Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tundrabuggy (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 20 January 2009 (→‎Tundrabuggy reported by Cerejota (Result: no vio)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.


    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    Report Nathanael Bar-Aur L.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nathanael_Bar-Aur_L.[8]

    Being an distruptive person on all the astrology pages. Also removing verifiable sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.235.196 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No disruption, IP is blanking thousands of sourced bytes of information per IDONTLIKEIT. — Realist2 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harshray reported by Roadahead (Result: sock blocked 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [9]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

    Could be operating several sockpuppets as well, checkuser results show this as "likely" that the Harshray, Chellaney and IPs are the same person. --Roadahead ★ 05:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked as probably sock; would have been 24h for 3RR otherwise. If the C account misbehaves, it should get the 24h 3RR block, by that logic William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He says he's not a sock; so 24h instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: merge restored)

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]
      Some content added, but the point is it's being restored from a redirect.
    • Comment: Per this AfD, the Code Lyoko characters were merged. Jeremie is trying to restore those pages. The content he restores them with is not significantly different from the original nor does it satisfy any of the concerns of the AfD. He has been told this repeatedly by me and several other editors yet continues on. It;s getting tiresome. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: ive told this guy many times that these are trying to be expanded, but he always causes edit conflicts, this guy is the one edit warring, and he is also VERY rude, but any time i report this guy nothing is done Jeremie Belpois (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      His last attempt is here for reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored and locked the merge. JB: don't recreate any more of these without getting agreement first. Definitely don't edit war over them William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Norwood reported by Tales23 (Result: 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [21]
    • 2nd revert: [link]
    • 3rd revert: [link]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    Comment: Are you sure you have the right editor? Rick Norwood appears to have only made one edit to this article in the past two days. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He states: History of logic: Remove material that is clearly off topic, but which may belong under either "number" or "calendar".
    But when you see the history of logic section, it starts with "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A" so but now in 35000 they got this already 10 + 1, 10 − 1, 20 + 1 and 20 − 1, so in the respect of Mathematical Logic, and in particular the History, How did humans start to think logic - woman tracking menstrual cycles with lunar phases using a device the bone tools. This had a lot of logic applied! At least contributed here and therfor it has its place in History. --Tales23 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which doesn't mean he's edit warring. You seem to be coming off of a block for edit warring, by the way. I hope you're not reporting anyone who reverts you just to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No i dont report anyone, especialy Novangelis as he started with reporting me and is not accepting legit references. --Tales23 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    False. You've reported Novagelis on three different articles above, and you seemed to be keeping a hitlist of editors on your talk page that disagreed with you while you were blocked. I think it's best an admin take a look at this. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Daywalker we are on the admin page and to understand the matter you would need to see that they didnt disagreed with my references, accept for Novangelis on the topic Meteorit as the Origin of Life. Furthermore your argument is Off Topic. --Tales23 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for disruption, edit warring, and probably 3RR though I haven't checked that last carefully. I removed the other spammed 3RR reports, if you're wondering where they went to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I see Ed blocked him for 24 already for the 3RR. Sorry. OK, 12h for the AN3 spam instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So we can close this than ... --Tales23 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Khalsaburg reported by Roadahead (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: So many articles and reverts, please my logs on this articles talkpage


    Diffs for reverts at article "Akhand Kirtani Jatha"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Vegetarianism in Sikhism"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Sikh practices"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Langar"


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [22]


    I feel that this editors is not doing the reverts in good faith or in misunderstanding. The editor seems to be aware of Wikipedia policies and so is indulging in wasting others time by appealing to spite on user talkpages. --Roadahead ★ 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely not 3RR; far too slow. Maybe you want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baseball Bugs reported by User:Tanninglamp (Result: IP address blocked)

