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 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 16 November 2008 (→‎Diplomatic missions of Ireland: tidy). 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

    Reports

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


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    User:Russavia reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well aware of the 3rr rule, his last block lasted two weeks for herassing the same person he's been reverting now.
    Extended discussion
    • And there's more edit warring from Russavia besides the ones that broke the 3rr, you'd only have to check the article history.[12] Apart from that he's being very hard to compromise with, more drama on the talk pages of the users[13]
    • There is certainly a WP:BATTLE happening on the article, but may I say that 3rrs are meant to prevent battles rather than punish the combatants. I would rather recommend for the article to be returned to pre-battle condition, locked and guide the parties through WP:DR than blocking anyone. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How nice it is that I get advised of this. The 4th revert is not a revert at all, it is called copy-editing. Additionally, don't forget that both Grey-Fox and Biophys are clearly acting as a tag-team on this article, as can clearly be seen from their edits both on the talk page, and the various talk pages -- not to mention that either they are following each other's edits, or there is off-wiki communication going on. I have attempted to discuss this article with these editors, but Biophys has continued to insert WP:BLP information into the article in an non-NPOV way; in particular claims that Putin is a paedophile. Notice, I have taken discussion to the reliable source noticeboard, and also notice the thinly veiled warning given by Grey-Fox on the article talk page. Gaming the system in order to settle disputes is not the way to go, and as there is clearly tag-teaming going on here, as well as unfounded continual accusations by Biophys both here and via other linked venues (see link below), any block for 3RR clearly needs to be dished out equally, when it is evident these two editors are not acting independently of one another, and I suggest that any admin look at the entire discussion and associated articles to show that there is an unacceptable level of ownership, and any attempt to discuss or implement necessary changes to balance NPOV is called "harrassment". Anyone who is going to insert WP:BLP claims in an article can be sure that that particular edit is going to be harrassed. Note in the discussions that Biophys was adamant that the "paedophile" claims must stay in their former WP:BLP state, but as soon as a WP:NPOV version is inserted (which includes information from sources which attack the veracity of Litvinenko's claims), all of a sudden this is no longer relevant. It is clear what is happening here, and I will also pursue this at the relevant arbcom of which Biophys is involved. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3rr is like an electric fence Russavia, you've clearly violated, which is unfair because another user like Biophys is also not allowed to violate 3rr. I of course deny the ridiculous accusations that I work as a "tag-team", I only participated on the talk page discussion and not in revert warring. The single edit I made was completely independent and not made by anyone else before. Grey Fox (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is not a punishment, its a rule to prevent edit wars and WP:BATTLEs, although there is a potential satisfaction of having your opponent banned, does it really solve the content disputes, it only freezes them. Again I repeat what should be done, article restored to status quo and locked, WP:DR process initiated. