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
CENSEI (talk | contribs)
1,318 edits
CENSEI (talk | contribs)
1,318 edits
Line 832: Line 832:
User Warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=282259212&oldid=282240563]
User Warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=282259212&oldid=282240563]


Chronic drama magnet Scjessey has once again decided to join in an edit war on a political article and has not only demonstrated his repeated perencist to edit war but has also violated 3RR on this one. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Chronic drama magnet Scjessey has once again decided to join in an edit war on a political article and has not only demonstrated his repeated propensity to edit war but has also violated 3RR on this one. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:59, 7 April 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.


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [12]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]


    Global warming

    List of common misconceptions/Hippo43

    User:189.75.33.106 reported by User:Troy 07 (Result: semi-protect)

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

    Note: the most recent of many block-evading IP socks. ~ Troy (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Troy, you shouldn't really be using rollback like that; but with that said I've semi-protected it for a month as he'll clearly just come back whether or not I block this manifestation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikifan12345 reported by Factsontheground (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [24]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

    Wikifan is continuously adding the POV tag to the article. Other editors had in the past agreed with the user, but those concerns have been remedied and they no longer support the tag being placed in the article, as can be seen here at the end of the section. The entirety of the dispute is that Wikifan insists on keeping the POV tag in the article without noting that the concerns have already been addressed. When asked what would improve the article's neutrality he responds with his feelings that the article should not exist and that the AfD did not produce the required outcome. Nableezy (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A note, another user also added the POV tag, Shuki, and we were able to discuss it in a calm manner on his talk page. I dont really mind the tag being placed, but a rationale and ideas for improvement would be appreciated, not the blanket statements Wikifan has been making that the article shouldnt even exist as a POV fork and so the POV tag has to be included. Nableezy (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. I'm really getting tired of your wikihounding. I was simply adding the POV that was suggested in talk and widely supported per prior AFD. You continually to ask for examples, I gave you explicit reasons yet you continue to remove the tag. Also, suspicious the creator of the article who has take an usual obsession with the topic reported me for adding what clearly goes against his POV. Anyways, I knew you were waiting for this. Hope you are satisfied. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I followed the 3rr process and explained the tag in simple terms. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the article. Whoever blocks me remember this was nothing close to blind edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not hounding, was actually about to report (in fact did) until I saw Factsontheground did first. Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. You two have the same mind. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, when Fact complained via revert I directed him to the rationale on his userpage here. He didn't comment. Surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (result: 72 hours)

    This is the second 3RR I am filling out for this user in the past two weeks. He clearly has no grasp on what it means to not edit war and has failed to provide reliable sources and discuss his edits despite being asked so countless times. To repeat my comments from the previous filing, his disruptive contributions have spread to other pages as well. Some tougher sanctions seem to be heavily warranted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ericorbit reported by LauraAndrade88 (Result: no vio)

    Please note that the reporting editor has been informed on her talk page about an ongoing consensus discussion pertaining to information she is adding to articles (she has since blanked her Talk Page and ignored me) and editor has also removed citation tags from articles without providing sources. The article in question (per links above) has been experiencing a high level of vandalism which is clearly evident in the article's history. Do what you will. Thanks. - eo (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The rules breaker here is you, Ericorbit. Your attitude is bad. I'm watching you. LauraAndrade88 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I misread the timestamps on this first time round. No vio. But there is more reverting there than there should be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    82.108.42.66 reported by OlYeller21 (Result: Redirect fully protected)

    This article was deleted per this AfD. Since then, it's been recreated a few times and I've reverted all of them (not within 24 hours) and attempted to start a discussion on the talk page. I tried to explain in the edit summary and on 82.108.42.66's talk page (here) why the page was made a redirect to the album. He was also warned here by another user about the #RR. I believe that the anon user may also be using a sockpuppet, Saulornelas to revert [42] and [43]. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone for a 3RR violation so please let me know if I've made any errors. OlYellerTalktome 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected The song's name has been full protected as a redirect to the album till April 17 by User:Camaron. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zach Thomas (result: text removed)