    This user is a repeated violator of the revert rule and edit warring concerning the Rick Reilly article. He has not participated in any discussion or given any legitimate reasoning for his constant deleting of a respectable news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't look like Baseball Bugs violated 3RR on Rick Reilly. It does look like you're evading your block.
    Previous AN/EW discussion for any interested. --Onorem♠Dil 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ANd he hasn't participating in an edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) How am supposed to make a report if I keep getting blocked for what I can see is an issue created wholly by Baseball Bugs. Why don't you show a real neutral eye and use the appropriate wording on the Rick Reilly article which Baseball Bugs won't let there be one critical word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more related discussions about Tanninglamp. --Onorem♠Dil 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We're done here. IP address blocked for block evasion. seicer | talk | contribs 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Anonymous IP user reported by GeezerBird (Result: no vio)

    • User: Anonymous IP user, either begin 91.109.- or 91.111.-

    The articles are connected in that Alan Harvey runs the Springbok Club and used to be in Swinton Circle till he was chucked out. I would guess that the Anonymous IP user is Alan Harvey

    Alan Harvey article:

    • Previous version reverted to: [23]

    As can be seen it is unsourced and a seemingly self-written piece

    Springbok Club article

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]

    As can be seen it is unsourced and more or less a self-written advert for his group

    (prior to this there were other variations)

    Swinton Circle article

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]

    This is slightly different in that he accepts most of the article but attacks certain material which relates either to him or his position. I gather from the [| discussion] he was expelled from this group but he denies it

    (there are further variations beyond this)

    It does not seem possible to give a Diff of 3RR warning as the IP address is not exactly the same each time?

    My apologies if this is not the correct way of going about this, I am new to this, but this seems a clear case of Edit warring as "a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time". Thanks. --GeezerBird (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Too slow, sorry. None of these articles have even *one* revert by the anon in the last 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    77.221.10.65 reported by PRODUCER (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]
      • 12 hours -- Samir 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RafaelRGarcia reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: 12 hours each to User:RafaelRGarcia and User:Simon Dodd)

    Page: Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User: RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)

    Please see related complaints at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarence_Thomas_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence_Thomas

    Wikipedia:3RR provides that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material."

    • 1st revert: [48] (00:04, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264558124)
    • 2nd revert: [49] (00:07, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264556386)
    • 3rd revert: [50] (00:08, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264555848
    • 4th revert: [51] (03:04, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264579583)
    • 5th revert: [52] (03:35, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264601171)

    That's five reverts in three and a half hours - how can this not violate the prohibition on three or more reverts in any 24 hour period? Note that two of these reverts were in bad faith, following a good faith request for medcab.[53]

    [ADDED: sixth revert: [54] (05:02, 17 January 2009)] Simon Dodd (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [ADDED MORE: seventh revert: [55] (05:21, 17 January 2009). Hole getting deeper.]Simon Dodd(talk) 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [ADDED YET MORE: eighth revert: [56] (05:32, 17 January 2009). Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [ADDED EVEN MORE: ninth revert: [57] (05:53, 17 January 2009). RafaelRGarcia in flagrant and continuing violation of 3rr.]Simon Dodd (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You continue to edit the article, changing what was there, then claim I'm the one reverting? Hah. Furthermore, "says" and "writes" are NPOV; "asserts" and "claims" are not. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are four more from you. You're basically counting every edit I make as a "revert," when the same could be said of you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264614559
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264613917
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one who suggested that we get medcab involved; you were the one who insisted on continuing to spar over the wording. After your bad faith refusal to await the results of mediation, I saw little point in a self-imposed exile from improving the article. The edits of yours that I am counting as reverts are those edits that are reverts. None of the links you provide above are reverts: they are changes (although they do aptly demonstrate your inflexibility and insistence on wikipedia:Ownership of the article.)Simon Dodd (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all reverts; they're all to exactly the same section we had been arguing about today. If your edits are just "changes," then so are mine. You "suggested" we get medcab involved, but then you kept editing, and you requested page protection and reversion to your preferred version. Nothing but bad faith abuse over some differences of opinion that could've been kept to a talk page. Cite your claims next time, and stop adding your own speculation to articles. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You offer merely further demonstration of your bad faith:
    • You reverted, changing the text from what I had back to what you had had it before. I changed, proposing alterations and text that was different to one extent or another to what either you or I had previous used.
    • I requested page protect only after you continued to edit war following submission of the issue to medcab, and I returned to editing only after you had refused to desist yourself.
    • And, once again, you simply repeat the very accusations that were submitted to medcab.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop changing the article lead. Please stop trying to take some moral high ground here; it doesn't exist. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing your uncited assertion is not a revert. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT:Actually, it's exactly edit warring, which is what this board is for. I'd advise both of you to stop and wait for an admin to sort through this. Any further arguments you guys get into after posting this case here won't be looked upon kindly. Please remain calm while an admin figures out what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Us both stepping back was exactly what I suggested when I filed a request to MedCab, and that the other fellow rejected by continuing to edit war; it was also implicit in my filing a page protect request, and the other fellow has disputed that, too, continuing to edit war even after that (he has also continued to edit war and revert even after this report, as you can see in updates above; he is now on his eighth - fifth by his own preferred counting system - revert in 12 hours, let alone 3 reverts in 24). As one party to an edit war, I tried to "end it now. [To b]e the first one to go to talk, [to] ask for protection."[58] What I got was a whole bunch of bad faith on the part of the other party, as you can see. I'd love an admin to figure out what's going on, but there don't seem to be any around.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Response: A brief review of Dodd's edit history will reveal that he has also broken 3RR. Best to wait for MedCab and such. Dodd has repeatedly ignored my requests to add citations to his uncited assertions and original research. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Among other edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264600642

