Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 791: Line 791:


::::Removal of a scholary source and the restoration of this source is not a content dispute. And if all modern archaeologists and historians, Polish and German, agree that the area was not settled before the 7th century, and that the first burghs were built another century later, and then comes a guy who writes a town's website claiming in this town a burgh existed already in the 5th century - this is not an actual content dispute either. It just means that the town needs to maintain her website better and not that we act on wikipedia as if the scholars and the website had an actual dispute. This is a prime example of WP:FRINGE. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Removal of a scholary source and the restoration of this source is not a content dispute. And if all modern archaeologists and historians, Polish and German, agree that the area was not settled before the 7th century, and that the first burghs were built another century later, and then comes a guy who writes a town's website claiming in this town a burgh existed already in the 5th century - this is not an actual content dispute either. It just means that the town needs to maintain her website better and not that we act on wikipedia as if the scholars and the website had an actual dispute. This is a prime example of WP:FRINGE. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Reply by Poeticbent ===

Skäpperöd is a problem user misrepresenting facts to fit his agenda, on top of being totally uncooperative. Above, he accused me of removing his one source from [[Kolobrzeg]] which in fact I just reformatted using the "ref name" tag in order to de-clutter the reference section. I was reverted at an instance. It is impossible to work with someone as combative as this. --[[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font></small>]] 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


== Yonteng ==
== Yonteng ==

Revision as of 18:47, 8 June 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

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


    Rerutled reported by J (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • revert one: [2]
    • revert two: [3]
    • (updated) revert three: [4]

    Over the weekend, User:Rerutled began an effort to change the lead of the article for Montréal to include language that Kinshasa is a larger "Francophone city." (Discussed several times in the past, see here and here for starters.) Consensus has held that reliable sourcing indicates Montréal is the "second largest primarily French-speaking city." Rerutled believes differently, and despite the fact that there has been no consensus to alter the heretofore stable lead to his preferred language, he has now reverted twice more to include his lead, with no support for doing so from the ongoing discussion. Given his two reverts this morning, it looks like he now plans to enforce his change to the lead, regardless of consensus or lack thereof. (I have not warned the user against edit warring, as I suspect he will not accept it as sincere or objective coming from an involved editor.) user:J aka justen (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned for now. Update if needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an editwar ongoing on this article and I suspect that the three-revert and possibly the six-revert rules (if they) exist have been broken in the last two 24-hour periods. Can I suggest that the article is 'locked' to prevent any reversions until some agreement is reached on the talkpage. The argument is a (trivial) matter as to whether a city is 2nd or 3rd in a list under a given criteria. Unfortunately both editors sides appear to have ignored, for what they regard as valid reasons, the 3rr.Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think two reverts in the last three days, with consensus, and with several attempts to cajole Rerutled into discussing before he reverts further is anywhere near ignoring wp:3rr, so I'll try to assume you're referring to another editor. :P user:J aka justen (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of the latest comments made above, I have rechecked the article's history. Sorry I seem to have got it wrong, only one editor appears to have broken the 3rr. However, what I should make clear is that 'both sides to the argument' have made four reversions today. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with you that full protection may be helpful to help a clear consensus develop. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear why protection would be needed. The only person who is unlikely to prefer the current version of the article is Rerutled, and he is already at 3R, about to go over the edge if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rerutled clearly considers that the information quoted is incorrect; did discuss the changes on the article's talkpage; and the changes made by that editor were WP:verifyable, with in-line citations. Despite what is stated above, the "consensus" information given in the article is not WP:verifyable; and it is inadequately referenced for a GA-class article, although they have promised to properly cite the reference. It appears to have been taken from a chapter in a book edited by the authors quoted, but not necessarily written by those two editors. Books matching that description appear to have been published in 2003 and 2005; although Rerutles has posted information stating that this currently undated (in the article) source may go back to 1971. I have no idea whether Rerutled is right or wrong, but if the information is of 1971 vintage, then the "consensus" claims may become invalidated. Either way this impasse needs to be resolved; and not by preserving improperly cited references.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the 'consensus' information given in the article is not [verifiable]." I'm sorry, you're wrong on that point, and you could well be providing fuel for continued edit warring for those who may not be as familiar with policy. I can appreciate that you tend to hold articles under good article review to a higher standard, however, wp:v is clear in that an incomplete citation does not make a fact "unverifiable." The work referenced exists, the exact page is cited. We need to get the exact author information for the section in question, but that, by far, does not make the reference "unverifiable." I urge you to use greater caution before stating something as policy, incorrectly. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made two accusations of "lack of good faith" on my talkpage. The reference that was given in Montreal was " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy‎, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, C. George Benello, p.292." This is hardly verifiable. User:Rerutled has kindly changed this unverifiable reference to one that is far more verifiable, i.e. " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292. ISBN 1551642247,1551642255 (paperback)." However, there remains a question mark as to whether the information in that particular chapter dates from the 1970s or the early 2000s.Pyrotec (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [98.127.123.161] reported by [208.5.87.224] (Result: talk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [5]


