Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive118

Page:

)
User being reported: Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All diffs are explicit Undo reverts

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Page protected by Tcncv (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Ted Bundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] and entire Bundy talk page.

Comments:

Page: Carbon tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 150.203.87.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 121.127.207.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users are obviously the same; they edit the same articles at different times. Perhaps one is the home IP and one the work IP in Australia. However, this may require a checkuser to confirm, and determine whether some of the new editors also adding the Hansen material to various articles are the same.

All the edits (except some of the last, which are clear reverts) add the opinions of James Hansen without much attempt to correct the errors indicated by myself and others:

• 21:10, December 7, 2009 (as 121)

• 1st revert: 13:17, 10 December 2009 (as 121) adding James Hansen section
• 2nd revert: 21:06, 10 December 2009 (as 121) adding James Hansen section
• 3rd revert: 03:59, 11 December 2009 (as 150) restoring the "100% dividend" and deleting {{dead link}}, although possibly making some attempt to follow some Wikipedia policy
• 4th revert: 04:08, 11 December, 2009 (as 150) still deleting {{dead link}}, and restoring all but 2 words of the previous edit.
• 5th revert: 05:39, 11 December 2009 (as 150) still deleting {{dead link}}, removing my tags without dealing with the issues; restoring all but one word of the previous edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:21, 11 December 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:45, 9 December 2009 (followed by another editor deleting the section at 19:53.

Comments:

The link is still dead, even through an anonimizer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Weird. That anonimizer works. I think timesonline is rejecting my ISP (Time Warner Cable), rather than by geographic activity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Behavioral evidence strongly suggests that they are the same user editing from two relatively stable IPs, as well as using
  uw-3RR}} to the 121 account just in case, though. I cannot brain today, so somebody else please resolve this. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 08:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not there yet, but almost. Just wanted to give a heads up. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Abecedare (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether edit warring or 3RR, I don't know what to call it, but it is certainly not a productive way to edit this article. I have been trying to discuss issues with WLU on his Talk page,[14] and on the article Talk page[15] as has Hillinpa, he is adamant that his view is right, and he exhibits a lot of

toward the article.

I was surprised to see another editor involved until I saw that WLU had drafted Verbal to make a revert, probably to avoid triggering 3RR. So I don't really think that Verbal is involved.

Hillinpa has posted this on the Mediation Cabal [16]

I hope that I have reflected all the relevant edits below without bias, though I have not listed them all. Link to warning [17]

Here is a more stable version of the article that had been around for a couple of days with few edits. [18]

Hillinpa adds content 12/10 15:17 [19]

1. Here WLU reverts the 15:17 edit made my Hillinpa at 15:24 12/10 [20]

Hillinpa edits at 16:49 [21]

2. WLU reverts it at 16:59 [22]

I add qualifier "rare" to text since I don't believe the cite belongs there at all, it is an anecdote, as discussed on Talk 18:09 [23]

Here Hillinpa re-adds his text, deletes nothing 12/11 11:52 [24]

3. Here Verbal (not an active editor on this article) reverts Hillinpa's text, per WLU, at 12:95 commenting: (Undid revision 331076545 by Hillinpa (talk) rvt per WLU, cerry picking) [25]

Here I change a sentence back to a mediated NPOV version that was implemented last week, and move a paragraph that WLU wrote to a more prominent location. 13:26 [26]

Here WLU changes a NPOV mediated sentence, adding what to me seems unsuitable detail to the lede, not referring to the subjects as physicians, and removes a qualifier at 14:07 [27]

Here I remove conflated text, clarify remaining text to better reflect cite. 14:11 [28]

4. WLU sets the article to Inuse and changed my paragraph move of 13:26 14:30 [29]

4. WLU reverts my revision of 14:11 and adds changes 14:48 [30]

Here I revise WLU's addition to 14:07, adding titles, removing bio info from lede 15:56 [31]

5. Here WLU edit, removes "Dr"s, effectively reverting my change of 15:56 at 6:27 [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation When an article is being actively edited in good faith, we do not simply count "technical" reverts and block editors on that basis. I'd recommend you continue the discussion on the article talk page and wait for a mediator to respond to the MEDCAB request. Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Avatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 115.252.47.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously at 115.252.34.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 09:34, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "its an article related to hinduism")
2. 16:17, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "Its an article related to hinduism")
3. 20:30, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "its related to hinduism")
4. 20:46, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "avatar is primarily related to hinduism, and the dasavatar picture has been shifted to the place were it really belongs, Onus is on the person to explain who wants to remove it.")
5. 21:00, 11 December 2009 (edit summary: "i think u didnt get wat i just wrote u r putting the pic of dasavatar on top of the article wheras their is a special section for it plus it is a hindu related article that rule also applies on you")
6. 09:21, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "what u didnt get that!!!!!!!!")
7. 09:31, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "See the talk page")
8. 09:35, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "Dont u get it see the talk page ur disturbing the whole uniformity of WP articles.")
9. 09:38, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "See the talk page, ur adding wrong templates and wrong pics")

• Diff of warning: here and [here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Avatar#Hinduism_template

Comments:
The editor has made 9 reverts over roughly 1 day using 2 IPs despite consensus being clearly against them. The page may also need to be semi-protected since the editor is anyways IP hopping. Abecedare (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both IP's blocked. NJA (t/c) 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Personal lubricant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• Block for edit warring on article on December 8th: [33], [34]

Feline1's reverts:

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Azure1234's reverts:

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See their previous blocks. This occurred just after their 31 hour blocks expired.

Comments:
I believe

) 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No talk page discussion. No discussion on his or your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, for AGF to apply and govern here, some sort of communication line needs to be open. And that would imply discussion threads. Neither of you have started any discussion, whether at each other's talk page or the article talk page. As such, I must unfortunately block both of you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.200.39.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [42]

• Not a 3RR violation but persistent long-term edit-warring to include poorly sourced (to Twitter, no less) potentially controversial information into a BLP. Previously blocked twice for same problem. Most recent revert is: [43]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Obviously the same user; dude's been blocked repeatedly. --slakr^\ talk / 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Flatterworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All claimed to be reverts, and I have no reason to believe he's lying

1. 22:02, 12 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331321218 by William M. Connolley (talk
   ) please see Talk page")
2. 01:28, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331327532 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk
   ) same")
3. 20:07, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331450983 by William M. Connolley (talk
   )reverting continued vandalism")
4. 22:55, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331485763 by Nigelj (talk
   )revert vandalism")
5. 2009-12-13T23:36:37 (added by WMC) (Undid revision 331511134 by Arthur Rubin (talk) reverting repeated vandalism by same people)

• He warned others about 3RR here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:19, 13 December 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 6 December 2009, etc. I've done very little of the editing warring since I brought that up.