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264590092

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583

    I have performed two reverts on Clarence Thomas today, and one (arguably two) on Anthony Kennedy. Explain how you think I have "also broken 3RR." Another baseless, scurrilous accusation on your part. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR does not mean you get 3 reverts per article, and you're not entitled to three reverts. Arguably, three of my reverts were just one roll back, because you made your edits in multiple, unbroken sequences. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Rafael, this is verging on the comical. 3rr prohibits a user from "perform[ing] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" (emphasis added); how can you be a law student and exhibit such astonishingly poor reading comprehension and imprecise thinking again and again?Simon Dodd (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has now called me a "prick." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264609416 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to breaking 3RR, you are also breaking the spirit of the rule, by continually reverting, or, in effect reverting, my edits.

    These and other edits were revertions or undoings of my own:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264558124

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264555848

    RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    In addition, I have not gone above 3 reverts: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT: Since this page has a backlog, I've opened up a case at ANI about this in hopes of settling this matter quickly and ending an edit war. Since this page isn't really for discussions and arguments, I suggest you two take your comments over there. [59] Dayewalker (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewed. You guys both need to take a break from editing Clarence Thomas. What has gone on over the past several hours on the article was not productive in the least. This should have gone to the talk page as opposed to multiple reversions or reversion-equivalents. I'm probably the most lenient 3RR reviewer, but I think both of you warrant 12 hour blocks for breaking 3RR; I'm also protecting the article for 5 days to encourage discussion on the talk page when you return. -- Samir 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Cali567 reported by 76.174.124.198 (Result: all warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]


    Warned. I'm warning you against edit warring, too. At least C is contributing to the talk page, which you should be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 31 hours )

    Hi. This is not a direct violation of 3RR, but an "in spirit" violation given that the user recently came off a ban on a couple of days ago.

    • Previous version reverted to: [66]

    EuroHistoryTeacher has returned from his prior 24 ban over reverting the map [67] and is engaging in exactly the same behaviour.

    Per the previous report, the user was both warned and acknowledged the 3RR rule.

    This user has an ongoing problem of making unreferenced edits. Some more disruptive behaviour at War of Jenkins' Ear: [71] [72] where he is removing a referenced statement. It's been like this for the last 4 months now.

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Blocked EHT for 31 hours for edit warring straight (near enough) off the block. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DarlieB reported by User:James Cantor (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [73]

    Warning given to user:DarlieB here

    User repeatedly reverting agreed-upon text from multiple other editors. Disputed page is the only page user:DarlieB edits and is part of a long-standing series of contested behavior from this user. User has been making this same edit for long time, over the objections of the other editors working on the page:

    — James Cantor (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ziggymaster reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: 8 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [81]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

    4 reverts in 24 hours (5 reverts in 24 hours and 4 mins) there were more reverts by the above user on this article, but they were consecutively made without other editors contributing between the reverts - I have not included those in the diffs.

