reverted instantly, and asked to discuss controversial edits first. Well, other editors didn't do that when they removed the sections, so why should it? It didn't even get the time to justify the move on the talk page, and actually, I had suggested it before... Zara1709 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a pointy nomination, which this board is clearly not designed to deal with. Discussion on the article talk page should be attempted first, which the nominator has stated they haven't tried. Verbal chat 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't me who started to make controversial edits without justification. Since this simply happens again and again, I don't see a reason any more to contribute to Wikipedia. Find someone else to clean up your junk. Zara1709 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangemarlin reported by HighKing (Result: Withdrawn by nominator )


    I am an uninvolved editor that came across this editor at a recent WQA. This editor has breached 3RR multiple times on this article, and an attempt to discuss this on the users Talk page was met with an accusation of being a sock (edit summary) , etc.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [220]
    I count only 3 reverts in those diffs, which span a period of over 24 hours, and no edits were made after the very rude warning which involved personal attacks. I suggest the nominator be warned for civility and not to abuse the 3RRN. Verbal chat 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct about the diffs spanning more than 24 hours - this was to show the amount of reverting that this editor has done on this article, but if you count them up, you will see that the first 7 reverts are within 24 hours. All of these diffs are reverts (please read the definition of what constitutes a revert). Finally, please substantiate your accusation of "very rude warning which involved personal attacks" or withdraw the remark which in itself is a breach of WP:CIVIL. I have included the diff above for the warning, I leave it for other editors to draw their own conclusions on behaviour standards here. --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess once was accused of being a homophobe, I should expect this type of attack. What the editor fails to notice is that the vandalizing editor attempted to put in material against consensus, put in "joke" edits, and couldn't spell. Moreover, another admin blocked the editor for several violations of whatever. This is laughable. Completely laughable. Reverting a vandal is completely acceptable. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn - it appears that this case was already reported and the decision was not to block Orangemarlin here. Apologies to Orangemarlin, although it would have been simpler all round if he had merely pointed this out. --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have time for this crap. I expect an editor to do his own due-diligence before making these types of accusations. I do apologize for calling you a sock, since you obviously are not after my own due diligence. However, I was harassed by two meatpuppets on the same topic. It was suspicious go through this again. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur_Kemp reported by Verbal (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [221]
    1. 09:32, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    2. 16:18, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    3. 16:31, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    4. 16:49, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    5. 16:52, 10 January 2009 (no edit summary)
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of 3RR warning: here

    Note: Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious WP:COI issues. Verbal chat 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All I have asked for is a chance to add a refutation to a pack of lies put up about me. This is only fair, is it not?

    I see that you yourself have now agreed to allow me to refute the allegations. So why, if I may ask, if you have now agreed to put it in, did you object so strongly to me putting them in the first time around? Anyway, as long as it stays like that, I am satisfied. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=263202202"