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And my revision of Biophys is completely independent of revision of yours - two completely different issues at play. And I stand by my tag-team comment, or are you both going to explain how you both have managed to find not only all of my posts (such as the BLP board, the RS board [on two occasions now], etc - who's stalking who?), and also how Biophys managed to find this post, when a quick check of both of your contribs just now shows no evidence of any notification to Biophys that this has been placed here by yourself. WP:GAME clearly comes to mind, and you are both clearly involved in this, and it has to stop. Also, it is generally regarded as courtesy to advise editors that potential administrative action against them is being requested, and I see nothing on my talk page alerting my to this fact, and it is wasn't for an editor shooting me off an email (and no, it wasn't Kuban_kazak to quell that conspiracy theory right now), I wouldn't have been aware of this sneaky attempt by yourselves to punish an opponent. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid to disappoint you, but that is not the case, 3RR is 3 reverts max, irrespective of what is reverted and how. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Since Russavia has gone over 3RR, and the BLP situation is unclear, I propose that this case might be closed without a block if Russavia would agree *not* to edit Alexander Litvinenko for one week. All editors, including Russavia, would be invited to continue the discussion over at Wikipedia:BLPN#Alexander Litvinenko.2FVladimir Putin. If after discussion it is clear that any genuine BLP violations remain in the article, admins would ensure that they are removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, give me an hour and bit to respond to that would you please. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know that Kuban, and I can handle the punishment on the chin, so long as it acknowledged there is Gaming and Tagteaming occurring here. One need only look at the discussion page, and other venues such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Conflict_Studies_Research_Centre_of_the_Defence_Academy_of_the_United_Kingdom_a_reliable_source.3F to see that there are such conditions here. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look Russavia I don't want you to take it personal that I report you for 3rr, I've reported many people for 3rr and I've been reported for 3rr myself too in the past. It's nothing personal and I hope you won't take it as such. It has nothing to do with "punishment" but there are certain rules that we need to follow because otherwise wikipedia turns into a mess. I'd say wait for an admin to pop up and rule about the 3rr violation, and if you get temp blocked or not, I invite you to co-operate with making good articles and discuss disagreements with users as well as seek compromises. And no I really do not operate as a "tag team" or anything, I specifically tried to avoid editing that article because I saw you were already engaging in a conflict with biophys, so I tried to participate only the talk page discussion to create some sort of compromise and only made an edit after you already broke 3rr. Grey Fox (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but that was actually Russavia who repeatedly inserted a defamatory information about a living person [16]. So, the BLP rules can not justify his 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I think Biophys (talk · contribs) also violated 3RR in the diffs.--Caspian blue 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. I made only one revert if any: [17]. That was removal of a defamatory information about a living person when Russavia complained to Kirill and BLP noticeboard that I allegedly violate BLP rules. Note that I also made a self-revert. My last edit was not revert, becasue no one edited this segment for a long time). I would be reported immediately by Kazak, Russavia or others if I violated 3RR rule anywhere.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea about what's going on between you and the other users' history, but the diffs clearly are revealing more than 1 revert too. Well, those are well referenced (I was shock about Putin's kissing...as reading the contents and sources).--Caspian blue 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to EdJohnston: I can not agree to such a restriction, whereby it is placed on myself and myself alone. As you are an uninvolved admin here, you will be able to look at this objectively, and act accordingly based all of the available evidence. And this should be regarded as an official complaint to an admin from myself as well; the venue of the complaint should be unimportant.