Comments:
Not techincally a 3RR violation yet, but the 4 reverts were in 25 hours, which strongly suggests he's going to continue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now clearly over 4R. Note false assertions of reverting vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Previous version reverted to: [46]

• Repeated edit warring to restore an archived discussion/rant, remove discussion closure tags etc; seven reversions in less than 2 hours (16:24 to 18:05). This is causing unneeded disruption to the article's talk page and the IP editor has been completely unresponsive to requests from at least three different editors (and one admin) to desist. Diffs:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]

Another reversion since I reported this:

1. [54]

• Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [55]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Infinitesimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert (partial): [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

Infinitesimus has been edit warring at several articles while attempting to insert information on an herbal product from the Ukraine, ImmunoXel. Because

) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 07:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: League City, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.197.181.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Referred from

) 03:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Hans Henning Atrott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 79.154.121.215 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

• Already blocked NJA (t/c) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: SkyWalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

Disputed this edit and attempted to discuss on talk page, but alas this user insists on edit warring rather than adult dicussion. magnius (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see two users here who are equally edit warring, and very limited discussion. Is that not the case? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the press release which was released by Disney 1 and 2. It states

Tron Evolution and they were other gaming such has EuroGamer but there are sites which says Tron Evolution for example IGN. Not knowing what the correct title so i trusted the press release and moved it to Tron: Evolution. Then this user Magnius came and started waging revert and my talk page wars. He even sent me a note for congratulating for waging 3RR (which he started). --SkyWalker (talk

) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I started it? I challenged the sources and asked you to discuss it further..YOU insisted upon violating the 3RR and continue edit warring...you know the rules, you broke the rules. The trailer for the game itself does not use the : symbol, that in itself is enough to question its validity. Consensus my friend, that is what I seek. magnius (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And neither of you is doing anything to achieve that. As for 3RR, there's no technical violation: the first oldid given is not a revert, but the initial edit. So, no block, but there could be in the future (for either or both parties) if edit warring continues. Please

pursue dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 12 Dec Pmanderson tags the article [77]
• 12 Dec Xandar reverts tags [78]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson reverts Xandar [79]
• 13 Dec Xandar reverts tags, calling them "improper" [80]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson undoes Xandar revert [81]
• 13 Dec Xandar reverts tags [82]
• 13 Dec Pmanderson undoes Xandar revert [83]
• 14 Dec Yorkshirian reverts tags [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple warnings have been left on the article talk page about edit-warring. The page was protected two weeks ago due to edit-warring by Xandar. previous 3rr report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: after reverting several times, Xandar opened a discussion at Talk:Catholic Church#Misuse of General Tags where he seems to be misinterpreting the tagging rules.

Comments:
I'm not sure whether to protect the page or issue blocks, and since I'm involved on the article talk page it would be best to get a neutral opinion. Please see above that Xandar has edit-warred on this page repeatedly. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See also [85] from late October 2009, where others have also edit-warred to keep tags off of the Catholic Church page. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Xandar for 48 hours as revert warring after the page was protected and warned countless times. Ditto for Pmanderson, while I only saw one revert from Yorkshirian, so no block for him (unless he's violating ArbCom sanctions, which I need to further research). Secret ^account 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 15:26, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territory and region data */")
2. 21:57, 13 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removing inappropriate POV content. Iraq is not "occupied" because the US does not control Iraqi politics. Compare France in WWII--it was occupied by Nazis, Iraq is not")
3. 04:32, 14 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removing POV edit. Does UN consider Iraq occupied? Iraq completely governs its own affairs, that is not the definition of "occupied"")
4. 14:04, 14 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Territory and region data */ Occupation is irrelevant to type of government--it's still a parliamentary democracy. Occupation placed in footnote. See Talk Page")

• I was waiting for a third parties requested opinion before further edits, to avoid edit warring. I thought that was agreed on. The Scythian 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It does not technically breach
    third party. NW (Talk
    ) 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Kansas evolution hearings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thwonk121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [86]
• 2nd revert: [87]
• 3rd revert: [88]
• 4th revert: [89]
• 5th revert: [90]
• 6th revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

• Comment There's enough admins editing that page to handle any disruption being caused by the user. NJA (t/c) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No, none of us can do a darn thing, because we are all, as you put it, "editing that page", which =involved. I was going to file here but then saw the anon had gotten here and done it before I had, saving me, as I thought, the trouble. Its very disappointing that no Admin watching this page has bothered to do a thing about this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

24 hours NJA (t/c) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked indef as a clear

single-purpose account Secret ^account

12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest 24-31 hours too. Everybody was new and a SP editor once.--Slp1 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Secret beat me to the actual punch of doing the block as I inadvertently blocked the IP! Things happen I suppose. I do wonder if an indef was a bit harsh, considering it's the first block on the account. I suppose we can wait and see if the user appeals and discuss it there, or of course it may go to a noticeboard, however I won't be bothering with any of that personally. Let's try not to discuss it here though, as post block discussions belong at AN, ANI, or the user's talk page. NJA (t/c) 12:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Jumpin' Jack Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.116.53.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: [94] is the last version before User:68.116.53.246 introduced nonconsensus additions, which s/he has repeatedly re-imposed, as shown in the diffs below:

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• reinserting the same material into the lede: [99], then shifting it back to prior position: [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [102], deleted by user here: [103] and here: [104] Diff of attempted discussion on the article's talk page: [105]
Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: 99 Luftballons#Film and TV appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.230.199.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 58.169.236.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:14, 13 December 2009

On December 13, 58.169.236.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added irrelevant, vandal material at the end of 99 Luftballons#Film and TV appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed it. Shortly thereafter, 60.230.199.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (presumably the same person, both are located in Perth, Australia) re-added the same material without explanation. Rather than revert again, I'm reporting the situation. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  intiate discussion with them on their talk page. Do hold off on requesting protection or re-reporting here unless they resume, because as of now there's not enough disruption to warrant page protection or a block. NJA (t/c)
  12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Bobov (Hasidic dynasty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Beis Din (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [106]
• 1st edit: [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:The names and positions that this article discusses is currently in dispute. People belonging to either side come on to WP every so often to change the content so that it shows a view more towards one side than the other. The dispute is currently in a rabinical court called Beis Din. This user created an account with the purpose of changing this article as is evident in his contribs and name he chose. While he hasn't done that edit in more than 3 times in 24h, this IS going to lead to a war edit once people belonging to the other side will notice it.

• Warned New user welcomed and warned. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.106.6.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 23:34, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:43, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:49, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 00:00, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 00:10, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 00:18, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 00:22, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 00:30, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 00:52, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331916474 by RMHED (talk
   )")
10. 01:55, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "
    Undid revision 331916474 by RMHED (talk
    )")

• Diff of warning: here

—  Will Beback  talk  00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NW (Talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

Diff of 3rr edit warring : [113] Diff of 3rr4 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
I warned NickCT on his talk page of the edit war, he blanked that. I warned him of violating 3rr, he also blanked that. NickCT is trying to give UNDUE weight to one instance of occupied territories when clearly the article is about the general term and many other notable occurrences exist or have existed. Inserting a POV dab into the article and justifying that by adding personal opinion on the talk page without any evidence to back his claim up except merely finding 10 URLs on the internet which refer to the Israel/Palestinian issue. I am not trying to remove information and added a neutral suggestion which NickCT reverted. Only after he violated 3RR did he attempt to 'compromise'. Consequently, I have backed off at this point since the user does not seem sincere. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Closing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Warned No activity for over a day, user warned as blocks are preventative, not punitive. Recommend a short block if disruption resumes. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before, understands the 3RR. No warning had been given by any user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:
TJ has a history of not obeying a consensus or agreeing to new formats and incivility [122]. One instance where he refused to follow a new format can be read about here Archive on the WP PW ANI archive. After viewing his block history, he continues to edit war over even the simplest of problems. Edit wars like this have happened numerous times with numerous people in the past, he seems to be trying to own the articles rather than improve them.

- Afkatk 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, 24 hours, would have gave a longer time period but it was 12 hours ago the violation. Secret ^account 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Calbuco (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TrueColour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

• 1st revert: [124] ([125])
• 2nd revert: [126] ([127])

Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 3rd revert: [129] ([130])

Previous version reverted to: [131]

• 4th revert: [132] ([133])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Hasan Prishtina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[136]]

• 1st revert: [137]
• 2nd revert: [138]
• 3rd revert: [139]
• 4th revert: [140]

Comments:User reverting to the "right" version ignroing the 2 names of the town. Such things happen all the time in the Albanian wiki. Our admins deal with them immediately.