    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [link]

    Both versions contain some factual material, but this user presents biased information that is intended to mislead and misrepresents what is going on. Some of the info is factually incorrect and contradicts scientific research.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Impressively badly formatted report, well done, but I've seen worse. No vio, of course. I recommend that you try to discuss this on the article talk page and then come back if you get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for nearly two years, but with the IP address different each time, and often months in between reversions, so it's been a minor nuisance. Stan (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diete003 reported by Rjanag (Result: 31 hr)


    • A: Previous version reverted to: [9]



    • B: Previous version reverted to: [13]




    Diete300 has been engaging in WP:OWNership and incivil editing. The first set of diffs above is him reverting a change I made, repeatedly, and refusing to engage in discussion after repeated requests to provide a rationale for his editing. The second set is borderline vandalism, Diete300 was editing a "dablink" at the top of the article telling readers to go to an external website and implying that this article is not "proper". At the beginning of this interaction, after I asked Diete to use edit summaries (using {{subst:uw-summary}} at his talk page), he left this edit summary on the article. It's pretty clear that he needs to be blocked for both edit warring and incivility (he has been warned for edit warring in the past, and his October 2008 issue also had plenty of incivility), but I don't want to do it myself since I am already involved. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And this is an even more troubling statement [17]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 31 hours for edit warring, 3RR violation and incivility. Nja247 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyrus111 reported by Folantin (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [18]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BufordTJustice reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [27]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

    Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.106.219.216 reported by Jolly Janner (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [33]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

    User doesn't not communicate and I have also discussed the matter of overlinking on Portal talk:Current events/2009 June 5. Jolly Ω Janner 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly recommend that you look in the mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have discussed the matter with the user on their talk page and on the article talk page. The user has not communicated with us and I believe my actions are in line with policy/guidelines. Jolly Ω Janner 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now 71.244.168.61 per this revision. Jolly Ω Janner 20:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua reported by User Sarandioti (Result: no action )

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]


    Partial revert


    He just keeps reverting versions from 4 different users. --Sarandioti (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above (Sarandioti) user ignores systematically our discussions, makes unhistorical pov claims and abuses a number of users. and there hasn't been an 3RR off course, only partial reverts of unclaimed and unsourced sentences.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Alexikou, that's not entirely true, because this is sourced (though I can't comment on its accuracy). This, though, isn't a revert, but an attempt to make a compromise. I count three reverts from Alexikoua. It's four only if this is a reversion to some previous version I haven't seen; so probably No violation No 3RR vio from Sarandioti either, unless he's editing as 12.106.250.211. So there'll be no action here. As to the dispute itself. Albanian was clearly a common spoken language of the region in this period according to my sources, even if Greek was the elite and dominant language; comparisons with Turkish and Latin are silly. You guys can sort this out in a less confrontational and tendentious manner. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    brutaldeluxe reported by bloodofox (Result: Both editors warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [52]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: N/A

    This template doesn't seem to apply to my case and if I remove it and post this it seems to act pretty wacky, but this seems to be the right place. So anyway, I've got some guy (brutaldeluxe (talk · contribs)) deleting stuff out of the introduction of a bunch of GA Norse mythology articles I've written in retaliation to Talk:Triskelion#Fraternity_mention_edit_conflict. Check his contributions to see what he's up to exactly, it should be pretty obvious. Just so we're all on the same page here, lead sections don't contain references, they are a summary of the article. I've linked him to the appropriate policy a few times, and at this point he's just trolling. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Neither party has behaved well, but it seems that a dispute which started at Triskelion has overflowed and User:brutaldeluxe is now going around to articles that User:Bloodofox has edited to remove what he considers to be unreferenced material. At Triskelion, the reverting went well beyond the WP:BRD cycle. By now both of you should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If these editors continue to revert one another without making a serious attempt to get outside input, they may both be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind explaining how I've "not behaved well"? I fail to see where I've done anything out of line here. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice you making much effort to find consensus at the Triskelion talk page. WP:BRD suggests a 'discuss' stage in which you wait to see if you can get support from others. Brutaldeluxe, rightly or wrongly, got upset because you removed material from Triskelion for failing to meet a standard of referencing that was not shared by all the other participants on that talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get something straight: WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:PROVEIT is a policy. I requested a source for the information, none was provided, evidently none could be provided, and therefore brutaldeluxe (talk · contribs) decided to go and delete a bunch of lead sections of articles I'd worked on in the past. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EnDaLeCoMpLeX reported by Garrettw87 (Result: )

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

    "12"

    1. 17:35, 27 May 2009
    2. 18:05, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 292706396 by 209.247.23.40 (talk)")
    3. 18:11, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Adam Lambert */")
    4. 18:34, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 292712657 by Kyuko (talk) Adam's didn't chart.")

    "sortable"

    1. 18:38, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */")
    2. 20:44, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ fix")
    3. 17:32, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */")
    4. 17:40, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "no.")
    5. 18:50, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "See WP:CHARTS.")