    There is an ongoing edit war among several editors involving BLP violations at Zach Thomas. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned I've gone ahead and re-removed the text + added an explanation + warning not to re-add it to the talk page, as it does appear to be a BLP violation. If it's re-added without clear consensus to do so, feel free to update this thread or post to ANI (or even requests for page protection), making sure to cite BLP. --slakr\ talk / 03:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vayalir reported by NJGW (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]

    User is carrying on a related edit war at Renewable energy and another edit war at Output impedance (though the second may have just cooled down). NJGW (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor warned. Though there were four reverts in 24 hours, this user has not made further edits to any of the articles mentioned since 4 April, and (thanks to an apparent compromise at OTE) there is no ongoing dispute. If he continues to promote his thermal ideas against consensus in any other articles, consider re-filing the report. If the editor prefers to keep blanking all messages left on his Talk, maybe he should stay out of contentious editing situations, where reaching a compromise may require building up a discussion thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbal reported by Adrian CZ (Result: No Action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]

    On 25 March I made what I thought were some good improvements to the Matthias Rath article, all per WP:AVOID and with the aim of improving the article’s WP:NPOV. Whilst I would obviously agree that the Words to Avoid guidelines are best treated with common sense and the occasional exception, Verbal seemingly wants to make an exception of an entire WP:BLP. To do so clearly contravenes WP:NPOV. Moreover, to repeatedly revert all of my edits in their entirety, three times within eight and a half hours, is not only completely unjustified but also a clear case of edit-warring and breaking the three-revert rule. Adrian CZ (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Firstly, I did not attempt more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. However, this was not an attempt at gaming by going to the technical limit. I asked for the IPs and new account to discuss their edits on the talk page of this controversial BLP to justify them, and requested page protection when it became obvious that they were not willing to discuss the edits in an attempt to force discussion. I was not the editor that reverted Adrian CZs edits, rather another editor that also thought this was a mistaken application of WP:AVOID. The reverts by the IPs also removed other article improvements, whereas the language introduced by Adrian CZ was clumsy and unclear. This can simply be resolved by discussion of individual occurrences on the talk page to gain agreement and consensus and find alternative wordings, if required, that improve the article. Note that my request for page protection was for semi page protection, which would have allowed Adrian or other established editors to debate and edit the page still. In future with this kind of dispute on controversial BLPs I will request semi-protection earlier, or ask the advice of experienced administrators. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action Quite apart from 3RR not being technically breached (and not to mention that this dispute is four days old and thus stale), reverting a collection of suspicious IPs on a BLP/altmed article gives far more latitude to an editor, especially when at least two of those IPs are clearly the same editor and another is an account with one edit, and Verbal's erit summaries clearly point those editors towards the talkpage without success. Black Kite 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ianmacm reported by 80.192.67.254 (Result: No vio, reporter warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • (cur) (prev) 22:39, 4 April 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (10,905 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 16:29, 1 April 2009 Ianmacm (talk | contribs) (10,804 bytes) (copyedit, see User talk:Tlrampa) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 12:30, 1 April 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (10,974 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 08:55, 28 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) (10,974 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 08:49, 28 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) (11,122 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 21:00, 27 March 2009 Ianmacm (talk | contribs) (10,803 bytes) (rv, see previous comment and WP:LINKSPAM) (undo)
    • (cur) (prev) 18:45, 27 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (11,123 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link] not sure how to do this

    I have always had a brief description about this link and this person only edits my comments to what he thinks it should be. I don’t know this person, never net him and by his comments he is anti-Rampa. I would rather anyone who disagrees to talk with me first rather than just editing. Many links on Wikipedia have detailed description as this helps any visitor to know more information about that link before choosing. He also makes comment about images which are not on Wikipedia; why I have no idea? There are various websites dedicated to Dr. Rampa, all as equal to each other, but perhaps not in any particular individual opinion, but equal as in pro Rampa. --80.192.67.254 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation No party has gone past three reverts in 24 hours. I caution both User:Tlrampa and the IP editor to read and understand our WP:SPAM and WP:Conflict of interest policies. The web site can be mentioned, but Wikipedia is not a medium of advertising. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamGuy reported by Unionsoap (Result: one week and 12 hours respectively)


    • Previous version reverted to: [54]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]

    The often block User:DreamGuy Block Log is once again refusing to accept the KEEP consensus of an AfD, and is engaging in an edit war to remove referenced facts, and to tag the article with a Notability tag. Unionsoap (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week Nominating editor also gets 12 hours, as he violated the rule too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthbody reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Warn )


    • Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert.