This is not Albanian wiki. For more, see also (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj) Tadija (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not Albanian wiki. For more, see also (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Muzakaj) Tadija (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In which you admited you were wrong. You broke the rules, time to pay.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE I just found out that this user has had a sockpuppet in the past, and has been blocked in other times for edit warring. In Albanian wikipedia sockpuppet=indefinite block.--Muzakaj (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not Albanian wiki. And no, i didn't. I was reverting sock user Sarandioti. Blocking admin can explain very well. That was just little mistake that you are telling me. Main problem is still here. You cannot edit whatever you think is ok by your standards. And at the end, this is actually wrong, as those edits occur in more then 24 hours... Tadija (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Same goes to you, although I just used the standards. And now you're admiting you waited to do that, so you can't be blocked?Hmm...in Albanian wiki we call that loje me sistemin, meaning gaming the system. hmm...--Muzakaj (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Muzakaj is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rachelbirnbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&oldid=332090507

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law&action=history <- all visible here, unfortunately I don't get how to do diff links, but there are more than three
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachelbirnbaum

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valparaiso_University_School_of_Law

Comments:

There has been considerable discussion on the talk page, and no comments from Rachelbirnbaum. I've attempted to discuss it, and after other input pared down the previous changes rather than removing them and starting again, but there has been no response, just reverting the page. I apologize if I messed something up here, I'm new at this. EvilweaselSA (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I just see a bunch of edit warring between new users including both of you. I blocked both along with another account indef and semi-protected the page. Secret ^account 13:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • With respect, I think it might be a bit more complex than that - but agree that the indefs and protection will settle the dispute for now. To their credit, the reporting editor (EvilweaselSA) appears to have made a good faith attempt to discuss issues, whereas the Rachelbirnbaum account did not. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Danieldis47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 04:23, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332191892 by 99.155.206.57 (talk
   )criticism not relevant; the cartoon exists as described")
2. 04:53, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "see disc. page; Lieberman is one of most visible/powerful Jews in the US & the 1st Jew on a presidential ticket; cartoon fits within the long history of Jews falsely accused of murdering Christians")
3. 05:48, 17 December 2009 (edit summary: "An active discussion is now underway on Discussion Page; this editor gives no specific reasons for his deletion; please show common Wikipedia courtesy")

• Diff of warning: here and here

—Shlomke (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked 48 hours by User:BozMo Secret ^account 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Comments:

User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the page 3 times in the past 16 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Though this isn't technically surpassing the 3RR (yet) there is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a clear 3rr here, only three reverts, no block Secret ^account 13:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The user has continued edit-warring after this report was filed and has now broken the 3RR rule. A new report has been filed below as this one is now marked as "dealt with". 80.47.93.242 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this noticeboard isn't just for reports of 3RR, but also edit warring generally. The user was blocked just weeks ago for edit warring on the article, and has resumed aggressive editing tactics immediately once the two week full protection expired. Try to evaluate the entire situation or defer. NJA (t/c) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Digital Audio Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.192.246.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This might be the same user as this: [user:Digitalradiotech]

Previous version reverted to: [147]

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]
• 5th revert: [152]
• 6th revert: [153]

I believe this is the same person as i have been reported earlier, under a different name. The Digital Audio Broadcast page is tormented with strong battles centered around maybe one person who have a strong opinion about sound quality. This has been going on for a few years.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155] [link]

I accept that i might be blocked to. I just wish for a balanced edit.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:
I have for some time done edits under the ip-range around 84.48.121.36, in case you wonder.

Segrov (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No block as only three reverts, both of you stop edit warring, either of you touch the page again in the next few days, you will get a block. Secret ^account 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s fine, I will not edit the DAB page for a while. Does this means that User:94.192.246.167 is going to receive a block since he did his 6th revert a few hours ago: [158] ? Segrov (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WVBluefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

• 1st revert: [160] one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
• 2nd revert: [161] same as above, one statement was unsourced and critical, the other was sourced to a blog, BLP exemption
• 3rd revert: [162]
• 4th revert: [163] material that was reverted did not match the source and was
  WP:NOR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Editors knows about 3RR. Been blocked previously for it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A.

Comments:
The material that was removed in the first two edits was sourced to a blog, and that a BLP no no. The individuals who inserted it should have know better, and I suspect they did as they changed the reference to a

) 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Having issue establishing clear edit warring, which is likely why the report was skipped over by other admins. I'd look over
  dispute resolution policy to try to engage them fully in the process of editing constructively. There are other noticeboards for BLP and reliable sources as well that may be of assistance. NJA (t/c)
  13:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Rick Dykstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Manticore126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170]

Comments:
Article had been going through a constructive revision and dispute resolution by myself and User:Stc573. User:Manticore126 has contributed nothing but to completly delete a section that offends him. Also, upon review, I have found that this is not the first time the user has resorted to this. [171]

Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both warned. Since Bearcat has opened an RfC about the disputed paragraph, the parties are warned not to add or remove the paragraph until consensus is reached in the RfC. Blocks are possible otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the RFC is about the photograph only, not any text, so it's of only indirect relevance here. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Reality Killed the Video Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MariAna Mimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:

3RR violation and on-going edit-warring. I reported this yesterday - first as an edit-warring issue before 3RR occured (which was ignored) and then reported it again later the same day after 3RR had occured but the second report was inappropriately removed by another editor. User: MariAna Mimi has a history of edit-warring, and was blocked for 3RR and edit-warring on this very article only 2 weeks ago as seen here. The article page in question was also fully protected by an admin for 2 weeks. Now that the two weeks are up, MariAna Mimi is back up to her old tricks and is deleting and reverting the same content from a reliable, reputable source in favour of her own choices that are more flattering towards the article subject. She was also told by the admin who blocked her 2 weeks ago that she has to start using the talk page to discuss changes and seek consensus before she reverts information. However, all she has actually done is revert the material then placed her reason for doing so on the article talk page, which is not engaging in discussion or gaining consensus at all. She has reverted the same detail on the page 4 times in the past 24 hours, despite attempts to discuss the matter on the article talk page and another warning about edit-warring placed on her own talk page. Attempts to discuss with her are met with an immature, territorial and confrontational attitude. There is a clear pattern of edit-warring behaviour present with this user (she was also blocked for edit-warring in June 09 as well as 2 weeks ago, and received a final warning from another admin on 26 November 09 for edit-warring on other articles). It's obvious she has learned nothing from being blocked so I feel a longer block should be issued for this persistent and disruptive behaviour. 80.47.53.183 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned NJA (t/c) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Homophone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.106.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 11:06, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 11:12, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332473405 by Christopher Pritchard (talk
   )")
3. 14:54, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 14:59, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332498192 by Ian Dalziel (talk
   )")
5. 15:04, 18 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result -- IP blocked 48h for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Rated R (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181]
• 4th revert: [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Comments: See page history for additional edits and uncivil behavior (profanity) in edit summaries: [184]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Rated R (Rihanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

• 1st revert: [185]
• 2nd revert: [186]
• 3rd revert: [187]
• 4th revert: [188]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Comments:Engaged in long running edit war, please see history [190]

• Blocked – for a period of Two Weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Reporting user 66.162.39.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [02:20, 12 December 2009]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Continues to remove cited work and requests for citations from articles66.162.39.129 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Submitter IP is recently blocked two weeks as a sock of
  WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

talk

) (Result:Stale )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Warlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Japheth the Warlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 17:08, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:54, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "still exists or I wouldn't link to it")
3. 18:59, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "So? It's better than no link, and it provides useful information.")
4. 19:42, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")