    "26/27"

    1. 16:30, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ now at #26 on Adult Contemporary chart")
    2. 19:10, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294198200 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) rv chart position not based on sourced provided")
    3. 14:59, 5 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ it's at #26.")
    4. 00:26, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294585493 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) rv chart position not based on sourced provided")
    5. 01:20, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "that source is outdated, maybe you should check for yourself.")
    6. 02:57, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294698456 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) No source has been provided to show the song has reached #26")


    • Diff of 3RR warning: here


    -Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / PM) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mets0907 reported by Darth Mike (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [57]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

    This user seems to only exist to place this image in the article. As you can see from his talk page, I tagged the image for deletion at commons and it was deleted [63] but the user readded the image and reverted the page again. The user has no talk page comments.-- Darth Mike (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamaliel reported by K5 users (Result: semi)

    Gamaliel has reverted RUSTY FOSTER several times and refuses to use first hand sources as canon. In the article, RUSTY FOSTER is the founder of KURO5HIN. When we're talking about biographical information, there is no better source than the person themselves, which is posted on KURO5HIN. Gamaliel's objection (and subsequent revert pissing contest) in the RUSTY FOSTER biographical article is not only baseless but it's counter productive. His objection that KURO5HIN is "a message board" is irrelevant since it's is RUSTY FOSTER's messageboard where he discusses topics as they relate to him.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    98.237.1.240 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    G is, I think, correct to be reverting the material on BLP grounds. But he should be discussing it on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WilliamJE reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: Warned)

    Not strictly over 3rr but he seems to be pushing the envelope. I think a warning from someone with the power to back it up that he should desist and that further reverts will be blockable will do the trick (engagement on the talk page is what i'm after). Reverts: 19:42 june 4 [64] 13:18 June 5 [65] 18:37 june 5 [66] 11:19 June 6 [67] 16:40 June 6 [68]. Newish user doesn't want to use the talk page, where a discussion is underway on his proposed edit (3 other editors opposing here [69]. User notified of the concerns here [70] and he has participated in a discussion of his conduct here at AN/I. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - WilliamJE has been warned that if he restores his list of guest stars at Hawaii Five-O one more time, before getting consensus on the article talk page, he will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mooretwin reported by User:MusicInTheHouse (Result: 48h / 1 month)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [71]
    • 2nd revert: [72]
    • 3rd revert: [73]
    • 4th revert: [74]
    • 5th revert: [75]
    • 6th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]

    I made a few edits on the page all unrelated to each other and User:Mooretwin continuously reverted every change.MITH 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) >[reply]

    Noooo... you made a number of reverts, some under deceptive edit summaries. This is all part of the tedium of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration and stuff, which looks doomed to sink into the bogs. Anyway, you both get blocks proportionat to your previous William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User 69.207.66.238 (result: warned 24h)

    Please can you keep an eye on 69.207.66.238. He/she keeps removing some text from Battle of Mogadishu (1993), which he/she describes as from enemy sources (it from the Washington Post).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has now deleted the same content on the following ocasions:

    Some people can't take a hint. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DTMGO reported by User:Cretog8 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [77]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [83]

    The edit warring here is echoed by that at Economics, although there's enough changes in content there I'm not sure it positively qualifies as 3RR. Oddly, DTMGO also persists in labeling all edits as minor, and often provides insufficient or misleading edit summaries, in spite of requests to do otherwise. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Student of philosophy reported by Guettarda (Result: 1 wk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [89] (among others)

    Fresh off a 3RR block; the last complaint is still active at the top of this page. (See this edit [90] for evidence of connection between editor and IP). Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - One week for 3RR violation, directly after release of the IP's block for edit warring on the same article. Since this editor and 194.124.140.39 are the same person, both are blocked 1 week, escalated from a recent 72h block of the IP. Evasion of the previous block has also been taken into account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Autonova reported by User:NRen2k5 (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [91]

    The first 'revert' is actually his first edit, whilst the other three are reverts. He therefore did not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. Nja247 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catiline63 reported by User:TruHeir (Result: no vio )

    Editor keeps tempering with

    Editor added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal which was removed but the editor continues to bring it back I reverted his/her edits and left a warning on his/her page (the 2nd warning about this particular page) and her unconstructive edits but the editor continues to add that image. The image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic (what a surprise) but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These sources however do not even support the image of the roman solider. He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal.

    • There may be an edit dispute which needs addressed, but the user has not exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I'd actively seek discussion with them on talk pages. Nja247 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note that the reporter has been forum shopping, and the reportee has in fact sought discussion on the reporters talk page. Nja247 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaitsepolitsei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (result: 24h)

    User:Sander Säde reported by User:PasswordUsername (no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [96]


    (More discussed below.)


    User:Sander Säde keeps removing sourced material, then coatracking the article with WP:SELFPUB sources about the Kaitsepolitsei's hunt against the Communists in Estonia, reinserting his own material per what he thinks is and is not WP:SELFPUB, in spite of my explanations to him of what the policy is (no claims about third parties). He repeatedly edit wars over anything unflattering to Estonia's image. 


