Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 30 July 2008 (→User:Pmanderson reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours ): fix typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

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


    User:99.248.41.122 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (Result: 12 hours each)

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

    Time reported: 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    User refuses to cite and does not engage in dialogue on the talk page of the article.

    Comment None of the other names in the article have citations; why is he being pressured for one?--KojiDude (C) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment is just for the record: The bogus greek version of "Jasper" introduced by the anonymous IP is completely unattested. All other names in the relevant list give ample results when googled. The fact that the supposed Greek form of Jasper does not appear in any google result whatsoever, most certainly merits a proper citation.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment In reply to KojiDude's comment, if anyone bothered to see my ill fated attempt at communication on the talk page of the article they would see the reason. I warned the IP that Google yielded 0 (zero) hits for its edit. Do I have to explain what zero Google hits mean regarding the notability of the IP's edit? So here is the picture: An anonymous IP vandalizes the article with demonstrably unverifiable rubbish despite multiple warnings by more than one editor on its user talk page and the article talk page as well and the longstanding editor without prior record of blocks and a stellar mainpage editing record and civil behaviour in all of his edits with long-running vandalism fighting credentials to boot, does not even get the courtesy of even a warning. We have administrators for a reason. The reason is that they have logic and discretion and they can apply the rules according to the principles of Fairness and logic. Otherwise we would have robots to mindlessly enforce the myriad of Wikipedia's regulations. In this case Fairnes, logic and editor prior history were not considered. Maybe it's time to polish up the software to take on the task of meting Wikipedia law. Dr.K. (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: No Violation)

    Articles of Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

    The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. He actually went over 3 reverts last night, but an additional warning was given. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The last link is not a revert.--KojiDude (C) 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm missing something -- the last link removed material that I added and restored material that PhilLiberty had previously added. How is this not a revert? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a revert, then there is a previous version of the page that is the same as the version after that edit. Can you please specify that previous version? Stifle (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This [7] diff reflects the edit where I added the material that PhilLiberty subsequently deleted. This diff [8] came right before and was the one in which I removed material restored by Phil in the same edit that he deleted the material I added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I need an oldid, not a diff. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Going back to the 4th diff, that is apparently the issue, the section AFTER Phil's revert read:

    Historical importance

    The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established an alliance ("union") of the thirteen founding states. One legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a contract or compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the contract states may rightfully secede.[16] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[17] and John C. Calhoun. A later interpretation was that the states permanently surrendered the right to secede. This view was used by Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to justify engaging in a war against secession, the American Civil War,[18] but was stated as early as 1832 by Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.[19] Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founders. [20]

    The section BEFORE Phil’s revert read (major deleted material in boldface):

    Historical importance

    The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established a union of the thirteen founding states. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the nature of government under the Articles: It has been often said that the decisions of Congress are impotent because the Confederation provides no compulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into compact, it is not usual for them to say what shall be done to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it is as unnecessary asindecent, because the right of compulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compell them to obedience.[16] Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."[17] A different legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the terms of the compact, states may rightfully secede.[citation needed] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[dubious – discuss][18] and John C. Calhoun. This view motivated discussions of secession within a minority of states at the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis.[19][20][21] A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln, was that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states and that the Constitution, being a "more perfect union", continued this perpetuity.[22] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: No violation proven)

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

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

    Time reported: 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Kowtow

    Taekwondo

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

    Possibly he is a sock of 210.231.12.98. (exactly same behavior of User:Pabopa). if he is a sock, then he violated 3rr rules more.

    evidence

    No violation. There are only three reverts shown for Kowtow (four are required to constitute a violation) and there is no previous version reverted to shown for Taekwondo, so no evidence that the first edit is a revert. You can list a request for checkuser type E if you think that the IP is the same editor as Pabopa. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for review: I've watched their edit waring, but their edit wars were so fast. Manac misformatted the diffs on Taekwondo, so I do it. The article is currently in mediation (not formal though), so every sources are under scrutiny. I also agree that Pabopa seems like 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs)[21], a sock of blocked for personal attacks yesterday. It is highly unlikely the Badopa and the IP user are not the same one given the identical edit and appearances. If they are the same user, Badopa is evading his block sanction. Regardless, Babopa indeed violated 3RR twice with his or account.