Discussed on article talk page, no resolution Link to User Talk page and another, user is refusing to engage in discussion.--

) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stale case, warned, will block if he reverts the page again. Secret ^account 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, not stale: he did it again. Drmies (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, user continued a couple of times, received another final warning, now blocked for a week. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Echidna2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [195]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [The problem is with one user]

Comments:

User is also trying to insert secondary and arguable information into header ("Transparency International" is a think tank, and therefore only purveys opinions), when the point is already given lengthy treatment in Economy section. Membership in G-20, though, is matter of record, and can be found in the intros of almost all other G-20 country articles.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Lia Looveer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

• 1st revert: 11:02, 18 December 2009
• 2nd revert: 13:27, 18 December 2009
• 3rd revert: 05:22, 19 December 2009
• 4th revert: 05:36, 19 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:

) 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that you did not even notify me - the 3RR bogus link you provided above is not a warning, and is from December 2. What could shed light on the situation is this ongoing Arbcom case, see [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Disruption_7] where

Martin

has been found to have participated in tag team edit-warring organized on a secret mailing list. The other editor who reverted one of my edits, Miacek was also part of this mailing list. See also this proposed decision (which almost surely will pass) [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Editors_under_revert_restriction] which would include Miacek and Martin.

I removed the synthesis tag three times, the first revert in this report is an edit that restored content removed by an account registered on December 2, with exactly one edit under the belt at the time of the edit (see [200]). Only amazed at how quickly this new account found exactly this sentence in this obscure article. Note that there was a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard that brought one involved editor, User:The Four Deuces, to the article. He agreed with the inclusion of the material, as did implicitly the uninvolved admin User:Alex Bakharev, who originally added the information about her work at the radio station [[201]]. Since the article and the talk page is filibustered by Martin, with repeated removal, taggings and claims of synthesis. Pantherskin (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but other editors also have issues with synthesis, removal of the tag or personally attacking myself does not make that issue go away, nor does it entitle you to edit war either.. --

talk

) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

* No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the

19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston states that 3RR has been breached here. The first is a revert with the edit summary: "

talk

) 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strike my previous comment, sorry, yes there was a 3RR. However it does appear the issue is being discussed. Thus the disruption issue isn't currently a threat, however if edit warring were to continue please re-report for a block. NJA (t/c) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wasnt aware of three-revert-rule before I was reported here, I should have at least received a warning by Martintg. There was none. It seems that this report is not about preventing a revert war but about getting me blocked and about winning a content dispute. Note that Martintg fully participated in this revert war, and he only stayed below three reverts because Miacek also participated, what strongly reminds me of the revert wars coordinated by the Eastern European mailing list. I know by now that I need to be more careful with reverts, but my point stays that this is a bad faith report. I will refrain from editing at this article for some time, as the stonewalling of the EEML members makes normal editing and article improvement discussions almost impossible. Pantherskin (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[[202]] so much for Martintg being concerned about preventing an edit war.... Pantherskin (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that whilst a warning that you violated 3RR and you've been reported here is preferred, not doing so doesn't excuse someone from breaking the rule, nor does it preclude a block for breach. NJA (t/c) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Hong Kong International Airport‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.48.191.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205]
• 3rd revert: [206]
• 4th revert: [207]
• 5th revert: [208]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [209]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [210]

Comments:
The IP insists on reverting to their own version of things, despite several explanations from three experienced editors. In addition, IP's comments on my talk page are re-added, every time I remove them. 3RR violated on my talk page as well.

• Attempts to explain, or to warn the IP resulted in IP blanking their talk page.
• A courtesy that this report had been filed also resulted in the talk page being blanked.
• An explantion on the article talk page was also reverted by the IP.

Jasepl (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• This editor Jasepl (talk), The IP editor is asking the editor to provide the actual link to support his word, but the editor Jasepl (talk) didn't. The editor is ignore the message instead of keep on revert the Talk Page and others. The editor Jasepl (talk) also breaking the 3RR rule.

Hope admin can investigate it. Thanks! 60.48.191.73 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Reverting (more then three times) Jasepl's removal and calling them a vandal is rather disruptive, as the user (infact any user) has the right to remove comments and warnings from their user talk page whether it was in good faith or not. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result Blocked for 24 hours.
  talk
  ) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Queer Fist
User being reported: Blanchardb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&oldid=332668948

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=332697613&oldid=332697581
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332697813
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332698166
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332699626

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlanchardb&action=historysubmit&diff=332701425&oldid=332698271

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queer_Fist

Didn't see that. Anyway, as stated on my talk page, I've already moved on to other issues. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And you also didn't see the messages Nancy Meyer left on your talk page? Sure. You called me a vandal which is not constructive. Saying you've moved on doesn't change what you've already done, it just means you refuse to apologize or take responsibility. If you get away with it this time then you'll know you can do it again to someone else. Qikr (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am taking responsibility for the fact my anti-vandal software went directly to a Level 2 warning without asking me, because of a past mistake of another editor gave you a level 1 warning which mentions nothing about vandalism. And I do apologize for that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok to toss out warnings when people make edits you disagree with? Since when? Qikr (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
He tossed out fake warnings to intimidate me and I think he succeeded in intimidating Nancy Meier! Qikr (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation, not accidental warnings on talk pages. NJA (t/c) 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Katowice
User being reported: LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&oldid=332491767

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332699031&oldid=332491984
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332700653&oldid=332700050
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332713577&oldid=332708343
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332717905&oldid=332714382

All registrations are with only 19 December 2009 (

) 19:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours Not a clear 3RR today, but close enough and the page edit history shows a lot of similar reversions by same user. Thus clearly some behavioural and disruption issues. NJA (t/c) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mrandsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [211]
• 2nd revert: [212]
• 3rd revert: [213]
• 4th revert: [214]
• 5th revert: [215]
• 6th revert: [216]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [217]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]

Comments:

Looking at the history, User:Mrandsl has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours. I will also note that he has been removing very serious allegations, including about living persons, which may or may not be properly sourced or unsourced altogether. In view of this, the material should remain deleted from the article until consensus is reached for its inclusion. The request for comment is a good start. --Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
2. 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
3. 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk
   )")
4. 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk
   ) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
5. 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk
   ) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

The same material was first introduced by IP 89.176.112.74 (see diff). After it was reverted, the IP added it again (see diff). Then the page was semi-protected to prevent further additions. The subsequent edits by User:Vryadly sought to restore the same material. A brief analysis of the contribs for Vryadly and the IP seem to indicate that they are almost certainly the same individual. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the evidence shows that 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs) and Vryadly (talk · contribs) are the same accounts. Both accounts were previously warned about edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear violation when reverts from both accounts are shown together:

1. 23:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
2. 23:49, 19 December 2009(edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
3. 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
4. 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
5. 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk
   )")
6. 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk
   ) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
7. 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk
   ) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")

'Comment': Yes, it was me. I had to log in after the article had been protected from unregistered users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are basically admitting that because semi-protection prevented you from edit warring as an IP, you were forced to log in so that you could continue the edit war? That's unbelievable, quite frankly. And then you have the audacity to file a (malformed) 3RR complaint against me? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, there's enough evidence for a clear block. No need to continue this. Both accounts were warned, yet continued to edit war. We simply need an administrator to review this. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a strong language. I was editing the page adding new emails relevant to the article. Right after I corrected the reference that had been pointed wrong to me, I found that the page was closed for unregistered users. So, yes, I had to recall my password and log in in order to continue editing the article. Then I found that a group of people is deleting my edits without bothering to give any reasonable explanations, and notwithstanding my wiliness to correct the issues I had been informed of. Right after I corrected the reasons you cited for deleting the emails, you deleted them again. So, yes, I have the "audacity" to report you on editing war.