    Just for the record I think there it is reasonably likely that the above user has been using multiple accounts on a number of articles. It might be worth keeping an eye on the following accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lakshmix and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wondergirls

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_in_international_relations&action=history

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaebol&action=history

    http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/contribs.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&users=Ziggymaster%7CLakshmix%7CWondergirls+&limit=2500&submit=Submit

    The contributions are very similar, but of more interest are the times/dates of editing, and the fact that one account was registered one minute after another account made its last edit for about 2 or 3 weeks.

    I realise that this is not the correct place to report sock puppets, however I have the feeling that if action is taken against one account for edit warring, this edit warring will be continued by the other accounts. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If tendentious editing with multiple accounts is suspected, it's best to take it to WP:SPI. With respect to this 3RR report, there were 4 reversions in 24 hours on this article and reversions continued after warning. I have blocked User:Ziggymaster for 8 hours as a result -- Samir 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was suggested to me to note a further incident involving Ziggymaster here, too, which I do though the 3-revert rule was not violated, it may help establish a pattern. S/he edited out the same passage from the Korea Train Express article twice:
    * on 2 January, without any explanation: [88]
    * on 13 January, after not responding to a Talk request, giving an explanation in the edit summary that doesn't seem to hold up: [89]
    Ziggymaster has not reacted to a request at his/her Talk page, either. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    71.202.68.47 reported by Kotniski (Result: 1 month)

    From actions at Stefan Banach, Lists of Ukrainians and elsewhere, this user is clearly the same as previously blocked User:98.210.14.5, and is back to his old tricks. Please block again.--Kotniski (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 1 month for disruption, based on edits like this one. "Russians will pay dearly for their terrible genocidal atrocities.. Russians will work as slaves and prostitutes" (This was in an article, not a Talk page). Appears to be a nationalist POV-warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Schrandit reported by Spotfixer (talk) (Result: 12 hours for User:Schrandit and User:Spotfixer)

    • Previous version reverted to: [90]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [91]

    This is part of a long pattern of POV-pushing edit wars by this highly religious and political user. He also likes to toss out bogus citation requests as a preliminary to deleting text on topics he dislikes, and to argue pointlessly on Talk pages and then ignore the consensus if it doesn't suit him. He's been warned before for WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL violations, but warnings alone do not change his behavior. Spotfixer (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously I object to the above misscharacterization of myself but as part of the edit-war spotfixer and I have been having on the page Conscience clause (medical)I did misstep and reverted 4 times inside a 24 hour period. - Schrandit (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Schrandit has broken 3RR by the letter. User:Spotfixer's edits over the past 36 hours contributed to this edit war and cannot be ignored. You both should have just discussed this on the talk page as opposed to reverting each other. If talk page discussion was not fruitful, there are many other avenues for dispute resolution other than reverting what is on the article page. That is not the way we edit and reach consensus on Wikipedia. I think a 12 hour block for each of you is fair -- Samir 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I was reverting vandalism, not edit-warring, and I did not violate WP:3RR. Blocking me for reporting a genuine WP:3RR violation by a vandal was neither just nor beneficial to the project. It was not even-handed; it was oblivious. It was also typical of the sort of Legalism (Chinese philosophy) practiced by Wikipedia administrators. Spotfixer (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to re-read WP:VAND#Types of vandalism if you think you were reverting vandalism. A point of view different from yours is not vandalism; on the other hand, your three reversions over such a short period of time constitutes edit-warring, and -- hate to break it to you -- constitutes a blockable offense. Calling me oblivious is offensive and, frankly, a bad idea given your previous incivility blocks -- Samir 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pietru il-Boqli reported by Taivo (Result: warnings, page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [92] although I have made some improvements since this version


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [98]