    PasswordUsername (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First two reverts are separate from third and fourth - related to PasswordUsername insertion WP:OR opinion that the Estonian Security Police operating during Nazi occupation is the same as before Soviet occupation of 1940 (note: when Soviets occupied Estonia, they disbanded the organization and all employees were deported from Estonia before World War II started). I've asked him to provide source for this claim (on the talk page), he has not replied in any way. As for the third and fourth reverts, he seems to be mistaken, as third is an addition of material, existing in the source cited - and last is additional source, for which he asked for when he removed the passage. -- Sander Säde 08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR concerns exceeding three repeated reverts to the same page, not the same material. (Note that the WP:OR claim Sander is accusing me of making was explained to him in the edit summary, although obviously not to his liking: (1)). The WP:OR performed here is by Sander Säde: first he does an apologia at the Kaitsepolitsei page about why Communists were targeted for repression by the Kaitsepolitsei (2), claims a self-published source (the KAPO itself) for why that is (3), then when the inadmissibility of self-exculpating justifications relating to third parties are pointed out for him per WP:SELFPUB (4), he claims to know when SELFPUB rules apply or do not apply–bringing in an unrelated source about the Soviet communists per WP:SYNTH (5). All this through four reverts to the article page. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no words. First PasswordUsername tries to paint Nazi German Politische Polizei to been an Estonian Security Police (unsupported by any source whatsoever), repeatedly inserting that obviously false information, then he says I did an "apologia" although it is present in the original source and was omitted before for unknown reasons, possibly as an attempt to paint Security Police as some kind of repressive organ. He dislikes the source, so I get a secondary source about the activities of Soviet Union, which now becomes "synth". Sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. If you want more sources about the Soviet Union, then that really isn't a problem, Terrorism by the Soviet Union lists plenty. And perhaps, PasswordUsername, you should re-read WP:SELFPUB - "books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets". The website of Kaitsepolitsei is really not any of those, it is a site of a highly regarded governmental organization.
    Also, do note the lack of warning. I did not break WP:3RR at any point (I dislike edit warring immensely, however, I will remove misleading information), moreso I was willing to discuss - something that PasswordUsername obviously wasn't interested about.
    -- Sander Säde 10:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the source I provided in the article says:

    Among the Estonians the most important suspects were Oskar Angelus, who headed the Estonian Department of Internal Affairs and organized the Estonian Political Police which carried out the murder of Estonian Jewry, Hugo Okasmaa and Leonid Laid who both served as officers in the Political Police in the Tallinn-Harju Prefecture and Vladimir Tiit and Arkadi Visnapuu who served as officers of the Estonian Security Police. Efraim Zuroff

    Now, I said that the Political Police was different during the Nazi era - and this is attested to by what I provided just above here. This was indicated in the article. Still, you went on to revert-war, reverting other material not to your liking. I already explained how you presented WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUB as legitimate material, although the issue here is the edit warring, which should not be bypassed by your subsequent allegations against myself. Accusing others of being guilty of one's own faults is the oldest trick known to man.
    Now, the website of the Kaitsepolitsei, as it were, seems like a website: "books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets." (WP:SELFPUB - thank you for point this out.) So there are multiple issues of content related to your warring here. However, I am asking for an administrator's opinion on your edit warring, not the content dispute. As for the warning, let me take care to note that you also reverted Offliner's edit here: 5. I left this out of the above summary, so chalk this up as your fifth revert. You've been blocked for the very same thing prior to this: [101].
    PasswordUsername (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So Kaitsepolitsei website is a "personal website"? I think that really doesn't need further comments, but if this is the case, we can safely discard any source from UN... well, *any* source whatsoever.
    As for the Estonian Political Police - like I have been repeatedly pointing out, it was a branch of Politische Polizei. If you want to create an article about the Estonian Political Police of the Nazi era - do go ahead. But do not synthesize it to be the same as Kaitsepolitsei. It is not, despite how much you may wish it to be. No source associates the two. Why are you insisting to insert this tidbit into the article, I really don't understand - do you have a personal agenda?
    And as for the murder of Estonian Jewry, it was started by Soviet Union (roughly 400..500 out of 4500. Rest were killed by extermination squad Einsatzkommando (Sonderkommando) 1A - please see Holocaust in Estonia for a whole lot better sources and review then an off-hand remark by Zuroff.
    -- Sander Säde 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous: "So Kaitsepolitsei website is a 'personal website?'" No, it's the website of the organization you are citing about third parties relating to itself. This is not acceptable per WP:SELFPUB. The things you named were just examples: note "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[nb 3]... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1) the material is not unduly self-serving; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4) the article is not based primarily on such sources." You understand this–I'm very, very sure you do. Already, you've been told that this is not the issue here. Stop bringing content disputes into concerns regarding edit warring. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rv 2 and 3 are contiguous and so count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PasswordUsername reported by Colchicum (result: 24h)


    • Previous versions reverted to: See below


    • 1st revert: [102] to [103] (readdition of the category Secret police)
    • 2nd revert: [104] to [105] (readdition of the category Secret police)
    • 3rd revert: [106] to [107] (removal of the words Communists were supported by the Soviet Union...)
    • 4th revert: [108] to [109] (removal of the words Communists were supported by the Soviet Union...)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is perfectly aware of this rule, see his report right above.