    Yes, I can admit here that I inadvertantly breached WP:3RR. It was an error on my part. And now why I can not agree to such a restriction. I have acted in good faith with all of my edits relating to this particular article. For this I refer you to Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. The article in question at the time I reverted it stated the following:

    In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45]. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds.[46][47][48] Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."

    You will note that this has been presented as fact (i.e. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia), and lacks any critical response on the subject from other sources. But the fact that this was presented as fact. The claim was only removed after consulting other venues previous to removing it. The quoted thread above was then immediately posted to the talk page, with very clear reasons as to why, and linked to policy and an ARBCOM from May with further information. And then opened it up to discussion. Whilst discussion is still going on, disregarding both the policy and arbcom decision, Biophys inserts the BLP back in, but in a different section. That's blatant BLP violation No. 1. I remove the BLP information 24 hours later with quite an apt edit summary, and I mention this to Biophys on the talk page. By this stage, we have all agreed that this information should be placed into the article, and I state that I would work on an NPOV version for discussion on the talk page. Which I did Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Neutral_rewording here and opened it up for discussion. At the same time, I also left a message on User:Ezhiki's talk page, asking him for outside opinion; I regard Ezhiki as a knowledgeable admin and editor who is neutral.

    After 2 days, and based upon Ezhiki's assessment of it being NPOV, I placed an NPOV version into the article. We all agreed remember that this claim should be in the article, but aside from presenting the claim, and Putin's denial (which was not in response to Litvinenko's accusations at all), it also included critical information from non-primary sources on the making of the accusation in the first place. And this is where the problems started. Biophys then removes said information claiming consensus on talk page was to remove it. But consensus was that we should include it (from above). That is Revert #1 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys. Please note edit summaries as well. Biophys then reverts me. That is Revert #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys again. Biophys immediately reverts me. That is Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts himself immediately after. Still on Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts his own revert, but this is an interesting edit, for if one looks at it, it isn't just Revert #4 for Biophys, but also includes the original BLP that was the problem in the first place. That BLP violation #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys' BLP violation. I then add information back into the lead which was removed previously. It should be noted that the part that removed previously read:

    He also made a wide range of other claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

    That sentence was in the lead before I got to the article, and it was unsourced. As this version from August will demonstrate. This stayed in the article for all that time, until I tweaked it as such:

    He also made a wide range of other unproven claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

    Which I added a reference to here. Biophys reverts that, to remove the entire sentence from the lead, with an edit summary of "if you tell about accusations in introduction, you should mention what the accusations were about". Why was this one sentence included in the article for months, yet I come in an put in one word, and provide a reference, and all of a sudden this has to be removed. Also, note the edit summary; this is a WP:GAME and WP:BLP attempt by Biophys to include Putin paedophile claims back into the lead of the article, as it was for some time many months ago. Additionally, this is Revert #5 for Biophys.

    Given that Biophys has reverted 5 times and nothing is mentioned for him, and because the most serious and blatant violations of BLP, which is a bannable offence, if I will not agree to not edit the article for one week, as it is evident from Biophys' own actions of reintroducing serious BLP information into the article, not once, but TWICE, after being advised what is wrong with it, if I were remove reinsertion of BLP information of what is a blockable offence, and one which an uninvolved admin needs to look at seriously as per Wikipedia:BLP#Blocking, I would be held to task and blocked for it. That is the primary reason why I can not in good conscience agree to such a thing. Additionally, in regards to Biophys' ridiculous accusation above, one can clearly see that I have not committed a WP:BLP violation, but have rather taken a real WP:BLP violation, and presented it in an WP:NPOV way.

    Further info on Grey-Fox and Biophys together to follow, so I would appreciate a little indulgment of time to get that ready -- I shan't be too long. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I might as well print out all that and read it in bed. Anyway I'm willing to redraw the 3rr complaint, and ask an admin to just lock the article for a while, given that the reverting already started 2 days ago. Grey Fox (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Fully protected one week. We can't take forever to close a 3RR case. Endless debates belong over at ANI, not here :-). Russavia is definitely over 3RR, Biophys is probably over 3RR (not confirmed in detail). Both editors may, or may not have BLP justification for some of their reverts. Please try to reach a consensus on the Talk page for a neutral version that doesn't violate BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah... well we've crossed, I just blocked R who is definitely over 3RR. Hmmm William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No objection, since a block is formally justified, and BLP policy is pulling so many ways it's unclear that there are any 'pure reverts of defamation' to be excused. Do you have an opinion on whether Biophys also should be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Russiavia would just say "I follow your suggestion not to edit the article for a week", then this report would be wrapped up soon, and he would've not earned the block; quite silly decision. Biophys is also almost equally guilty of 3RR violation in the situation.--Caspian blue 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would revert myself to any version you tell, but the article was protected. I am ready to follow any your instructions, but I did not do four reverts during 24 hours in this article. Sorry for disruption.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins (EdJohnston, William?), why not to cool down Biophys too? He’s just a mirror of Russavia. Putin is absolute good vs Putin is absolute evil... Why not to eliminate these two incorrect views from WP simultaneously at least for a while? And, moreover, look, Biophys continues undoing Russavia edits just 5 minutes after this case “is closed”. Here [18] and here[19]. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment at Russavia's talk page. Tiptoety talk 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result. After three admins took a shot at this, we have a harmonious verdict: Russavia blocked 24 hours, Biophys warned, and the article unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alastairward reported by User:NotAnotherAliGFan (Result: 24 hours (both) )


    • Previous version reverted to: [20]