    I'd like to point out that Taivo is much more to blame than Pietru, and both of us have had to tiringly deal with him:

    mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, if you look carefully, you will note that we have been actively engaged in a discussion on the Talk page. Here you will note where Pietru and I agreed to leave the page as is until the issue could be discussed on the relevant Talk page, which was occurring. There were two people in support of retaining the additions and two people opposed (with one IP opposed). Consensus had not yet been reached on whether to retain the new information or to delete it, thus the initiation of the reversions by Pietru was not justified. I had offered a compromise chart for discussion which Mingeyqla then began to revert without any discussion whatsoever. (Taivo (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Taivo, it can be clearly seen that there were 2 users for the column, opposed to 3 against it - evidence of that is the very reverts you reported yourself. I support a 24h block for Taivo until he calms down. A quick look at the talk page shows all opposers have clearly discussed this, despite what you say. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mingeyqla, I clearly stated that there were two for and two against with one IP against. Calm down? I built a compromise table that would eliminate the contention over the extra columns, but you immediately reverted it without allowing anyone to see it or discuss it as an acceptable compromise and without you offering a single word of discussion about it on the Talk page. Mingeyqla has been repeatedly warned on the Talk page of this article about his behavior. (Taivo (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether the table was good or not (although incidentally, the Maltese words themselves aren't even modern spellings) - it is just as relevant there as adding Spanish to the Romance vocabulary section. Like stated on the talk page, it will clearly be allowed at Varieties of Arabic or Siculo-Arabic - but not here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw I wish to withdraw this complaint of 3RR since I have offered a compromise. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    • All users warned, page protected; see case below -- Samir 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mingeyqla reported by Taivo (Result: warnings, page protection)

    • Previous version reverted to: [106]

    User is reverting relevant, referenced material without discussion on Talk page. User has been warned many times in the past and is adept at "gaming" the system, thus he simply deletes rather than reverts. (Taivo (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment - Please see above thread, where he himself has been mentioned, and where he tried to frame another user again. Discussion has been ongoing on the talk page, but user simply keeps adding back. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It should further be noted that this user broke 3RR on this article only a few days ago (see bot report here). Edit-warring involving (but not restricted to) these editors is crippling this article - it had to be fully protected only three months ago [110], and the current situation is little better. I hope some action is taken which restores stability to the article and civility to its talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed closure. This is a messy case, and it seems to be a war of experts. Since past efforts at compromise on Maltese language have not calmed the dispute, it may be time for blocks. The three most conspicuous reverters of the last couple of days are Pietru, Taivo and Mingeyqla. Since for the moment, Pietru has stopped reverting, that would leave us with a pair of 12-hour blocks for Taivo and Mingeyqla. I'll leave this proposal here for a while, and notify the participants, to see if they wish to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While no longer directly involved, I think something should be done: the Maltese language article shouldn't be such a contentious place in which to edit. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewed. I appreciate the concerns of everyone that something needs to be done about this. It looks like the reversions have stopped. I will protect Maltese language for five days to encourage discussion on the talk page. To all of User:Taivo, User:Mingeyqla and User:Pietru il-Boqli, you have all edit warred on this article, and have narrowly averted blocks; should this behaviour resume after Maltese language is unprotected, expect that this will be managed by blocks as opposed to page protection -- Samir 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alastair Haines reported by Alynna Kasmira (Result: blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [111]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [112]

    This is not the first time Alastair has been involved in edit warring on this page. Alynna (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Later note: It looks like Alastair has now been blocked for arbitration enforcement. So maybe this report is moot now. --Alynna (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I was going to deal with this but apparently User:Tznkai already has -- Samir 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Biophys reported by Offliner (Result: Move protected)

    I think User:Biophys deserves a block/warning for disruptive editing/edit warring. For a long time he single handedly reverted edits made by many people on the Web brigades article. He has his own favourite version of the article text, which he has tried to reinsert on a huge number of occasions.

    Here is a recent example of what I mean: [113]

    This edit by Biophys was reverted by User:Mukadderat [114] with the explanation: "you know perfectly well what was deleted many times, yet you each time restore it..."

    However, since so many editors find his version of the text problematic, Biophys has been unable to restore it anymore. Some days ago, he created a new article, with over 50% of its text copied from an earlier version of Web brigades: Internet operations by Russian secret police. The name he chose is problematic because there is no conclusive evidence that such operations exist: his article is only about allegations. Thus, many people have tried to rename the article to Alleged Internet operations by Russian secret police. However, Biophys has single-handedly reverted the rename 5 times in the last 3 days. This is my main complaint.