Besides, if you took your time to look into first four edits, you would find that they were exactly edits, not reverts Vryadly (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

1. 23:39, 19 December 2009(edit summary: rv to 23:21, 19 December 2009 89.176.112.74 . Can't find any ref to WIgley in reference given.)
2. 23:56, 19 December 2009 "Reverted 2 edits by 89.176.112.74; Remove synthesis. using TW")
3. 00:22, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv. Poor sourcing. BLP problems.")
4. 00:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv per WP:BLP - bad sourcing, cherry-picked, no context")
5. 00:34, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Vryadly identified as vandalism to last revision by ChrisO. using TW")
6. 00:44, 20 December 2009(edit summary: (Reverted edits by [User:Vryadly] to last revision by [User:Scjessey] (HG)))

Comments:

Taking into account the timing and the similarity of action (no attempts to edit the article, no attempt for meaningful discussion, just deletion of information relevant to the article), the actions of users

have been probably coordinated.

Moreover, due to the fact that the first time the reason cited for the deletion was wrong reference, but even after the reference (WSJ) was corrected, the deletion continued, the deletions were caused apparently not by Wikipedia rules but by a partisan agenda.

Comment: I believe this has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and the user is required to discuss their proposed changes on talk and join the discussion, no matter how many accounts they use. See report immediately above this one. Vryadly is using multiple accounts (including 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs)) to edit war. Recommend that this report is closed with prejudice and that both Vryadly and 89.176.112.74 are blocked for intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this is obviously a bad faith retaliation, and the diffs provided clearly show that neither the letter, nor the spirit of

WP:BLP, with proper warnings given. The malformed report above actually combines the edits of four separate editors. -- Scjessey (talk

) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vryadly. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, it was me from the IP, though I was not "using multiple accounts for editing wars". Right in the middle of an edit I was doing, the page was closed for unregistered editing, so I had to log in to continue editing it - only to found my previous edits deleted. Vryadly (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting departure. An edit warrior and probable sock puppet files a complaint against the multiple editors who reverted his nonsense, on the grounds that their edits must have been coordinated and therefore must be sanctionable. --TS 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Would you please specify what exactly you call "nonsense" and on what grounds? Vryadly (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Declined No violation of 3RR here. Having multiple editors "coordinate" their opposition to one's edits is not a violation, but may be an indication that one is acting against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Singhboi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

• 1st revert: [220]
• 2nd revert: [221]
• 3rd revert: [222]
• 4th revert: [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[225]

Comments:

There is a suspicion that this user is the blocked vandal IP: 86.136.213.236, which has caused much disruption to many articles. Note I am not the only one who has reverted his edits. He has made suspected disruptive edits [226]. He has totally vandalised [227] article as well as this article. He is a suspected sockpuppet ofthis blocked user (this will need further investigation. The behaviour on many articles on surnames seems to be like a bot and needs a more advanced user than me to investigate.

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Brisbane Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 14:43, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I rearranged the page to make it more suitable, as the other layout did not flow. this is more aesthetically pleasing")
2. 14:45, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 14:47, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Airlines and destinations */ Removed Destination picture it is not current as per the destinations create a new picture with the correct destinations and update it when new destinations come online")
4. 23:32, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "undo edit, we all know what the point of an airport is but the layout of the page is not flowing and makes for an un pleasant read! Please leave it. consult on talk page if you dont like the change")
5. 03:43, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop changing the layout, discuss on talk page before changing! The layout you have constructed is unpleasing to read it lacks structure!!")
6. 12:45, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332440016 by Bidgee (talk
   )Please discuss with me before changing!")

• Diff of warning: here

Comment: This editor refuses to take the problem to the talk page and the latest revert by the editor clearly shows they have an

ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk

) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

—Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a formal 3RR, but this editor does seem to have his own special preference for how an airport article should look. I don't notice him waiting to find consensus, and I see that he restores his preference numerous times after it's reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment that this is primarily a content dispute. The content guidelines at

WP:Airports are very clear on the layout and hierarchy of airport articles. Jasepl (talk

) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jasepl on this. Jasepl clearly pointed at the guidelines set by the Airports project however the editor didn't take the advice and continued to push their view and lay-out, hardly a content dispute. Bidgee (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm essentially now gone for a week, but get together your facts and consensus at make a request at
  Wikipedia:PER. Cheers, NJA (t/c)
  16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Blockland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kalphiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:20, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332707805 by Ephialtes42 (talk
   )")
2. 18:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332708457 by Ephialtes42 (talk
   ) Deleting reference for an invalid reason")
3. 18:37, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332710270 by Ephialtes42 (talk
   ) Jealousy is not tolerated")
4. 18:53, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332711552 by Ephialtes42 (talk
   ) I never added my own website")
5. 19:03, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332713222 by Ephialtes42 (talk
   )")
6. 01:48, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332714875 by 98.27.129.104 (talk
   )")
7. 03:08, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332787863 by 188.222.0.45 (talk
   )")
8. 03:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332789139 by 188.222.0.45 (talk
   )")

The user is adding a reference with a link to his site.

—Sole Soul (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BruceGrubb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 19 December 2009

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229] (as IP user 67.42.65.214)
• 3rd revert: [230]
• 4th revert: [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Bruce has been blocked for 3rr before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:BruceGrubb_reported_by_User:Slakr_.28Result:_8_hours.29. Current warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments:

--Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 edit-warring case seems old, but the behavior of BruceGrubb in the current dispute is worrisome. It is plausible that he may be using 67.42.65.214 to revert in favor of his point of view. (How likely is it that both the IP and BruceGrubb would support including Remsburg's work in the article?) I left a message on BruceGrubb's Talk page and asked him to respond here. BruceGrubb appears to be in a minority on the talk page, since no-one else supports including Remsburg, but he reverts anyway. A conciliatory response from him might be enough to avoid admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please compare

Time Travel, and Rorschach test--it's pretty unlikely that this is coincidence. I linked to the edit warring case from 2007 simply to show that BruceGrubb is aware of the 3RR rule. --Akhilleus (talk

) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours, edit-warring to force Remsburg's theories into the article with no support from others, and use of a sock in an edit war. Block may be lifted early if the user will commit to an acceptable style of dispute resolution regarding this article and related ones. If Bruce will agree to an RfC about Remsburg I trust the other editors will be ready to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Siemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [234]

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

All reverts within the last few hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240]

Comments:

I've had no prior involvement in this dispute before this ANI report.--Atlan (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - relatively new user - but with possible problems relating to POV issues (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Radical-Dreamer) I have explained to this editor the various issues involved (see link), but they are not really taking that much notice. There is a wider POV problem beyond breaking the 3RR which is explained on the incidents page. The last edit shows them ignoring other editors, yet clearly aware of the problem. [241]Shortfatlad (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by J.delanoy--Atlan (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Bulgarisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kostja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [242]

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247] [248]

Comments:User displays hostile and combative attitude, as evidenced by this message [249] he left on my talkpage. Same goes at

) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 107 can be regarded as a revert as the other two edits didn't return to my previous version.

I don't understand what is meant by hostile and combative. I was just arguing against the idea that I was POV pushing.

I've defended my recent edits on the talk page and tried to accomodate the opinion of the other editors. It can hardky be said that I intend to continue edit warring.