    --Caspian blue (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Pabopa (Result: Page protected)

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

    Time reported: 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning:[27]

    Taekwondo, Samjeondo Monument‎,Seoul National University He does stalking of me,and revert.--Pabopa (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Pabopa (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    what are you talking about? you violated 3rr rule. after you created new accounts and violated 3rr rule more. many user revert your edit, but your have a disruptive behavior, and revert revert.... again.

    here is the evidence. [28][29][30][31][32] Manacpowers (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pabopa reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Declined)

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

    Time reported: 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Third violation of 3RR within 14 hours by Pabopa. One of the three articles Pabopa violated is now protected, the other is still waiting for review, the latest one is this one. I don't think the user willing to regard with 3RR policy and consensus and discussion. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined The first edit is not a revert, so there are only three in total. Nonetheless, User:Pabopa has reverted three times in one day on each of three different articles. He may be blocked for edit warring if this behavior continues. It is possible he is the reincarnation of an IP who had been previously warring on the same articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, I've thought that adding or deleting a material first is regarded "revert" if somebody oppose and revert the addition or deletion. Although he did not violate 3RR on this Samjeondo article by your review, he really "revert" 4th time on Taekwondo. I also believe that the previous IPs are him, given the time and identical edit. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.166.196.75 reported by User:Barryob (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported: 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]


    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This may be a single-purpose IP that was created expressly to edit-war on the names of parties in Scotland. I'm warning User:Barryob as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cooljuno411 reported by User:Ludwigs2 (Result: Declined)

    Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]
    • There was also my attempt at a compromise edit, here which was rejected


    My involvement in this begins here, with this compromise edit


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [61]


    COMMENT - this is a slow edit war (everyone is being careful to stick to the literal 3rr rules), but it's an obvious attempt to impose a non-standard set of categories on the template, without allowing discussion. I've asked Cooljuno to take the debate over to Sexual Orientation, reach a consensus there, and then come back when the matter is established - instead, he created a POV-fork at Heterosexual-homosexual_continuum - [62] - and tried to use it as support for his position. further, I think he's aware of what he's doing: Skoojal removed the sidebar from sexual orientation, but Cooljuno edited it back in almost immediately, here [63]. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aviousours76 reported by User:malljaja (Result: 1 week)

    Aviousours76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


    The user in question is involved in edit warring on several other entries (see here); in fact it appears that the account has been created for the sole purpose of engaging in disputes revolving around the same issue. He/she has received a 3RR warning (by a different user) 17:33, 17 July 2008 here, but has removed it subsequently. I have contacted the user on their talk page here, but so far without avail (reverts similar the ones by this user now are made by anon IPs). I hope this can be resolved with your help. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week This editor's main activity since the account was created on June 12 is to revert national identities across a range of articles, for example, 'British' to 'English.' During that period, 37 out of his 40 article edits were reverts. I think it's fair to describe that as POV edit-warring, which falls under 'tendentious editing.' Anyone who is familiar with recent sock cases is invited to check if this is a known sock, because there are nationalist edit-warriors who fit this description. In addition, there was a 3RR violation on John Lydon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Be Black Hole Sun reported by User:Wiki libs (Result: 24 hours)

    Comment User:Be Black Hole Sun has a edit war history with the article and it has been previously locked by an administrator. A consensus as to the format for the page has been reached but Be Black Hole Sun has chosen to ignore the consensus and continues to edit war and push his personal view of the page format. Libs (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kung_Fu_Man reported by User:74.242.122.25 (Result: no violation)

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

    Time reported: 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment by Kung Fu Man To point something out the anon fellow here did not...the "2nd revert" is actually just a ref addition to the first revert, and was simply an edit and not a reversion of the article. I also received no alert about this discussion being conducted, and found it only by checking this fellow's contribution history.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
    Comment – The links provided are not diffs. —Travistalk 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Kolindigo reported by User:Sennen_goroshi (Result: Stale. )

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

    Time reported: 19:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


    There were more than the above 5 reverts made by the user within a 24 hour time span, however to be fair, some of the reverts that I have not listed were reverting clear vandalism - although some of the above edits had a RVV edit summary, however they were clearly content dispute not vandalism.

    The user is clearly aware of the 3RR, as they made they following edit summary in the past, while self reverting good faith self-revert, since I'm over 3RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dara_Torres&diff=prev&oldid=224254442

    User:Cached Entity reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hour block )

    Cached Entity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


    User:P-nice reported by User:Bedford (Result: 12 h)