    Colchicum (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly is it that I am reverting to another user's version in 1 when my version is completely different from his? Take that if you want: WP:3RR still states that consecutive saved edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user are considered one revert, so your example of my "edit warring" (158) is not an example of reverting here. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should know best, you lectured Sander Säde on the issue of 3RR so impressively right above. But here is it for you: You version is very far from being completely different. Radeksz removed the contentious category Secret police (9:47), and you restored it in your "first" revert (10:42). The "versions reverted to" are here for everyone to look at. I may understand your desire to hijack the report, but there is really nothing to add. Every of the edits is a revert, and every single one of them is separated from the others by edits made by other users (thanks, I've refactored the diffs to make it absolutely clear). Colchicum (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, although I've reverted unsupported edits by other editors, I did not exceed three instances of reverting per WP:3RR. You can have the fact that the category I added was the same as Offliner's–I'm willing to concede that bit all you like. All of the edit history is indeed well documented. Enjoy. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result

    Bit of a mess, I have no idea about the content, but looks like 3RR from PU but not SS. SS also gets some credit for using the talk page, and PU demerit for not doing so. And may I remind people not to discuss content or sources here - BLP can be an issue, but no-one is claiming that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that SS has indicated on his talk page a willingness for an uninvolved admin to review his lack-of-block; I'm happy too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sander Säde requested a review of the case in order not to get accused of favoritism. I can understand why: it seems to me that User:Sander Säde has clearly made at least 6 reverts in 24 hours.

    • [110] (reverting part of this[111] by removing "Bäckman")
    • [112] (marked as revert)
    • [113] (marked as revert)
    • [114] (undoing this [115] edit by removing "organization was resuscitated...")
    • [116] (reinserting "communists were...")
    • [117] (same)

    Indeed it seems a bit unfair if the other party gets blocked by the other doesn't. Hope this helps. Offliner (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this looks like a 3RR violation by SS as well. I've proposed a resolution of the case based on a mutual editing restriction over at User talk:Sander Säde#Kaitsepolitsei. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation of the responses is that both Sander Säde and PasswordUsername have agreed to the one-month restriction from editing the Kaitsepolitsei article. The ban will run until 17:12 UTC, 7 July 2009. They can still contribute on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Since UsernamePassword and Offliner keep their conversation regarding this to themselves, I'll make the comment here. The article has been the target of obvious Wiki-lawyering, for example deleting: "Communists were supported by the Soviet Union, who had publicly accepted the principles not recognizing the parliamentary order, seeing terrorism as a legitimate activity" according to "Observe WP:SELFPUB: Material by the KAPO can only be used to discuss the KAPO so long as it "does not involve claims about third parties"". It makes no sense to have an article which states that Communists were targeted, and then delete why they were being targeted. Without the additional sentence, it makes Estonian actions appear little more than a phobia of Communists. Recall Stalin attempted to topple the Estonian government in a putsch that failed. This is nothing but deletion of relevant content hoping that appropriate restoration of content can be used to block shop. Those tactics are apparently succeeding here. "Swell?" Hardly. PetersV       TALK 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Sarandioti reported by Alexikoua (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [118]


    • Previous version reverted to: [122]


    • Previous version reverted to: [127]


    95% of his contributions from the first day (few days from now) he appeared are of the above kind: [131], deleting and adding specific parts, without discussing seriously and ordering the other users to make adjustments ('add it', 'move it', he is not an 'rs' he is a traveler etc.).

    On the Despotate of Epirus he kept reverting, until administrators arrived (suggesting that what he try isn't exactly right). From his contribution I believe it is obvious that he will continue that kind of action.Alexikoua (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation at Sarandë. The question of who is right about all the WP:NCGN issues needs a patient discussion on an appropriate talk page, not a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benson Verazzano reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 24 hours)

    Benson Verazzano (talk · contribs) is now at 4 or 5 by my count over inserting an external link to the myspace page of a defunct band in the body text of an article about an Australian singer. 5:49 June 7 (restors myspace link removed days earlier). I'm at 3 so can't deal with this anymore.