Kostja (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From

talk

) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert an action in part but added additional information.

I didn't revert after joining as I've explained above.

Kostja (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only "additional" information you "added" was to replace "Most" with "Part". Hardly a substantial change. The spirit of the last two diffs is identical to your first two reverts, and as such, is a rather straightforward breach of 3RR. --

talk

) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected 3 days. I don't see a clear violation of
  WP:DIGWUREN is hopefully not needed here. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Copper indium gallium selenide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 59.120.72.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [251]
• 2nd revert: [252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Comments:
The user was reportedly pointed to

) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Heqwm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [256]
• 2nd revert: [257]

Removing a reference.

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]

Refuses to disucss [261]

These reverts are the same as Heqwm2's reverts before his/her last ban

• [262]
• [263]
• [264]

except that Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [265]

Comments:

Dr.enh (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Dr.enh is engaging in edit warring while claiming to be the victim. He has absolutely refused to discuss the issues on the talk page. Despite me starting a section on the discussion page to discuss the issue, he repeatedly reverted my edits without responding. When I put an edit war warning on his talk page, he retaliated by putting one on my talk page. Just to be clear: the edit war warning that he put on my talk page was in response to reverts that I made after he gave ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER to the talk page section that I created to discuss the issue. He did finally give a "response" that did not address my points at all, and six minutes later (and without any intervening edits on my part) put the edit war warning on my page. He has repeatedly removed a {{fact}) tag without giving a valid reference. After removing the invalid reference once, I simply put in the ^{[citation needed]} tag. His statement "Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference" is false. I am simply re-adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag that he insists on removing without giving a valid reference. Also, his labeling of the first diff a "revert" is dishonest. He reverted my edit, claiming that I needed a cite, so I made a new edit including a source (which he then reverted). My edit was not a revert.

Dr.enh has made it clear that he has no intention of editing with good faith, and I ask that he be blocked.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Closing as stale. Not worth protecting the article yet, but suggesting the editors seek outside input. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 19:34, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by Ulster15rugby")
2. 19:43, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by P Carn")
3. 19:55, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by HJ Mitchell")

—86.12.24.209 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

A violation of 3RR occurs when more than three reverts are made, which haven't been made yet by HJ_Mitchell (though it still doesn't exclude the situation from being an edit war).

Also, just to point it out, 86.12.24.209 has violated the 3RR:

• 19:38, December 21, 2009
• 19:39, December 21, 2009
• 19:44, December 21, 2009
• 20:10, December 21, 2009

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, so it's somewhat backward (and rather comical) that I should be reported by the violator! I've reverted edits that appear to be unconstructive while patrolling the recent changes. The IP editor has responded to warnings, made with an assumption of good faith (and later no faith assumption) with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I informed him (assuming, sorry) that the simple use of an edit summary would solve the problem and was greeted with abuse. For context, at least one other editor has reverted seemingly unconstructive edits by this IP on the same article and issued the relevant level warning. I'm tempted to report 86.12.24.209 to WQA, though I haven't decided on that yet. HJMitchell You rang? 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Several changes are involved in that edit/revert. At least one of 86.12's changes was uncontroversially constructive: turning multiple duplicate refs into one ref with a refname thereafter invoked for later cites. Why was this change not left in place, rather than being repeatedly reverted? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the edit appeared to be vandalism. It was a sizeable removal of content with no explanation in any of the edit summaries or personal attacks and it was flagged up by an abuse filter. I checked the history, 86.12.24.209 is not a regular contributor to the article and so I reverted and issues a {{

uw-vandal1}} which appears to assume bad faith). Instead of removing the warning, re-doing the change and noting the mistake in an edit summary, 86.12.24.209 met it with confrontation but that's a matter for another noticeboard. HJMitchell You rang?

21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell clearly meant well, but that does not excuse either party from reverting each other's edits with a nonconstructive result. In terms of edit warring alone, neither anon. user and HJ are excused from edit warring. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For an IP user to edit without a summary does not, in itself, constitute "vandalism". Your own edit summaries "Reverted edits by... to last version by..." state what you did but not why. "Removing" content, by combining multiple duplicate refs into one ref-with-refname, does not in fact remove any information; it only reduces needless repetition of the same information. There seems to be a need to study WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism; note that "Failing to use the edit summary" is not vandalism. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of what is and is not vandalism. I'm an experienced rollbacker and recent changes patroller. As for my own edit summaries, they are automatically generated by the rollback feature. Look at this from my perspective:

• I know nothing about the article or its history and, while patrolling recent changes, I come across an IP who had never edited the article before and appeared (we can thrash that out in another venue if you really want) to be removing a large amount of text from an article, triggering an abuse filter. Now, if you were in my position, you wouldn't think that suspect at least?
• Further to my reversion, I left a warning on the IP's talk page which explained, in a way that assumes good faith, about removal of content not vandalism.
• You can imagine my surprise to find that, within minutes, another editor has reverted exactly the same edit and issued the next level warning
• You can imagine my further surprise to find myself being called an "officious bureaucrat" on my talk page by said IP and to see said IP reverting the second reverter without attempting to engage either in discussion or explanation in the edit summary despite the condescending comments which show he knows how to use it.
• I made another 2 reverts (taking me up to 3), each time explaining very clearly on his talk page why I reverted to be met with a report here only for the IP to revert me again, thus taking his total to 4- a violation of 3RR.

However, the edit war that he started, in which he violated the 3RR and in which he made the last revert but only after reporting me for doing what he was about to do is not the issue. If he had simply gone with a "undid revision by HJ Mitchell.... I'm replacing a duplicate ref with a refname" or some such, I would have left it but reverting and reverting that fast only reinforced my conception that it was vandalism. It has since been pointed out to me that the edit was constructive and I apologise unreservedly for my misconception. However, I hope 86.12.24.209 can take from this that people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly an that the attitude he displayed in reverting and attacking those reverting seemingly unconstructive edits is not the way to go.

Now will someone please close this so I can get on with building the encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to SuperHamster: I'm sure everyone knows that the number of reverts isn't particularly adhered to, on either side of the figure three - it seems instead to be judged usually by a closing admin. I do appreciate though, that you recognise this in your bracketed remark. Also, by publishing this report, obviously I am not trying to hide the fact that I made reverts myself. Any and all interested or involved parties can and will clearly see the edit history of the article and will notice my own reverts. However, in making this report I am representing myself.

I would like to point out to HJ Mitchell that I have not violated anything.. apart from 3RR, which wouldn't have occurred had you used common sense with regard to the issue. You attempt to point out that it is "backward and comical" that I should report you based simply on the number of reverts made by each party. "Oh he did it more than me, so he's the more guilty". The fact is that the person adding the initial information is ALWAYS the loser when it comes to this numbers game. I have witnessed people

gaming the system

in this way. As an aside - I am NOT suggesting you are trying to game the system here. However, my point remains.

While you may think it comical, I have a similar opinion with regard to your actions relating to the article itself: you saw it having been tagged by a bot, presumably noticed a difference in the size of the article, and

assumed

I had indulged in some vandalism, as you admit. I have never given a warning template to another editor of Wikipedia based solely on assumption, that I can remember. I certainly haven't done it repeatedly with the same edit. If I see something I think might be amiss, I do a little investigation: "maybe there's a logical reason behind this apparently strange edit". I don't mind wasting my own time, but I hate others wasting my time.. and I try to consider other editors in respect of that.