    Here are his reverts:

    Biophys also made an annoying little edit to "Alleged Internet operations by Russian secret police" to prevent people from moving the page back there: [120]

    Please note, that Biophys' behaviour has also been discussed here: [121] and I can only agree with Russavia's points there. Offliner (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Move protected - talk it out on the talk page. All parties are advised that "gaming the system" by creating a junk article to win a move war is easily solved by an admin - it doesn't accomplish anything. --B (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or even consider AfD if you feel the content is covered in Web brigades -- Samir 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked to debate this matter and vote, but no one responded. I hope now they will. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are not a debating society. We are Wikipedia which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are a discussion society, which include discussing whether or not a title is NPOV, not accepting that it is NPOV merely by personal proclamation of a particular editor. PetersV       TALK 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • P.S. It helps to discuss people's positions rather than spout piles of WP:ACRONYMS masquerading as a discussion. Try more words and less labels. PetersV       TALK 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, there has already been discussion about the move. 3 editors have tried to rename to the NPOV title beginning with "Alleged/Allegations of ...", and they have given their reasons in the edit summaries. The only person who has been opposing this and reverting the renames is Biophys. Offliner (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "He made an annoying edit, block him" is the very essence of block shopping. User:Offliner would be well advised to refrain from such an activity. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: no violation)

    EuroHistoryTeacher has just (within the last few minutes) come off his second block [122] for reverting a map at Portuguese Empire. His first action on returning from the block (which it seems that he did not realise he was on until it was over [123]) was to post his intention to revert some changes I made to the Spanish Empire map [124] and which I had notified the community about on the talk page. He then made the revert at Wikicommons [125]. EHT appears to have not learned a thing [126] ("there's nothing wrong with reverting wrong stuff") he wrote a few moments ago. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick doesn't understand is that the map he is proposing IS NOT ACCEPTED by the community yet he wants to impose his will on everybody and (once again) I have to stand up for the majority's opinion and revert his edits. In fact another User (SamEv) was going to revert his map [127] but he was waiting for the rest of the community's opinion and after User:SamEv told me to revert it [128] I did but User: The Red hat of pat ferrick is very good at exploiting this revert issue at the expense of me (!!), please don't fall for his very elaborated story, Im just only one of the users who to disagree with him and Im always the one getting blocked.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't look like a 3RR violation has taken place; can't control Commons issues here either. -- Samir 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This post is in relation to violating the spirit of the rule, rather than actually exceeded three reverts. The Commons map is being used on a Wikipedia article, and the discussion is taking place on a Wikipedia talk page. The action at Commons affects Wikipedia. Is the purpose of this page not to stop editors engaging in a behaviour? This editor is blocked twice for reverting maps, and his first action on returning is to revert a map! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, we do not deal with reversions on Commons. Your report does not describe edit warring on en.wp for this editor, so there is no indication for blocking here. Sorry. If there is further concern of edit warring, let us know. Thanks -- Samir 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no edit warring here, the only thing I did was to revert his map and add some areas in the map which he had removed some time earlier and to have done that I had the support of the community who went largely against the will of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and now he came here to get me blocked in spite (as I said) of me having the support of the community .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Singh.siddharth reported by User:Themfromspace (Result: be kind)


    • Previous version reverted to: [129]

    This user's edits to the article compromise WP:NPOV and WP:V, and both of the times I reverted them (with explanations, of course) he has changed it back, the latest time with an IP. Though the 3RR hasn't been broken yet, I have no doubt of his intentions to keep the page in his preferred way since the latest reversion was made by an IP address. The user inappropriately placed the hangon tag after the article was reverted, but even then he failed to explain his edits on his talk page or the article's. I'm not sure if here's the right place to report this, but since the article isn't watched very carefully I have to report this somewhere or it will soon be an edit war between us two. Themfromspace (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be kinder to the noobs. Use the talk page, explain the problem in greater detail. This doesn't need the mailed admin fist yet, and if you're nice it probably never will William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronz reported by Tothwolf (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [132]
    Reverting spam isn't a violation. I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No vio, per PK William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for protecting the article. Hopefully that will cut down on the edit warring. I would like to point out that most of these links don't really appear to be spam and seem to be relevant to the Chatterbot topic. If you go back to the 2006 versions of this article, you'll find a huge number of links and it would appear that most of outright spam/junk external links have long since been culled from the article. Wholesale removal of external links that seem relevant to the article just doesn't seem to make much sense though. (I also want to point out that I hold no bias either way as far as these links go, I just never like to see relevant/useful material go to waste.) Tothwolf (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tundrabuggy reported by Cerejota (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [139]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [144]