    • 1st revert: [60] Reverted the previous two edits, which are these: [61]
    • 2nd revert: [62], undid most of the previous users two edits, which are the following: [63]
    • 3rd revert: [64] Simple revert of the previous edit
    • 4th revert: [65] Same thing, this time undoing my edit.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]


    The user is spamming a variety of pages with material from a non-academic publisher devoted to the views of a leader of a small Tibetan Buddhist sect. Mitsube (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically no breach of 3RR, and I see a report also at WP:AN (though made by another user not yourself). I think it'd be practicable to discuss the issues directly via talk pages rather than carry on with this content dispute. I will warn the user to do the same. Nja247 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a breach. There were the four reverts in less than 24 hours, which I posted. I'm not sure what to do in this situation, should I post this report again? Mitsube (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 1 week)

    Previous report: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive95#Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf (result: no action)

    Slow but extremely tenacious edit war about the reinsertion of a decorative flag picture in multiple country articles, most frequently Germany. Was reported on 29 March for having reverted seven times in seven days. No block given at that time, but warned that action might be taken if the warring continues. Since then he has reinserted the image three more times on Germany ( 1 April, 2 April, 5 April), and once again in a mass edit on a dozen of other articles [67]

    Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block Lear 21 or issue firm admonishment. This persistent user won't give up pushing his edits. He does bring the matter to the talk page, but he just keeps repeating his arguments, rejecting the arguments of everyone else who explain why he is wrong, over and over again. It's getting very tiresome as not only it's useless to discuss with him, as he keeps reverting users who revert him on a daily basis, claiming that no consensus has been reached on the talk page (false, he just continues in denial). Húsönd 11:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that. --Tone 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 7 days Continuing an edit-war after clearly being told that continuing it might be sanctionable is a poor decision. I did consider making this a longer block, given the editor's block log and the fact the last edit-warring block was 3 weeks, but since that was over a year ago I think this is a reasonable compromise. This editor should be under no illusions though that continuing this behaviour will lead to quickly escalating block lengths. Black Kite 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ChaosMaster16 reported by Alientraveller (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [72]

    ChaosMaster16 posts irrelevant edit summaries, does not care for other editors taking care of redundancies and has admitted willingness to patronize readers on my talk page, and also stated they only want to follow the part of WP:MOSFILM they want to follow. This article has already had a painful birth after NuclearWarfare, Erik and I sorted out how to manage an overlong lead, but ChaosMaster16 has returned insisting the article go back to the way it was and refused to input at the discussion page. Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally constructive edits editor has blindly reverted include the removal of information not given in citations. Alientraveller (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Russavia reported by Colchicum (Result: stale )


    • 1st revert (April 5, 6:44): [73]
      • Previous version reverted to: [74]
    • 2nd revert (April 5, 7:50): [75]
      • Previous version reverted to: [76]
    • 3rd revert (April 5, 8:11): [77]
      • Previous version reverted to: [78]
    • 4th revert (Apr 5, 11:06): [79] (pagemove-revert, disregarding objections on the talk page)
      • Previous version reverted to: [80]
    • 5th revert (Apr 5, 11:52): [81] (pagemove again – not to the same name, but to something only minimally different, over objections on the talk page again)


    The user is perfectly aware of the existence of 3RR, he was blocked two times for edit-warring, has given 3RR warnings and reported other users to this noticeboard himself, as well as claimed that he is "mindful of 3RR".