The other editor did indeed revert my edit shortly after you had, and I had reverted the article back. I included an edit summary advising you (and the other editor) of the situation. While that summary may have been trite, there is a limited space available and I was quite incredulous at having been reverted in the first place, for no good reason other than that you took the word of a bot. All this does really, is show the limitations of an over-abundance of over enthusiastic bureaucracy and the limitations of a bot (which is probably, otherwise, a perfectly well written and useful bot).

As for alleged personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, let me remind you that your tone was rather patronising, as well as not assuming good faith. Protocol, or guidelines, suggest that at that point I should report you, rather than continue in dialogue with you. However, I didn't think it was necessary to bother anyone else. I had actually assumed you would see sense. I can't actually see that I have made any personal attacks. I believe I merely made statements of fact, albeit rather bluntly. I did employ sarcasm, truth be told, when I said "have a nice day", of course. Nor can I see where I have not assumed good faith - I basically hit your problem on the head like the proverbial nail. I explained as much in my edit summary after your revert (in which there was no edit summary either, by the way.. although you did leave a nice 'warning' on the talk page of this IP).

Now, possibly because you won't admit your error in judgement or lack of pre-investigation, you are considering opening up yet another report, based on etiquette apparently. Sizzle Flambé was right when they suggested you threw the baby out with the bathwater and now, to add in another metaphor, you are considering throwing good money after bad - wasting more of both your time and my time.

There is far too much of this crap on Wikipedia, which means that hard work seldom gets done. It is one of the principle reasons I am no longer a regular contributor. Well, good luck if you do decide to make a case for bad etiquette. Who knows - I might even show up for comment.

Let me try to end this on a more positive note: I know you probably meant well HJ, but you .. messed up. I'd like to try to be fair and attempt to share some of the blame with you but, really, all I tried to do was improve an article at the end of the day. I guess that'll teach me, huh? --86.12.24.209 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see I have been writing while another response has been made. Firstly, I resent the accusation that I am male. Let's go into list format for the remainder of my responses:

• You might need to brush up on what is and what is not vandalism, because you clearly got it wrong on this occasion.
• My edit summaries, with my reverts, were also automatically generated, yet I managed to include - at your request, I believe - an additional manual input.
• "I know nothing about the article or its history" .. perhaps this points out another flaw of Wikipedia, frankly.
• I did indeed remove an amount of unnecessary text from the article. However - and this is where you and I apparently differ - what I would do is check the article itself for actual vandalism, instead of merely suspected vandalism. Then, if nothing was clear to me, I would have performed an edit history comparison: "compare selected revisions".
• Officious bureaucrat may not be the most flattering way to describe someone, but I feel it was apt.
• My first comment to you was in the edit summary, and clearly defined your problem: "stop listening to bots! No information was removed - info was ADDED!" I don't quite understand why you didn't accept what I had said at that point. It was at exactly this point that I believed you had initiated an edit war, by the way. However, I didn't report you then because I thought a clearer message on your talk page might end the dispute.
• That you made only a third revert, and I made four, is due to the fact that another editor made the same mistake you had.
• As far as "people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly" goes.. let me remind you that people don't necessarily give up their spare time to edit this encyclopaedia lightly. You are not the only one who is building an encyclopaedia.
• I accept your apology and echo your sentiment regarding moving on.

--86.12.24.209 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take most of that as fair comment. Now, I'd much rather be editing in the mainspace than project space so can we agree to disagree and get back to what we're really here for? HJMitchell You rang? 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No violation No action needed at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Leib Tropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Truth Transparency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [266]
• 2nd revert: [267]
• 3rd revert: [268]
• 4th revert: [269]
• 5th revert: [270]
• 6th revert: [271]
• 7th revert: [272]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [273]

Here is the diff of where I offered him the opportunity to revert his edit.

Comments:

User been repeatedly reinserting a link that other users have removed as unreliable. These edit are all since this afternoon.

) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for twenty four hours for repeatedly adding the same content on the 18th of this month.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: 2009 American League Division Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.240.184.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [274]

• 1st revert: [275] (reflects 4 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
• 2nd revert: [276] (reflects 3 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
• 3rd revert: [277]
• 4th revert: [278]

98.240.184.20 has made several other similar edits to this page as evidenced in his/her contribution history since 15 October 2009. The most recent have been [279] and [280].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [281]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [282] (reflects my last contribution to the talk page)

Comments:
At issue here is the wording of a controversial baseball call. Felyza (talk · contribs) gave 98.240.184.20 an opportunity to explain his/her position on the article talk page, and consensus went against him/her. He/she has continued to make the same or similar edits against consensus and despite the edit warring warning linked above. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The disputed content is about some what-if's. It had been re-worded several times[283][284] to make it sound more neutral. I think some proper terms, such as "claim", "speculation", etc. should be kept to remind readers the predictive meanings. The dispute resolution process was held in the talk page but 98.240.184.20 just refused to follow.--NullSpace (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stale IP engaging in
  original research. Semiprotection probably not necessary at this time, but please come back if they do. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent edit warring regarding nomenclature used to refer to Volkswagen Group and Volkswagen AG.

Previous version reverted to: [285]

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

1. 19:37, 6 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv editorial opinion")
2. 15:37, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 331615769 by Letdorf (talk
   ) the English language name is "Volkswagen Group"")
3. 19:33, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "fixed redirects, tweaks, clarity, corrections, "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" are an identical company, re-inserted previous vandalism to remove official acronyms")
4. 11:07, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "MOS compliance for abbreviations, rv editorial opinion")
5. 21:33, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 333354586 by Gr1st (talk
   ) it IS an editorial opinion - otherwise cite your source!")

Also reverting what appear to be good faith edits, claiming "possible vandalism":

1. 10:59, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332571237 by 118.92.113.82 (talk
   ) possible vandalism - blanked section")
2. 11:01, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 332570573 by 118.92.113.82 (talk
   ) possible vandalism")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [286]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [287]

Comments:

The user at this IP address has a history of engaging in edit warring in various articles including

(although that was not an appropriate action at that time).

—Letdorf (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I WILL reply to this in good time - but I MUST immediately raise the issue that Letdorf has blatantly LIED in this citation - not to mention the numerous personal attacks he places on my own talk page! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. IP is a long term good faith contributor. Problem should be amenable to discussion at the talkpage, which has the attention of all involved editors. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 03:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Arab Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [290]

• 1st revert: [291]
• 2nd revert: [292]
• 3rd revert: [293]
• 4th revert: [294]

In each of the diffs presented, Lanternix removes the listing of Egypt and its Christian population.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [295], though Lanternix is well aware of what 3RR is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section I opened to deal with the reverting

Please note that Lanternix has been edit-warring at

22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined Self-reverted, so letting this go. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Arab Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert

In each of the diffs presented, Tiamut insists on including Egyptian Copts in the article, in spite of the various references I provided him/her with, which state that Egyptian Copts are not Arabs. I even tried to reach a compromise with the user by finding a middle ground and renaming the article "Arabic-speaking Christians" or "Middle Eastern Christians", but the user has declined this offer. There are also IP addresses involved in reverting my edits (IP 86.108.40.104 and IP 84.109.85.121), and I am hereby requesting an investigation as to the relationship between the user Tiamut and these IP addresses. I had already reached a compromise on the issue during the previous year here and again here, but user Tiamut was not content in spite of the efforts made by everyone else to find a middle ground, and thus the article was reverted back to be called Arab Christians, which did not initially include the Egyptians. I have no problem with finding a compromise, as long as it actually agrees with history and with the self-determined identity of the Copts as Egyptians and not Arabs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [300], though Tiamut is well aware of what 3RR is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page by reaching a compromise and a middle ground for the dispute: [301]

Comments:

I don't know if you've actually read

WP:3RR

, but it takes more than three reversions to be in violation.