    This person keeps stalking my edits and stubbornly removing them - while some cases may have been semi-justified (lack of proper citation), in this case it's a sheer edit war. Although he doesn't like this particular reference, it has every right to stay as long as it does not violate any WP policies. WP isn't anyone's private property, no one can go around removing whatever he feels like - which he persistently keeps doing, much to the dismay of users (proof will be provided upon demand). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I only counted three myself from the edit history. I'd also like to know how I've been stalking you, I mainly edit South Park articles, I've not followed you around your other edits. I explained why I removed the cite on your talk page (you left some charming comments on my own).
    Besides, the edit history seems to indicate that you you already reverted my edits three times. Here, here and here.
    I can provide my own proof if you need it on the type of editor who seems to object to my edits. Alastairward (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is not your room and you can't rearrange the furniture to your liking. Show me how I violated a policy and you can remove the cite. Otherwise, stop these annoyances at once! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, while bringing me here you have reverted the article in question again. So that's four reverts for yourself, here, here, here and now here. Am I to beleive that this policy only applies to me and not you?
    As for the cite I removed, I removed it because it doesn't add anything to the article. It's a blog, that doesn't source it's own cites. A better cite, an interview with the actual writer of the episode superceeded it. We don't need the blog as it adds nothing.
    A quick check on your own talk page shows that even an admin asked you to stop adding unverified material to article pages, just so we know where you're coming from. Alastairward (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, there appear to be two edit warring going on here at the same time. One involving a IP adding a trivia section and the other involving this citation. Both users have engaged in edit warring, and as such Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours As for the IP, they have been Warned Any further "reverts" or addition of the trivia section within the next 24 hours will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    66.194.214.194 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: warned; reverted 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [25]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

    IP editor, probably linked to user:ChristineCar (who commented once on article talk to request the link be added), warring to replace link to fansite (IP's own site, if IP is ChristineCar). IP does not respond to article talk or user talk. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning postdates last revert. Will block if reverts again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IP re-added link minutes after your reversion and warning. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 1 week )

    User is an established editor who is aware of the 3rr rule but is edit warring (even so not the only one), pointing in his edit summaries to the Obama talk page as there where consensus, which there isn't [for two different issues at the same article] and ignored editors who made him aware of this in their edit summary. He also is or should be fully aware of this as he is contributing to the talk page. I'm filing this report now because I've just was becoming aware of his continues reverting. I've left out previous reversions of the same since there where not within the 24 h limit. I would like to add on that a warning only and no block would be fine with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    1. 18:45, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "per talk")
    2. 19:13, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk, this is being discussed there...")
    3. 15:12, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "rv per other Presidential bios....")
    4. 16:59, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk. This is how other Pres bios are.")


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [31]

    Regretfully find the need to file a report.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week This seems like a ongoing issue, let's hope a short block will help. Tiptoety talk 20:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    wow. I didn't expect that outcome at all. Maybe I missed something?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the outcome you were hoping for? Tiptoety talk 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The one I mentioned above but I didn't went to his history besides the one at the Obama article so it's not that I'm questioning your ruling. By now I also saw the block-reason on his page what explains this "harsh" decision. I'm not second-guessing your block, if that is your question.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dfener91 reported by Journalist 007 (Result: 24 hours )




    I've noticed edit war between Dfener91, Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills, and I have placed 3RR warning on their talk pages. When I searched through their edits, I realized Dfener91 is the only one not ready to make compromise, who violated 3RR twice. On the other hand Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills are old users who are trying to improve article and make compromise. I think this radical behaviour should be sanctioned for at least two or more days. Journalist 007 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please understand this is not a open invitation for the other involved parties who are not blocked to continue to edit war. Tiptoety talk 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baseball Card Guy reported by User:Libro0 (Result:No vio)

    The image BCG is taking down was said to be a non-issue on the Mediation Cabal by TEB728. The image was declared suitable for use on Non free content review. Apoc2400 also replaced the image after BCG took it down stating that it was accepted for use.

    BCG was previously warned for noncompliance here.