    The issue has been explained to him at his talk page both by a bot [141] and by me [142]. I have asked him to engage and seek consesnsus on the talk page both in edit summaries [143] and in a talk page post [144]. He has responded, but given the tone of his comments and that he has carried on with the disputed edit, i am not hopeful.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As i discussed on the talk page, the article is about Blasko and the link is to Blasko's early work, unable to be heard anywhere else. It fits the WP:EL criteria. I'm not reverting, I've made new links to try and compromise on the issue. Going from an inline citation, to an external link, to retoring another external link that kept getting reverted along with the Acquiesce link, to adding a published reference (which got deleted) to fixing wording on her notability. It's duplicitous to present my edits as being repeated reversions of the same thing.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm involved in the discussion at Talk:Sarah Blasko, and I've pointed out to Benson Verazzano that the link he keeps re-adding does violate the WP:EL guidelines—and that since it's disputed, he should wait until consensus is gained before re-adding the link. I've also just left the templated {{uw-3rr}} warning on his user talk page because of the frequent reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here are the reverts pertaininly only to the MySpace link:
    • [145] Initial revert, inline placement
    • [146] Revert of XLinkBot after link added to EL section
    • [147] Revert of Bali; edit summary notes addition of links
    • [148] Again reverting XLinkBot; bot noted the MySpace link in its edit summary
    • [149] Again reverting XLinkBot
    • [150] Reverting McSly
    • [151] Reverting me
    Well above the 3RR related just to the MySpace link. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    83.24.123.224 reported by Samboy (Result: page semi-protected )

    Super Audio CD has recently had a lot of problems with disruptive editing, which has resulted in three accounts recently being blocked for their edits there: [152] [153] [154]

    The disruptive editing continues from IPs starting in 83.24, which had had to be reverted by three different established Wikipedia editors: [155] [156] [157]

    • Previous version reverted to: [158]

    Note that there are usually slight differences between the IP's reverts.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [163]

    Samboy (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the page for three weeks. KrakatoaKatie 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Samboy (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Piano non troppo reported by Special:Contributions/96.27.38.63 (Result: No violation)

    Editor user:Piano non troppo is repeatedly reversing addition of link to article by removing largest coney chain's homepage National Coney Island. He is doing so ostensibly because the link is a violation of WP:SPAM but oddly enough leaving a half-dozen links to other restaurant chains. In the most recent reversion, he is acting as user:User:Blurpeace (note that blurpeace is on wikibreak until June 19) either gaining access to account or in violation of WP:SOCK.

    • 1st revert: [164]
    • 2nd revert: [165]
    • 3rd revert: [166]
    • 4th revert: [167] (Note that this user is being dishonest in their edit summary; I have discussed the IP's changes in [[Talk:Talk:Coney_Island_(restaurant)]] and on User_talk:Piano_non_troppo, which user has chosen to ignore.) Also, note that user apparently reverted his 4th revert at [168] in an apparent quick reconsideration of his actions.
    1) There's has been no discussion on [169] for weeks. I.e., 96.27.38.63 seems to be confused.
    2) I answered editor 96.27.38.63 within a few minutes of each of their comments on my talk page.
    3) I'm not Blurpeace. Therefore I didn't revert four times.
    4) My first edit was using an anti-vandalism tool, reverting only 96.27.38.63's addition. On inspection, each of the links that I did check were WP:SPAM. I then made the same edit twice, removing them.
    5) TastyPoutine just made similar edits to mine. (I'm not TastyPoutine, btw.)
    Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation of 3RR has occurred here. J.delanoygabsadds 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My response:

    1. The only link deleted was my own; the balance of links that could run afoul of WP:SPAM were ignored, creating an assumption that the deletion was focused on the specific link.
    2. National Coney Island redirects to Coney Island (restaurant). Since this redirection was created (and some time ago), persons querying the specific restaurant should be able to link to the home page of the restaurant searched, a la McDonalds or any other restaurant included in the database.

    96.27.38.63 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not an issue for WP:AN3. Try discussing it on the article's talk page. J.delanoygabsadds 23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SaltyBoatr reported by Anastrophe (Result: )




    editor Saltyboatr, a long-time disruptive edit warrior, chose to use real chutzpah here. i've been discussing changes to the article Gun violence on that article's talk page, with another editor. i stated my intention to make some changes conformant to the discussion. i made the changes. editor saltyboatr reverted my changes, with the rather generic (and evasive) edit summary "NPOV edit" (carefully being sure not to draw attention to the fact that it was a reversion). i reverted the article back to my changes. Saltyboatr then put a warning on my page that i was possibly edit warring, advising that i should discuss the matter on the talk page. while yet he has not even bothered to discuss his rationale on the article talk page. chutzpah! editor saltyboatr has been blocked on three previous occasions for multiple days for disruptive edit warring. i on the other hand was blocked once about a year and a half ago, for about a half a day, while dealing with a throwaway account that was adding material violative of BLP to an article (that account never before nor since having made a single edit, other than the three days it was active). i am making this notice on a single revert because it is part of a very, very long term pattern of disruptive editing by Saltyboatr, and i'm tired of being spuriously warned by him when i make edits he doesn't like - but that he also doesn't feel like discussing. hell, his abuse of the warning templates alone merits sanctions, when he pre-emptively tags people he is reverting. Anastrophe (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Anastrophe doesn't like comments on his talk page, and since I bumped in to him here (see above where I had to deal with a disruptive editor in Super Audio CD), let me take the liberty to say hi. Hello, Anastrophe, since you're anonymous and don't like talk page comments, I just want to let you know that I'm working really right now on the code that will become the next version of MaraDNS. I'm rewriting the DNS decompression core, and can understand why DJB left rather dark mutterings about DNS' "sophomoric" compression in the DjbDNS comments. It's a lot of work, and I hope it's something you can appreciate. Anyway, if you want to leave a comment about MaraDNS, feel free to do so at my geek blog. As for gun control, that is a very hot wire issue with a lot of very passionate people on both sides of the debate. Sort of like how some audiophiles are passionate about Super Audio CD. Anyway, I hope you're doing well, take care and good luck resolving this editing dispute! Samboy (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely request advice as to a better way to collaborate with Anastrophe, take a look at the history, for no lack of trying and to no avail this has been extremely hard to do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HAl reported by Scientus (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [170]


    also silencing claims that a Microsoft run website is not a reliable source for Microsoft-sponsored OOXML: [177]