    P-nice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


    Comment I think this involves Bedford peremptorily removing information that can be viewed as somewhat negative about this organisation. I don't know the merits of the specifics here, but it is highly relevant that Bedford has been engaging in DYK-medal-racing related edit wars and in one-sided edits to remove negative information and to build up positive information in other articles about Masonic Lodges, including Grand Lodge of West Virginia. In the WV case, another user had proposed a DYK nomination with the negative but true and well-supported information that has been in the news. Bedford repeatedly removed the info and tagged the article various ways in order to preclude it from DYK. He succeeded. Others, seeking to intervene, ultimately left all the questioned information in, and called upon him to add other information for balance. I predicted that he would not, as he won the DYK destruction race, and he has not contributed anything. Bedford and I have had multiple disagreements. I reported him for 3RR violation on an entirely different issue recently, in which administrators chastised him, an administrator himself, for flouting 3RR rules in attempting to label his own 4th revert as vandalism reversion. The ruling administrator chose not to block him, however, saying that I showed bad faith in my own first reversion edit summary (I did not particularly understand that). But here, bad faith on Bedford's part is plentiful in my view. And, I have not had any involvement in the present article. doncram (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P-nice blocked twelve hours. 3RR is merits-blind, but besides that, the verifiability policy puts the onus on those who want information included to source it.--chaser - t 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HighKing reported by User:EmpireForever (Result: Both blocked)

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

    Time reported: 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    Editor has previously been blocked during his one-man crusade to remove British Isles, and administrators are already recommending a block for his disruptive edit warring see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:HighKing. EmpireForever (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA stalking my edits and content-edit-warring on several articles, removing references, and has already been warned for comments referring to Irish as terrorists (although deserved to get a block). --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not removed a single reliable source, unlike HighKing was has removed many. As the discussion on the other noticeboard shows, HighKing is a SPA dedicated to removing British Isles, which is what he has been edit warring over tonight. EmpireForever (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked, HighKing (talk · contribs) for 72 hours (repeat offender), EmpireForever (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. Both users edit-warring on articles besides the one listed. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.30.182.131 reported by User:Michellecrisp(Result: blocked anyway)

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

    Time reported: 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [64]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [68]

    Technically the rule kicks in at four, and I'm not sure 76.30 would have seen the warning before the third revert, but the nastiness he recently inserted onto the reporter's userpage merits a block after all the other mess.--chaser - t 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Discussion on talk page shows that the material is contentious, with several noting WP:BLP violation. I have asked that it not be reinserted without a decision on whether BLP has been breached. Matilda prefers to edit-war rather than follow wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear from the article history that I have not indulged in edit warring. I added the material (referenced) following discussions on the talk page. I have followed the discussions on the talk page and contributed there. I have reverted Skyring twice. I have not breached 3RR, nor been provoked into breaching it. --Matilda talk 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got a bit involved in this situation, so I won't take official action, but I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary. Otherwise, can we freeze this request for a few minutes while we try to work towards a consensus, please?--chaser - t 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I disagree that Skyring should be exempted regardless of his deeply held beliefs on BLP violations. Several admins are involved in the discussions on the talk page. None of them reverted the material despite holding opposing views. (ie Gnagarra and OIC). The issue of the material should be discussed elsewhere. --Matilda talk 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert only because I thought someone already had. Orderinchaos 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The same does not apply to Gnangarra who quite clearly left the material in when editing it [69] . Moreover I count over 10 editors editing on the talk page at the time and presumably watching the article - the 3RR states: if an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. No issue if other editors had joined in the revert - I do have issues with Skyring single handedly imposing his view. --Matilda talk 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The inclusion of the report in this article might be (at most) silly but certainly not defamatory. Depending on which 3RR-closer wants to address this one, I can assert you'll find no unanimity that a BLP defence will work in this case. Reverts are exempt from 3RR limits only if the material actually *does* violate BLP, not just because the editor's personal opinion is that it does. I would give Skyring a chance to self-revert first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyring has been advised of the invitation and appears to wish to ignor it [70] --Matilda talk 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it. --Shot info (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a member of a clique thanks. I would appreciate you clarify your rationale for me to be sanctioned. --Matilda talk 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours 3RR violation. After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    You commenced action here. I suggest you address the points I raise here. Your input into the BLPN notice has been tangential. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commenced action against your edit warring here , no more no less. I suggested (and others agreed) that your edit warring ws not justified as reversion of vandalism. If you wish to make accusations of edit warring do so - with diffs - I believe I have no case to answer on edit warring and had already stated that above. I have no interest in silencing you as a critic, if you didn't engage in stupid behaviour by reverting multiple times there would have been no cause for the request to be blocked. Moreover the blocking admin offered you an opportunity to self-revert and I ensured that you knew about that opportunity. You chose not to take it. Please don't blame other people for your block. --Matilda talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: 24h to both)

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

    Time reported:

    Kowtow

    Samjeondo Monument

    210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.[71]

    Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

    But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

    Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
    Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

    one of the Adminstrator(3rr part) worried about this,[72]

    "I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

    and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing. [73]

    I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI". [74]

    This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

    Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [75]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[76]

    210.231.12.98[77] and 210.231.14.222[78]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[79], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.

    Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
    Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
    210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    210.231.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Manacpowers (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    this is no 3rr.please stop personal attack.please stop Edit war.--Pabopa (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    please adminstrator, if you want decide to protect these page, before protect, We must revert his edit.(1. This blocked user edited for Blocked period.(violated rule) 2. Disruptive behavior, anti korea meta pupeting campaign 3. technically, he violated 3rr rule in Kowtow page. Manacpowers (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.122.81.237 reported by User:Miyokan (Result: no vio?)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


    Both users User:Krawndawg and User:Miyokan seem to be expirienced edit warriors by theirs block list. They behave this way in different articles. And trying to collaborate in that [80]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:The big U reported by User:ChimpanzeeUK (Result: notice given)

    I'm not really asking for this user to be blocked but I wasn't sure of the best place to post this. I have informed the user in an edit summary of how to properly cite audio sourced. Despite this he/she continues to revert my edits. The user has not yet reached 3 but I will hit 3 if I revert the edit again. I have left a message on the user's talk page but I doubt this will have any affect based on the user's response to my edit summary. Maybe something as simple as a message from an administrator might get his/her attention. The article in question is Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :EDIT: Since posting this, the user has now breached the 3RR. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: No action required)

    Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [81]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is very well aware of 3RR and has long and persistent history of edit warring and blocks for them. In fact, this month alone, he has been banned for edit warring and in addition further received 3 (!) warnings to stop edit wars (1st, 2nd, 3rd) but chose to persist in reverting pages without discussions at talk at all. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note the fourth revrt, which re-grouped the template was not intended to be a revert. Also may I point out that the reporting party, also back from a 3rr is equally ready to revert changes he does not like. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was the reporting party's only and single revert in several days. Care to count how many times you reverted Template:History of Ukraine just today? And that is in addition to reverts elsewhere and the one above, where you exceeded 3RR. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have self-reverted btw, and why don't you count the amount of talk page comments, and constructive suggestions that others even my opposites have agreed on? Versus your rather dissappointing: claim. (That is despite your previous revert sprawl prior to your block, you have shown how interested you are in the wellfare of that template...) --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, the discussion is over. It is pointless. The facts are there; if you haven't learned from a block and three warnings for edit warring this month alone, I doubt I can help. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you take down the notice then? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No action required, since Kuban kazak has self-reverted the last change. But if you keep this up, Kuban kazak, another block for editwarring will be necessary shortly, 3RR or not.  Sandstein  19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We are going for the record! That's 4th warning for edit warring, this month. No comments, I am speechless.--Hillock65 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think this is going to be the last warning for this user. Judging by the extensive block log, as well as the recent block within the last month, this is starting to get repetitive. I would encourage all future reporters of this user's edit warring to be sure to mention these reports as well as the block log. A user does not need to violate the three revert rule to be blocked for habitual edit warring. --slakr\ talk / 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PaulSoms reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: no vio yet)

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

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:10



    User:Pmanderson reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours )

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

    Time reported: 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 19:12, July 27, 2008
      Replaces: The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final peace settlement.
      With: Several campaigns succeeded in occupying territory for years, in two cases for a couple decades, but all but one of these were reversed; the only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD.

    In addition to the reverts above, in the last 24 hours, he unilaterally tagged the article {{POV}}, against the opinions of at least six other editors (Khoikhoi, Fedayee, CreazySuit, Yannismarou, Larno man, and Nishkid64):

    Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a committed edit warrior, with SIX prior blocks for edit warring (the latest in January 2008). He is also a regular participant at WP:FAR, and knows the instructions there just as he knows WP:3RR.

    Roman–Persian Wars was featured nine days ago, with 7 Support declarations and one unstruck oppose on copyediting from User:Tony1 (another editor had subsequently performed a copyedit, but Tony hadn't struck yet when I closed the FAC). The instructions at WP:FAR clearly state (and have for several years) that "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". Less than 24 hours after he began edit warring on Roman–Persian Wars, Pmanderson initiated a featured article review, over one paragraph ("but as it is, the second paragraph of the lead manages to violate 1a, b, c, d, and e") of an article that had been featured only nine days earlier. Pmanderson's block log and history of edit warring should also be considered in the context of pointy disruption of FAR less than 24 hours after engaging in a dispute over one paragraph of a featured article. He should not be coming up against 3 reverts, and he knows it; he doesn't seem to receive the message of discussing edits rather than pointy and disruptive reverts, tags, and misuse of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for 24 hours. Usually with so many blocks, I'd have increased the block length, but given there's been 6 months since the last block, I've stook to 24. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

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

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

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

Time reported: ~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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


    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=228710435"