    Colchicum (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The first 3 are reverts yes, and this will be continued to discussed on the talk page which is occurring, and I will be furthering the discussion to take this to a wider audience as to the threshold for inclusion in the article. The 2nd two are not reverts of the first 3, but moving an article after a user who calls Google search results Talk:Security_Police_Board_(Estonia)#Moved_to_Security_Police_Board bullshit moved it, and another editor who has claimed that precedent is that National Gendarmerie is at it's native language (when French name is Gendarmerie Nationale). If the article is moved back it will be taken to WP:RM, but when we have naming conventions in place we should be following them. And frankly, editors who refer to others as Neo-Nazi's, as Digwuren has here (not once! but twice!) is a grosser violation of WP than moving the article to a placename which complies with naming conventions. Now we will wait for comment from Digwuren, Martintg, probably a couple of other regulars, but I've had my say here. But I will add that it takes 2 to tango (in this case, it takes 3!), and I have backed off, and am continuing to discuss. --Russavia Dialogue 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A revert is a revert. You moved the article back to the same title again. I don't think that your title is wrong, but I think that the lame move wars are very disruptive. Colchicum (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I hope that you will tell this to Digwuren and Martintg also, because they are clearly not innocent in this entire process. It takes more than one to tango. --Russavia Dialogue 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The comments directly below are in relation to comments which Digwuren posted and hence removed here.