    The article cited clearly states in the first paragraph "Microsoft is joining other industry titans such as Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Sharp and Samsung that have recently taken steps to eliminate their use of polyvinyl chloride plastics, otherwise known as PVC or vinyl, in the packaging of their products."


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [182]

    Scientus (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Skäpperöd reported by Radeksz (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [183]


    Note that 1) There probably are also one or two more violations that can be gleaned from history although Skapperod's editing style (lots of frequent, consecutive edits which mix minor changes and moving stuff around with reverts) make it hard to catch and 2) in the 24 period preceding the one given with diffs above, Skapperod either also violated 3RR or came very close to it (I can find 3 definitive reversions and a few borderline - again editing style makes it hard to check). Either way, it's evidence of edit warring.radek (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also that Skapperod continues to edit war even after this report has been filed: [188] I think this would make it either a 5th (or even 6th) revert in 24hrs, or 4th revert in a slightly different 24 hr period.radek (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Skapperod's certainly been around long enough to be aware of the 3RR rule.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [189]


    Reply by Skäpperöd

    I did not violate 3RR. In fact, I am the only one who added useful and sourced information to the article. User:Radeksz is recently following me around reverting me since a wikifriend of him got blocked for socking because of an SPI case I filed [190]. The trouble then started whith Radek's wholesale revert of all my editions to the Police (town), Poland article [191] which before my edits was poor and c/e-tagged. Then he followed me to the Kolobrzeg article, and now he followed me to the Middle Pomerania article. The latter had been turned into a redirect in 2006 [192], I stubbed and sourced it again [193], Radeksz wholesale reverts to a 2006 version before the article was redirected [194]. Note also that Radeksz' campaign against me, at the Police (town) as well as at the Kolobrzeg article, has been joined by Piotrus, Tymek, and Poeticbent - exactly the team who defended against being a tag-team in the Piotrus2-Arbcom, and look at the edit history of the Kolobrzeg article [195]:

    • 15:23, 6 June 2009 Tymek shows up for the first time
    • 15:35, 6 June 2009 Piotrus shows up for the first time
    • 16:20, 6 June 2009 Radeksz shows up for the first time.

    Poeticbent has joined today, removing sources [196] because he is not able to verify them.

    Note that neither one actually added anything constructive to the articles in question, the only exception being Piotrus who added information from the Kolobrzeg website. Now while WP:SPS are fine sometimes, if the information is contradicted by all available sources, that makes it fringe.

    The evidence presented by Radeksz underlines that pretty well.

    • First diff [197]: Was nothing but the restoration of sourced material that was deleted by Piotrus with an edit summary "c/e, some cite req" [198]
    • Second and third diff [199] [200]: removal of fringe
    • Fourth diff [201]: Tymek removed "German era" with the edit summary: "what does German era mean? Kolobrzeg was also a vassal of the Danes" I reverted that with the edit summary "Danish until 1227, town founded 1255".