    • 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. either way (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:Jemmy Button (result: wrong forum)

    The article is Property is Theft!, which is currently protected. This is a long-standing edit war. Previous RFC result was not to include material, however, SteveWolfer claims that "Consensus favors inclusion". SteveWolfer persists in reverting without discussion. Extensive explanation on talk page meets with no response. His position is basically demolished in the talk page; his comments there never substantively addressed those of others. Enormous effort has gone into this already, and it is now obvious (at least to any who read the talk page) that the issue will not be resolved without administrator intervention. See Libertatia's comment for a summary.

    So, please, HELP!—Jemmytc 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No vio, wrong forum. You want WP:DR I think William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the forum for edit-warring, right? Sure, there is not 3RR, but there is no non-3RR edit warring forum, and the WP:DR page makes that forum seem only less relevant to this case. We need admin assistance here. I have already put way too much work into this. I have talked too much already, writing hundreds or thousands of words to an unreceptive audience; talk has proved futile. There is no way for me to get anything done now. The only way to "make a better encyclopedia" is with administrator assistance. This is an edit-warring user. The fact can be verified with some effort, although much less effort--hour upon hour--than I have put into trying to reason with someone transparently unwilling to listen. Please, help! I can't do it! I simply don't have the power! Anything you ask me to do--short of pointing me to a forum where admins offer to intervene--is something that won't work! —Jemmytc 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration, but you really are at the wrong place. Looking things over, it looks like Coren is familiar with the your case. He's a genuinely helpful admin, and reasonably harsh when harshness is the appropriate remedy. I would take your appeal directly to him, and then follow his advice about proper dispute resolution.—Kww(talk) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EmpD++ reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result: indef)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

    User:Tsourkpk

    Blocked 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Indef, as obvious sockpuppet of User:Emperordarius. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luka Jačov reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h )

    Old version: 15 October (first 5 rv); 09 Nov, 12:10 (subsequent rv's)

    Not a literal 3RR vio, but slow protracted revert-warring over many days, sterile 1+ rv/day. Note that warning was also given under WP:ARBMAC; general sanctions like revert paroles etc are possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. If this were closed as a simple (non-3RR) edit-warring case on any random article, a 24-hour block would be justified. Since the topic falls under WP:ARBMAC, I would recommend no block, but instead a one-month topic ban from all articles related to Greece or Macedonia. I notice that one-month topic bans have been previously given out to other editors, as listed at the bottom of the WP:ARBMAC page. If no other admins comment, I'll proceed with this later today. Since this is an edit-warring case we are under less time pressure, so I've notified User:Luka Jačov of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; if I may add a (sort of involved-perspective) opinion here, maybe a revert parole might be better? This is a relatively new contributor who I have the impression has some legitimate things to say and ideas to provide, but he needs to find a way of doing so without revert-warring. Trouble is, his English is also rather poor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy has been around longer than I have. While not the best of evidence; his block log contains numerous blocks for 3RR. I have gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. The reverts have been going on for a while now and he knows that he should use the talk page and not edit war. Anyone can feel free to unblock and proceed with other ways of reducing the damage though if I have been over-killing the situation. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked again for 48 hours. Made the identical revert at Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia directly after his previous block expired. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    XX-V-i-V-Xx reported by HairyPerry (result: 12h)

    November 13:[51][52] November 14:[53][54][55][56] Is this edit warring or just poor judgement of genre placement and capitilization of genres. I left a short notice on this persons talk page and then told them not to edit that anymore and made one more edit (the last edit) after that. HairyPerry 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-11-14T19:39:38 Nixeagle (Talk | contribs | block) blocked XX-V-i-V-Xx (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=251819878#XX-V-i-V-Xx_reported_by_HairyPerry) (Unblock) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, HairyPerry 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Nomad2u001 reported by User:Mattisse (Result: 48 hours)