    No, 2 days ago, "the editor" reverted Digwuren for a mass removal of sourced information. Whilst cleaning it up, "the editor" came to his conclusion that what was written as it stood was undue, and removed it almost immediately. After another editor 2 days later inserted said information which he initially inserted, which was reverted, "the editor" reverted it and cut it right down, and insured that only reliable sources were used. Digwuren continued to claim the information was still sourced to the blog which garnered that response. Best to show things how they are instead of painting a wrong picture. --Russavia Dialogue 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps one should also note, that Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 reverts in the article in the past 24 hours: [82][83][84], despite Connolley's warnings:[85]. Even the edit warring by Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be still going on, despite him being recently unblocked on the promise that he will stop edit warring: [86][87]. In any case, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on, and obviously warnings aren't helping as much as they should. Offliner (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, should they let you repeatedly insert the inaccurately summarized patent nonsense produced by a noted neo-Nazi to the article you have never been interested in before? I don't think so. Unlike Russavia, they are nowhere near the limit set by the 3RR, by the way. It is better to discuss the things on the talkpage, which you carefully avoid, rather than to hijack this "discussion". Colchicum (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Colchicum, are you not tired of patronising revert-warring on Digwuren's part? This has been going on for years. As soon as Digwuren is indef blocked, the problem will resolve itself. It's as clear as day. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see you, Ghirla, here in English Wikipedia, too. But please don't 'chime in' with such useless inflammatory comments. This is not constructive at all. PS. Do you have this page in your watchlist or just stalking someone? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very simple. R. made a 3RR violation, as clear from the diffs. This is not the first time when O. and R. are reported for clear 3RR violations, and they sometimes even openly admitted this, without making any apologies or remorse. In a few cases they were blocked. But they were not even warned in many other clear cases of clear 3RR violations. I am not sure if administrators want this behavior to continue, but doing nothing certainly encourage such WP:Battles which continue unabated on a regular basis.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we just need to hear from Martintg, then all of the peanut gallery has had their say. --Russavia Dialogue 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is precisely a WP:Battle statement of yours I am talking about. Do you admit that you made a 3RR violation (moving article was also a revert)? Do you apologize for that? Do you promise not to do this again?Biophys (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, peanut gallery is a battle statement? People do act like the peanut gallery at times, and we don't need to hear from it. C'mon, you have to come up with something better than that. (As will Digwuren for his storage ha). Perhaps you can have a word to Digwarrior about his accusing others of being Neo-Nazis, and perhaps you can have a word to Colchicum for "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia." instead of boring me to tears with your rubbish of me creating battle conditions. I've yet to see the peanut gallery condemn either of those for those comments, so excuse me for choking on your sense of moral outrage. --Russavia Dialogue 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note Looking over the page history, it is apparent that Russavia was not the only one edit warring. While this does not excuse his actions, I think we need to remember to look at the bigger picture here. Had I stumbled accross this earlier both Russavia and Digwuren would have been blocked for edit warring, and for Digwuren's part in violating RFAR/Digwuren. But because there has not been any edit warring for at least five hours a block at this point would be clearly punitive and as such I am going to decline taking any action on the basis of it being Stale. Tiptoety talk 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well I am gobsmacked, I get blocked 21 hours after my last revert on Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Russavia escapes a clear technical breach because it is 5 hours old, and Digwuren cops a backhander to boot. How does Russavia do it, muddy the waters with counter accusations of incivility and edit warring? Like kids not given boundaries, and 3RR is a clear boundary, this result will only embolden him to further disruption. Martintg (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will readily admit that I err, and cop punishments on the chin; the only thing I fought was my indef banning for sockpuppetry, because it was clearly wrong. However, I have yet to see from some other editors an admission of wrongdoing; you are making out that I am the only one who does things wrong around here, and anyone who even so much as says that is deluded. Having said that, if you are so outraged that I didn't get blocked, when you were, I have no objections if Tiptoety wishes to ignore the "stale" nature and dish out whatever blocks he was going to hand out, however, I am not going to dispute it, because if the page moves are counted as "reverts", then yes I clearly reverted 3RR, and I have always said "One rule for all, not just for some". Does this make people happy? --Russavia Dialogue 19:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For someone who claims they are prepared to cop it in the chin, you sure do spray a lot of mud. Not wanting to get into a content discussion here, but creating a "Criticisms" section on the basis of the views of a neo-Nazi is clearly contentious as it is undue, similar to basing a criticisms of the FBI section solely on the views of Al Capone. It was clear that other editors objected to this a few days earlier, and the discussion should have continued on talk, yet you reignite the whole thing again by attempting to insert this same contentious material. This pattern of confrontational and combative editing is the same across a whole range of Estonia related articles. You Australian, but you behave alike an Russian ultra-nationalist, is this entertainment for you? The problem is that your behaviour is inciting other editors, in particular Offliner, to engage in similar disruptive editing in an area that has had a measure of peacefulness last year. We even have Ghirla coming out of the wood work because of your antics. You have not contributed anything positive to Estonia related articles, just articles like ESStonia and a lot of confrontation. An Estonian topic ban for you would be more appropriate I think. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's not discuss content, because there has been an absolute lack of good faith on the part of quite a few editors here. People objected a few days earlier as it was sourced to blogs. It was later resourced to an Estonian newspaper (which is a reliable source, unless you are going to say this is a neo-Nazi publication) and Interfax, it was NPOV'ed, and stripped right down to the bare essentials. But as I noted on the talk page, this went completely unnoticed because Digwuren claimed it was still sourced to a blog, when that was not the case. But let's not discuss that, let's discuss the constant refusal to acknowledge that calling others a Neo-Nazi, not once! but twice!!! is a personal attack, and a gross violation of WP:DIGWUREN, and there is not even so much as a false sense of moral outrage by a single one of you; I'm not surprised, as there are many very recent instances of yourselves referring to fellow editors as pigs (need I roll out Colchicum's admission yet again)? Well I will just for good measure in case anyone tries to deny it. Just what and who does he mean by "I meant our beloved eliminationists." Well obviously the pig is User:Offliner, for he is the one who reported something to 3RR. Like I said, at least Colchicum has the cajones to admit it, unlike yourself and Digwuren who have not commented and/or denied it. When the same editor writes "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia.", and is pulled up by an admin, and basically says "whatever", then one has to be a bit miffed at the deathly silence from the lot of you. So again, let me choke on anything that some people have to say Martintg, yourself included in this instance. Oh, and let me finish, if the criticism of an individual is undue for this article, may I ask why Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) contains a section of perception in Germany, and it simply says it is known as the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist", and is sourced, as evidenced on the talk page to sources you haven't even seen. If anything, if an Estonian-topic ban is in order for myself (no big deal to me), then a Russia/Soviet-topic ban for yourself (and others) is in order too, is it not (big deal to a lot of you, as advocacy on such articles is a big reason for existence on the project)? But of course not, because none of you have ever done a single thing wrong in your entire glorious existence on WP. I'll start to take anything you have to say seriously Martintg, when you condemn Digwuren and Colchicum for their personal attacks upon myself (and other users) in the same way that you have done to myself. Frankly, I won't hold my breathe. --Russavia Dialogue 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your evident personal issues with Digwuren and Colchicum is between yourself and them, this have nothing to do with me, nor is it justification to edit war Estonian related articles because they happen to be working on them. Nor is it acceptable to insert contentious material into Estonian related articles because you don't like something in Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), this is WP:POINT. Of course you have had conflict with many editors of other nationalities over many other Russian/Soviet articles, yet oddly Estonia seems to be a special point of focus for you. You are from Australia, do you find it entertaining to incite ethnic Russian editors into conflict against ethnic Estonian editors on the pages of Estonian related articles? Is this some kind of hate porn for you? You have been warned previously of your excessive confrontationalism. My observation is that if you stop editing Estonia related articles this conflict will stop immediately, because this excessive confrontationalism is the source of the conflict. This is why I think a topic ban for is in order. Martintg (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just as I expected, you refuse to condemn them, in other words you think that it is ok behaviour to call people such vile names. But wasn't it you who ran to Moreschi like a 5 year old because of comments I made to Digwuren? Oh, that's right, yes, it was you. That is pure H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y. Please, just stop with your false sense of moral outrage, there has been enough of this from your fellow peanut gallery members, and I've eaten just about all the peanuts I can. Oh, and by the way, only an idiot could not take a look at all of your talk pages (including deleted messages) and see that there is obviously a whole lot of teaming and gaming going on between yourself, Digwuren, Colchicum and Biophys, in order to get rid of an opponent. --Russavia Dialogue 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this is not "stale" since Russavia proceeded with such edits, without debating anything at talk pages.Biophys (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pashtun Ismailiyya reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [88]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