    So the diffs Radeksz provided do not constitute a 3RR violation, and this whole thread is nothing but the continuation of what I regard his harrassment towards me. Actually I was myself close to bringing this whole case to administrator attention but decided against it. I would really really appreciate if that would finally stop and Radeksz would - if his edits actually are motivated by a newly discovered interest in the history of Pomerania - get in touch with me in a normal way. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I did not follow you around. You just decided to launch major rewrites on four (that I can see) Polish cities on my watchlist. In each case the pattern of edits was the same. The question of who added what (and I did make additions to this article as well as the other ones that were under your editing), whether some sources are "fringe" (they're not - so this is a clear content dispute) and "what does German mean" revert (should have answered question on talk page) are all reverts. 3RR board is not a place to decide content disputes but to determine whether a user is edit warring. And despite your charges of "tag teaming" (asterisk) you are the only one on that page who is reverting everybody else, hence edit warring. Same thing goes for harassment charges - the fact that you choose to edit the same articles as I do does not constitute harassment and this isn't a place to discuss that (if you really feel that way then yes, bring it up at the appropriate venue).
    (asterisk) This accusation comes up everytime that more than one Polish editor has the "nerve" to edit the same Poland related topic. It is spurious. It is insulting. It is a violation of the assumption of good faith. It is disruptive. And it is usually a futile attempt to divert attention from one's own wrong doing (in Skapperod's case, edit warring) to someone else.radek (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably add that in case that Tymek, Piotrus or Poeticbent show up at this case it'll probably have nothing to do with "tag teaming" but rather with the fact that Skapperod brought them up himself with his accusations.radek (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that, contrary to Skapperod's assertion above, my name is not mentioned anywhere at Piotrus2-Arbcom (so again, Skapperod seems to just have a problem with Polish editors having the chutzpah to edit Poland-related articles), and to the extent that Tymek and Piotrus are mentioned it is precisely to state that they are NOT tag teaming - so Skapperod's flipping the matter on its head here.radek (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverts were not about the same issue, and all the reverts were either corrections of obviously false information contradicted by all scholary sources presented (diffs 2,3 and 4), or the restoration of sourced material that was deleted without any reason (diff 1). That is not edit-warring. That is expanding articles based on good sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per [[202]]: "whether or not the edits involve the same material" - and you know this very well as you've been around for quite awhile. Whether or not the relevant text was "obviously false information" is a CONTENT DISPUTE, as is putting back in text objected to by others. In fact, it is your opinion and given the relevant discussion over at reliable sources on using webpages of cities, it's not even one supported by consensus.radek (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of a scholary source and the restoration of this source is not a content dispute. And if all modern archaeologists and historians, Polish and German, agree that the area was not settled before the 7th century, and that the first burghs were built another century later, and then comes a guy who writes a town's website claiming in this town a burgh existed already in the 5th century - this is not an actual content dispute either. It just means that the town needs to maintain her website better and not that we act on wikipedia as if the scholars and the website had an actual dispute. This is a prime example of WP:FRINGE. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by Poeticbent

    Skäpperöd is a problem user misrepresenting facts to fit his agenda, on top of being totally uncooperative. Above, he accused me of removing his one source from Kolobrzeg which in fact I just reformatted using the "ref name" tag in order to de-clutter the reference section. I was reverted at an instance. It is impossible to work with someone as combative as this. --Poeticbent talk 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yonteng

    Yonteng reported by Emptymountains (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [203]



    This user was also reported yesterday for repeated BLP violations on the talk page: [211]

    Emptymountains (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Haldraper reported by Richardshusr (Result: )

    Hi, I need some advice on how best to handle a disruptive editor who is deleting sourced material from the article on the Roman Catholic Church. This article has many editors involved and the text is often discussed in detail with wording chosen based on a consensus of editors with multiple POVs. There is plenty of POV-pushing and I don't argue that the article is necessarily as neutral and balanced as it could be. However, most editors learn quickly that this is not an article to be bold but rather one where seeking consensus is the way to go.

    The editor in question (User:Haldraper) has been deleting material without adequate discussion on the Talk Page and often against consensus. We have invited him multiple times to discuss on the Talk Page before making substantial changes and he has engaged in some discussion but he has continued his unilateral editing rather than working to form a consensus first. Multiple warnings have been left on his Talk Page but he seems to be ignoring them or otherwise not getting the message.

    See [warnings left on his Talk Page]

    The result has been multiple edit/revert cycles over several days and the net effect is disruptive.

    There have been six edit/revert cycles in the last four days. The diffs above provide evidence of three of them. The rest can easily be found by looking in the edit history of the page.

    As an involved editor, I am reluctant to take administrative action and I'm not 100% sure what the best path is to follow. Normally, I prefer to protect pages rather than block editors; however, in this case, a block of User:Haldraper seems in order. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and take the appropriate action if any? Please leave a message here or on my Talk Page so that I'll know what decision you made and why. Thanx.

    --Richard (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alanraywiki reported by Alansohn (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [215]


    • 1st revert: [216] at 11:26
    • 2nd revert: [217] at 11:27
    • 3rd revert: [218] again at 11:27
    • 4th revert: [219] at 11:30


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [220]

    User:Alanraywiki is far from the only editor involved in this edit warring, but appears to be one of the most egregious of the non-IP editors in making repeated reverts to this article in violation of WP:3RR. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I considered my edits to be reverting the vandalism of an IP editor who was removing sourced content and the entire references section, which is more than just a content dispute. I noted this was a controversial article from the talk page and was putting it back into the more neutral version and restoring the references section. If my actions are not considered reverting of vandalism but rather inserting POV edits, then I apologize and will lay off the article. That was not my intent. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nhev114 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [221]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [227]

    Note that there might also be a sockpuppetry issue - Nhev114 is reverting back to the same version as blocked users Veutourou and Koeschoe, and probably others. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hybernator reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [228]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: see my edit summary for fourth RV

    This user is reverting a template that properly belongs. The fact that Burma is sometimes considered South Asia is well cited on South Asia. After moving the Template:Countries and Territories of South Asia to its currently title (previously it was Template:Countries of South Asia), I began to fix the template title on all South Asia country/territory articles (under both the "Sometimes Included" articles and core definition articles). I noticed that Burma, at some point, had had the template removed, so I readded it. At this point Hybernator started a revert war. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Note: I have not yet reverted Hybernator's last revert, as doing so would put me at four reverts also. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) have now Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=295219397"