    I normally do not want to use these methods, in particular because his voice is a valid one... but all avenues have been exhausted to stop edit warring.

    The drop that overflowed the cup for me was this edit summary: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR[145]

    It felt like blackmail: if you feel there is a need for DR, then by all means pursue it. But going around threatening is not positive and contributes nothing. I gave it a few hours of consideration, but there is no two ways about it.

    Images clearly meet WP:IMAGE requirements for being relevant. Multiple users have requested that he stop edit warring. All this happens on the background of meat-puppetry and possible sock puppetry that is being looked into.

    There also the issue of the lead, but he seems to have calmed down a bit in this respect, maybe slow-warring, but not as active as with the images.

    He has made good contributions, even on the midst of this edit war, but his behavior the last week around this image issue has been less than stellar.--Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Bad faith notice. The article under question is an a horrible state of POV. A bunch of SPA's that recently cropped up are swarming the article and not allowing any neutrality come through in the name of "no consensus". Despite these impediments, Tundrabuggy has patiently and civilly interacted with all the editors at the talk page. He is probably the most prolific editor at the article's talk page. Accusing him of being an edit warrior is an extremely ironic and wrongful accusation.
    There was no 3rr by the letter of the rule. The last two edits were two edits in a row. Additionally, The first edit was a totally different issue. Although 3rr applies to different reverts, it is not applied to humongous news articles where the information is changing rapidly. The accuser should know better and not make a baseless accusations just to silence another editor who disagees with his POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to mention that user:Brewcrewer hasn't been involved in the lengthy discussions regarding the photos, only when it came time to vote on the issue did he arrive to place a vote. The majority of people that have been involved in prior discussions voted that the photos should remain. The majority of people who voted for removing the photos have not engaged in previous discussions and include people who are new to Wikipedia, possible SPAs. Brewcrewer is helping tundrabuggy in the constant deletion of the photos despite that the photos are relevant and free to use, and there was no dispute when the photos were initially placed in the article [146]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony is delicious. You opened your account 8 days ago and have edited nothing outside of this conflict. Yet, you accuse other editors of being SPA's. And I actually have been more involved in the lengthy discussions, but the discusssions took place before you opened your account, 8 days ago. I was disgusted with the swarming spa's shoving their POV's into the article in the name of the SPA's consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion didn't come before I came. I am the one who uploaded the images that are the subject of debate, I was the one who initiated the thread regarding uploading the photos. I was part of it from day one and you were not ever part of them. You came only when there was a vote. As with your accusations regarding SPAs, the people who agreed to the photos include people who have engaged in the discussions prior to the vote and they include chandler, cdogsimmons, sean hoyland, Nableezy, vice regent, cerejota, RomaC, and myself. Also, Jvent is another voter who agreed, he had also uploaded images that are being removed by you both. Among those who disagreed before the vote was initiated include only tariqabjotu, rabend, and the Squicks, and maybe tundrabuggy, the rest are new users and people who thought to take advantage of the vote. You have your facts all mixed up, the page is there, open for every one to see. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. I said discussions, I was not referring to the specific images discussion. As for list of editors you mentioned, I don't know where you're going. Being involved in discussions is not relevant to WP:SPA. But in any case, it's irrelevant. This is the edit-warring noticeboard and it's clear that there was no edit warring going on, whether in fact or in spirit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Brewcrewer has serious personal issues against me, and refused informal mediation to resolve them in a highly uncivil manner [147]. His notice of "bad faith" in this case is bad faith in itself... he also got me blocked for a few hours once (over the lamest thing: tags!): he is far from uninvolved. --Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the edit-warring noticeboard, not the place to air general greivances (especially if they are unfounded). As I pointed out, there was no general or specific edit warring. Would you like to redact this notice?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just poisoning the well. I hope that admins will see through it. --Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio. A personal note: while we're making edit comments like "Dead baby" or "dead child" pictures are propaganda for one side. , I find it odd (given the balance of deaths is so one-sided) that the first pic is of an Israeli house, featuring a destroyed doll William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a 3RR report, it is an edit-warring report.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I should alert people to the following:

    • 5th revert (post warning): [148]
    • 6th revert (post warning): [149]

    --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latest insertion of the contested material is by an SPA who has been editing this article, and this article only, for 2 days. Here are just a few of the insertion-reversions of the photographs, [arbitrarily starting 10:48, 18 January 2009 -- ending 10:27, 19 January 2009, a 24 hour period. Read from bottom up --- Clearly there is NO CONSENSUS here. The photographs are obscene and offensive, non-neutral, not properly sourced or licensed, and unbalanced. They should be OUT of the article until and unless there is a consensus to put them IN. I would take it to dispute resolution but I have never done it and not sure how to go about it.

    [150] 10:27, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,347 bytes) (Undid revision 265097873 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

    [151]10:25, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,211 bytes) (Undid revision 265097536 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

    [152] 03:49, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,559 bytes) (undo)

    [153] 03:55, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,748 bytes) (undo) see edit summary "a dead Palestinian child killed by the Israelis"

    [154] 04:07, 19 January 2009 Wipkipkedia (Talk | contribs) (168,656 bytes) (The picture was not suited to the words, and was very biased, the picture did not belong where it did.)

    [155] 02:47, 19 January 2009 RomaC (Talk | contribs) (167,588 bytes) (?Casualties: Replacing the gallery see Talk or take it to DR if you prefer) (undo)

    [156] 01:32, 19 January 2009 WanderSage (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (What are pictures of corpses and charred infants doing in a section about Israeli calls to Gazans?) (undo)

    [157] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

    [158] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

    [159] 23:31, 18 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (166,914 bytes) (Undid revision 265025950 by Tomtom (talk) what's with this guy) (undo)

    [160] 22:27, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (166,321 bytes) (Removed Tagged non-free images,again. Get the tags removed and AJ to release then they can stay.) (undo)

    [161] 20:41, 18 January 2009 Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (166,734 bytes) (?Casualties: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR) (undo)

    [162] 16:57, 18 January 2009 Falcorian (Talk | contribs) m (167,140 bytes) (?Warnings: Don't need to repeat the exact same gallery twice, and seems better in the civilian section) (undo

    [163] , 18 January 2009 Doright (Talk | contribs) (162,060 bytes) (Restoring Tundrabuggy version reverted by Nableezy per Tundrabuggy edit summary and Talk and restoring NPOV) (undo)

    [164] 14:41, 18 January 2009 Nableezy (Talk | contribs) (165,877 bytes) (Undid revision 264937769 by Tundrabuggy (talk)Vandalism) (undo)

    [165] 14:37, 18 January 2009 Falastine fee Qalby (Talk | contribs) (161,853 bytes) (revert tomtom9041, when in doubt check it out. don't remove the images before looking up its license) (undo)

    [166]14:34, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (161,495 bytes) (Removed non-free images, aJ logo on them) (undo)

    [167] 14:29, 18 January 2009 Timeshifter (Talk | contribs) (162,602 bytes) (Undid revision 264941188 by Tomtom9041 (talk). These are free images. Check the image license tags, and the source links.) (undo)

    [168] 14:21, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (162,160 bytes) (?Incidents: Removed non free images) (undo)

    [169]10:48, 18 January 2009 Skäpperöd (Talk | contribs) (168,634 bytes) (?Casualties: gallery) (undo) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:POTA reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24h)

    Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). POTA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 19:22, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
    2. 21:21, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 21:29, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
    4. 21:35, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Fixed intro")
    5. 21:39, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 21:44, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Immortale reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: multiple

    User:Historiographer reported by User:ADKTE (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: multiple
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [174]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=265227931"