    The User over and over again is trying to plug in Shia negative stories into the biography of this Islamic figure, and using hardcore Shia citations but fakely reporting them as secular or Sunni sources. Over and over since the User's message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar#Regarding_my_reversions_and_edits he is insisting to plug in Shia beliefs in the body of the text, and against the obvious disagreement of most everyone in the talk page. Then the User used edit warring techniques to force maintenance of those changes and stories and outright lying about the citations. The citations are from shia books and we have been trying to clarify that these are all Shia beliefs, however the user is erroneously claiming that they are neutral secular "Yale" research books or referred to that they are mentioned in famous Sunni books. I have confirmed one of the Sunni books, Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, and found the page number and found no reference whatsoever, when told the user merely removed the page number but maintained the false citation.

    When he sent the link to one of the books he called "secular and neutral sources" it was a clear religious "introduction to Shii Islam". He continues to insist on reverting the page with false citations despite being disproven as per the talk page.

    I have posted a report before and it was somehow removed. Please tell me if there is something missing from my report before removing it so as to know how to make a correct report. Otherwise if you haven't removed my report for some admin requirement kindly please check why it was removed and by home. I don't know how.

    --Sampharo (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigating. This is more of an edit war, but could involve sockpuppetry. One sec... --slakr\ talk / 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-04-06T05:53:13 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) m (43,761 bytes) (Protected Umar: IP vandalism. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthbody reported by User:Mitsube (Result: stale?)


    • Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert.


    • 1st revert: [93] Reverted the previous two edits, which are these: [94]
    • 2nd revert: [95], undid most of the previous users two edits, which are the following: [96]
    • 3rd revert: [97] Simple revert of the previous edit
    • 4th revert: [98] Same thing, this time undoing my edit.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [99]


    The user is spamming a variety of pages with material from a non-academic publisher devoted to the views of a leader of a small Tibetan Buddhist sect. I posted this above, but unfortunately the responding admin did not understand the diffs. This may be due to my error. But as s/he now refuses to admit that such a mistake was made: [100] perhaps someone else could look at it with fresh eyes. Mitsube (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to be stale. No edits to Tantra_techniques_(Vajrayana) in the last 24h. Also, Talk:Tantra_techniques_(Vajrayana) has nothing about its supposed edit war, which is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Likebox reported by User:Kenosis (Result:48 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert of three other editors.