    • Warnings: [57],[58]
    • Reverts today alone:
    November 15: [59]
    November 15: [60]
    November 15: [61]
    November 15: [62]
    November 15: [63]
    November 15: [64](possible sockpuppet as this address has one edit and is removing the same material.
    • User talk:Nomad2u001 has been removing sourced material on the Physician assistant article. This has been going on over a time period, starting in August, 2008. User talk:Nomad2u001 has been removing sourced content without adequate explanation in his edit summaries and will not engage on the article talk page or his own talk page. There are several attempts at communication on User talk:Nomad2u001's talk page. Thank you, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony May reported by User:ESanchez013 (Result: Page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [65]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [73]
    Page protected by Yamamoto Ichiro which, to be frank, is pretty lucky for the edit warriors since I was about to block at least two of them. CIreland (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    ShareHare reported by Ebyabe (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [74]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    12h for SH and T2D4 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Redking7 reported by User:Kransky (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [79]


    • 1st revert:

    [80]

    • 2nd revert: [81]
    • 3rd revert: [82]
    • 4th revert: [83]
    • 5th revert:

    [84]

    • 6th revert:

    [85]

    • 7th revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&oldid=249726400

    (listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]


    Please see Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland

    Redking7 argues that because Ireland does not have diplomatic missions with Taiwan, Diplomatic missions of Ireland should either (a) not list a quasi-Irish government office in Taipei which performs de facto governmental services, or (b) list the office with a disclaimer about Irish non-recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty and exclude the Taiwanese flag. I have also said that we name countries according to how they identify themselves (although I said I would not pursue the matter since it was a rule that was not consistently upheld).

    I have repeatedly told Redking7 that we include such unofficial missions in these articles as they essentially perform the same duties as diplomatic missions and take direction from Governmental authorities. Whereas I had first considered that the office perhaps was not directly supported by the Irish Government, another editor then provided a link to the office, and it appeared to have some de facto legitimacy (eg: visa form downloads, the same phone/fax numbers as those listed by the Taiwanese ministry of foreign affairs).

    I repeatedly asked Redking7 to discuss the changes on the category page, including the principle that quasi-diplomatic missions are excluded from these articles. I said I had an open mind on the matter, but any rule applied here should apply to all other articles in the Diplomatic Missions by country category, and not just for Taiwan but for other states with recognition or nomenclature issues. I warned him that if we were to keep these articles consistent to I would need to make several chagnes that could lead to other people expressing countering views. He said to the effect it was none of his business what went into the other articles. In turn I said it would be unreasonable for a new editor to drive a signficant policy change, but not put in the hard yards of making all the substantial edits that would be required - and to defend them when others will inevitably complain.

    This attitude makes it hard for me to believe he is editing in good faith. No doubt he has similarly negative views about me. But I think we both would like some guidance on the matter. Kransky (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No action. This is not a 3RR case, but an edit-warring case. Though Redking7 appears stubborn, so does Kransky. (They are the main participants in the edit war). Any block for edit-warring would have to be given to both. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. For instance WP:3O or WP:RFC. Since the question of how to deal with diplomatic missions in quasi-countries is of wider interest than just Taiwan, perhaps you can find a WikiProject to get advice from. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiteur reported by Discospinster (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [87]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

    User has been changing British terminology on article Quantum of Solace despite being directed to WP:ENGVAR and the note on top of the talk page. ... discospinster talk 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - However Discompinster, I should note that you are not totally in the right here. The first two edits were edits against the prior consensus (I'm going on a wing and saying that the talk page note was put there as a result of a prior discussion. I did not actually check). However the other two edits are simply removals of the link, not changing from uk english -> us english. So... your report here is only half right, and in reality I think you could have backed off and let him have the word delinked while discussing it with him on the talk page or his userpage. —— nixeagle 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh geeze, you gave him vandalism warnings! I don't see a single comment asking him to discuss his changes on the talk page. I'm not quite sure that Wikiteur is a vandal, merely misguided. —— nixeagle 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I first left a note (not a warning) on the user's talk page here and I also requested that user see the talk page in my edit summaries here and here. ... discospinster talk 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=252136830"