    Likebox appears determined both to have his original research and independent conclusions about this topic included in the article, and will not even accept a "disputed section" template. But frankly, it's blatant OR wholly unsupported by the sources Likebox has used. Today, three separate editors have agreed the stuff is unsupported by the sources, and Likebox has reverted them all including myself. On a prior occasion on this exact issue in the same article, other editors including at least one admin have expressed unqualified agreement it's original research. But today the issue is edit warring to insist the original research be included. Regrettably, I therefore request a block of sufficient strength to make the point that LIkebox's approach is completely out of bounds w.r.t. both WP content policy and WP behavioral policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Black Kite 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Williamgeorgefraser reported by User:Frickative (Result: 24 hours )

    Ronnie Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Williamgeorgefraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [109]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

    —Frickative 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Monsieur Voltaire reported by IsraelXKV8R (Result: 24h, page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [115]


    This is another dispute over the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE. We get this every once in a while. This scientific article uses the scientific standard of BCE/CE. Monsieur Voltaire claims that since the article was originally opened with BC/AD, the article must adhere to that. Please disabuse.

    IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    88.22.157.67 , 83.43.225.208, 83.49.159.170, 88.8.119.201, 70.82.250.118, 79.155.66.196, 79.151.113.99 and others, reported by Bookworm857158367 (Result: Pages protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [121]


    This anonymous user has been switching IP addresses every time he is warned to stop vandalizing the page Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1899-1918). He is posting the same inaccurate information at the page Romanov claimants and continues to revert back and switch IP addresses when he is warned on that page as well. I suggest semi-protecting both pages so that anonymous users cannot edit them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected. Both pages semi-protected for a week. Black Kite 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tesaux reported by Hippo43 (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [126]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [133]

    This has been under dsicussion at Talk:Giuseppe_Rossi#Italian and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Giuseppe_Rossi_-_American.3F for some time. Tesaux's comments have been fairly unhelpful. --hippo43 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Xavexgoem (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jackiestud reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 12h)

    Jackiestud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC[reply]

    1. 18:22, 5 April 2009 (edit summary: "Pater is originaly hebraic, which is a much older tribe.")
    1. 21:55, 5 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 281963413 by Dougweller (talk)")
    1. 13:16, 6 April 2009 (edit summary: "I agree")
    1. 13:57, 6 April 2009 (edit summary: "osford english dictionary has the same meaning")
    1. 16:23, 6 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 282135387 by Folantin (talk)")
    1. 16:37, 6 April 2009 (edit summary: "Pls try to prove there is no sense!!! I´ve offered many sources so far.")
    1. 16:52, 6 April 2009 (edit summary: "pater comes from patria (patris), which means country otr paese or pagan")

    I asked the editor on my talk page several times to revert before I reported. Also see [134] where I also warned editor. —Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    12h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    83.228.15.22 reported by Zaps93 (Result: please talk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [135]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Keeps reverting edits without reference to support his/her reasons for edits. As for the edits I do, there is a referece/external link, to support it.

    Strictly no vio, as too slow. No warning, indeed nothing at all on the anon's talk page, which is still blank. Nothing about the issue on the article talk page, so a black mark to you. *Talk* don't just revert William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evlekis reported by Kevin (Result: )



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [144]


    I warned an IP also, who has not edited since the warning. Kevin (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    If I may add. It has stopped - despite exceeding three, I haven't returned to the articles and cannot at this minute tell you how they stand. May I now officially draw your attention to User:142.161.163.92 who has never engaged in dialogue and has logged on for no other reason than to delete information, often sourced. The user has continuously demanded sources for pieces where they are not required elsewhere on the article, and has at no time moved an inch; please compare my original edits on Hakan Yakin with the latter revisions which were discussed on Wikiproject:Football, another place the anon failed to make an appearance. Kevin did not help, he merely reported me for asking how to go about such affairs when dealing with a user who does not communicate. Please consider this bias, and my own contributions over the past three years when passing judgments. Evlekis (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    69.204.200.237 reported by C.Fred (Result: )

    also previously blocked IP 217.44.144.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    • Previous version reverted to: [145] is the last clean version



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [152]
    Notice of violation of 3RR but invitation to participate at talk page only: [153]
    • Diff of block notice to 1st IP: [154]


    Seeking assistance from another administrator here since the key issue at this point is edit warring. IP editor removed a sourced section of text from the article claiming it was "Unproven libellous allegations". He was invited to participate in discussion but persisted in deleting the text.

    I specifically told him that he had violated 3RR but I wanted to not block him so he could participate in discussion at the talk page. Note that he has deleted comments there [155] [156] although not related to the discussion of the issue at hand. Even after the specific warning, he persisted in deleting the text, for which I blocked his IP. A new IP, 69.204.200.237, then returned to make the same edit to the article.

    This appears to be clearly the acts of a single editor, so I think this is the better venue that a request for page protection. I also want a fresh set of eyes to confirm that this is edit warring; until that determination is made, I'm not editing the article any further so I don't perpetuate the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Setzerulez210 reported by Untick (Result: 7 days)


    • Previous version reverted to: [158]



    'nuff said. Untick (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A Man In Black reported by Untick (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [171]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [175]

    User:A Man In Black does not seem to accept the fact that a recent AfD found the subject Airi & Meiri to be notable and therefore Kept. He keeps replacing the "notability" tag after it has been removed. Untick (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a note, I believe there should be four reverts total, no? Although, in this case, the user under discussion has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring and perhaps that is worth consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action. 3RR has not been technically broken, and whilst this is not a reason for not sanctioning, and edit-warring is clearly unwise, at least the editor has tried to engage on the talkpage. I am far more minded to sanction those that don't (see case below this one). Also, he's technically got a point - an article surviving an AfD doesn't mean it automatically passes WP:N as some of the reverting editors are trying to claim in their edit summaries. However, this really needs more than one editor to engage at the talkpage now. Black Kite 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty much what Black Kite said is where I am. Untick and Unionsoap are free to offer their opinion on the talk page or add some reliable sources to the article, but removing cleanup tags without doing anything to solve the issues is needlessly obstructive. Wikilawyering about AFD "verdicts" doesn't make this article any better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TruHeir reported by Taharqa (Result: 24h - both editors)


    • Previous version reverted to: [176]



    User:TruHeir Is being extremely unreasonable and disruptive. He/she came out of nowhere blanking over tons of information in a thoughtless revert. I restored the previous version and he/she accusing me of vandalism for reverting his disruptive edits. I told him/her that they were being unreasonably and warned them of the 3rr (which he/she is obviously keenly aware of, attested by his contribs and familiarity with wiki icons as he/she posted on my talk page) in that they'd be blocked if he/she persisted. To no avail, the user ramained beligerant and disruptive, thus, I'm reporting him/her as indicated.Taharqa (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - both editors are being unreasonable, edit warring and failing to engage on the talk page. The article is already semi-protected and I see no reason for it to be fully protected. Further edit warring will be met with increasing blocks. Black Kite 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Optfx reported by Dayewalker (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [181]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [187]

    User is edit warring to insert a section of original research into these two articles (Yahoo diffs shown for ease of reading). User is also editing as 79.226.56.248 (talk · contribs), as seen from his edit history and this comment [188]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also edited as 79.226.57.76 (talk · contribs)/ --ZimZalaBim talk 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scjessey reported by CENSEI (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    User Warned [193]

    Chronic drama magnet Scjessey has once again decided to join in an edit war on a political article and has not only demonstrated his repeated propensity to edit war but has also violated 3RR on this one. CENSEI (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=282259449"