If you want somebody to check whether Tiamut is related to those IPs, the appropriate page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you've actually read the tile of this page, but it is not just about 3RR, but about edit warring, and the first line says "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors."

I see. In that case, I will undo my own reverts on Arab Christians then. Thanks for the help. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When you go to

WP:3RR, you will see it clearly syays "any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached." It takes some nerve to report an editor for 4 reversions, when you have made 3 reversions on the same page. Both should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk

) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you review the page history, you would see that Tiamut made two reversions on the page. The fact that Lanternix includes her first edit to the page as a reversion doesn't make it so. She acknowledged above that she reverted twice. Maybe she's been engaged in edit-warring and maybe she hasn't, but she hasn't committed a 3RR violation whereas Lanternix had (until Lanternix agreed to undo the last reversion). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page history, unlike you, apparently. The first diff listed by Lanternix is a clear revert of this edit. She made 3 reverts he made 4. technicalities aside, they are both edit warring and need to be treated the same. 12.54.125.181 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic! What exactly makes of Tiamut's first rv not an rv?!!!! Tiamut clearly clicked the "undo" button as she was doing so! Isn't that a reversion?! Some objectivity here please. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not designed to punish people trying to add new information to an article. When I first added the information that was the first new version of the page in that format. When I undid Lanternix's deletion of that addition, twice, I made two reversions to that previous version. That is why we are asked to append a previous version to which the article is being reverted.

I'm not sure who the anon IP is, but considering Lanternix's history of sockpuppeting, I would be skeptical that it is disinterested party. Tiamut^talk 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Id say its 5-1 that it is the artist formerly known as NoCal100 nableezy - 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my second guess. Isarig (NoCal100 before he vanished) used to love to bring me to these boards. Back in 2007, he got me blocked three times. I'm sure he would love to see it happen again here. Tiamut^talk 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

you've already been blocked three times for edit warring and you are here again, edit warring? how long of a block does this need to be in order for you to get the message? Lovely day350 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation I haven't the slightest idea what violation you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [302]

• 1st revert: [303]
• 2nd revert: [304]
• 3rd revert: [305]
• 4th revert: [306]

Comments:

User has been warned about edit-warring and pushing his own opinion upon this article, despite the number of sources contradicting the addition of a single band name in association with a genre that this band has been significantly sourced to not be a part of. He claims that the removal of the band name "changes the meaning of what the source says", despite the fact that no other part of the sentence has been changed, and the addition of a band that is not a part of the subgenre claimed by the source doesn't add anything significant to this article.

) 00:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  edit war. Protection seems overkill at this stage, but should be considered if disruption continues. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I want to point out that Ibaranoff is editing cited material, even though I have pointed out that that's what the ref listed says. My edits are based on what the citation says. He did not assume good faith and immediately accused me of pushing an opinion in his first message to me. Personally I have no vested interest in System of a Down and its relation to nu metal; rather, I'm concerned with accurately representing a citation that was added during a massive rewrite of the article during its Featured Article Review. Furthermore, editing this one sentence is his only current contribution to the article. I don't plan to push this, but I wish Ibaranoff was open to discussion first instead of accusing me (incorrectly) of violating 3RR. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My edits did not change the meaning of the text. (
  talk
  ) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Page: North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [307] - does not have the sourced and cited quote

• 1st revert: [308] - first removal of the quote, calling it "POV pushing"
• 2nd revert: [309] - second removal
• 3rd revert: [310] - third removal, now calling it a "poorly-written sentence"
• 4th revert: [311] - fourth removal

Text being being edit-warred over:

It [the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America ] was described by the leaders as being a dialog, not an agreement nor a treaty and that the SPP "does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status."<ref name="spp faq"/>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the 40k of discussion at Talk:North American Union#Devil's changes

Comments:

While not the speediest edit war on record, The Devil's Advocate has been persistently removing the same sentence that does not fit his personal world view, regardless of the fact that three other editors have told him that the content in question is properly sourced and cited. While the extensive, four-person discussion on the talk page verges well into

) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Kralizec's report. The Advocate is quite convinced that the above-quoted sentence is intended to mislead, and therefore should not be in the article, because he knows that the quoted sentence is misleading, and the rest of us are just trying to cover up

The Truth™. --Orange Mike | Talk

16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• IDIDNTHEARTHAT are unproductive, but there are clearly other aspects to this editor's contributions. - 2/0 (cont.
  ) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 13:26, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ISO image software")
2. 18:38, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removed duplication information; The fact that article survived deletion does not mean that it should become Content Fork in the same article")
3. 04:47, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 333396933 by Hm2k (talk
   )")
4. 04:50, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removed one self-link")
5. 04:55, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Unmerging article....")
6. 05:25, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Renominated for deletion")
7. 10:53, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "It's "Bold" not "impertinent", "disruptive" and "deceiving"")
8. 16:58, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 333563779 by Hm2k (talk
   ) AFD for destination page still pending... Unmerged...")

• Diff of warning: here

—Hm2k (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also at:

) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Reporting user was disrupting an AfD by merging unilaterally; blocked. FleetCommand advised to seek outside input in similar situations in the future. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Vushtrri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [313]
• 2nd revert: [314]
• 3rd revert: [315]

Comments:Tadija was put on indefinite 1RR on all Kosovo-related articles a few days ago. This is a clear violation. Action should be taken, as this user is not trying to cooperate with anyone. Here you can see the sanctions put on him [316]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week, then unblocked. Willking1979 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

NguyenneyugN is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:55, 23 December 2009

• 1st revert: 20:41, 23 December 2009
• 2nd revert: 22:38, 23 December 2009
• 3rd revert: 23:04, 23 December 2009
• 4th revert: 23:32, 23 December 2009

Diffs of reliable source warnings on user talk page: [317][318][319]

Diff of personal attack warning on user talk page:[320]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321][322]

Comments

) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

TGL has left a message on my talk page explaining the situation here. It appears that he had hit undo to retrieve some of his old text and somehow saved the page. Please take this into consideration. Perhaps a pledge on his part of restrain himself on that article for a suitable time might suffice. I suggested that in the future he could simply self-revert in this type of a situation. The offending material has already been reverted so there is no particular emergency here. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what GoRight says, however, my concern is that

World Wildlife Fund which was not peer-reviewed. In the height of irony, Gammon uses his personal blog, which clearly states at the top that it is not under any editorial control, to engage in original research about the IPCC and the WWF! Thegoodlocust then uses the personal blog to get under the radar of the OR policy. I find this very deceptive. Viriditas (talk

) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Looking at the timestamp on the message he left on my talk page, it was left at 23:13, 23 December 2009 but the fourth revert appears to have been done at 23:32, 23 December 2009 so I don't know what to make of that. Perhaps he is confused about how things work when you hit undue? I don't know but I have conveyed his message per his request. At this point I will leave it to the reviewing administrators to decide how best to proceed.

The issues raised by V above are probably best dealt with as part of the content dispute on the article itself. --GoRight (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that he broke the 3RR with four reverts, but if you can get him to acknowledge here that he will use the talk page to propose and discuss his ideas in the future, I would ask the reviewing administrator to take this into account and consider closing this report without a block. I'm looking for some acknowledgment that he's going to change the way he's doing things. He's clearly a smart kid, but he needs to put it to good use. Trying to undercut NPOV and OR with edit warring isn't the way to do it. And GoRight? This isn't a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR is obviously not a content dispute, but the rest of that bit about Gammon and WWF and such seems like it to me. Anyway, I don't wish to debate the point here. Suffice it to say that I have given him some advice on his talk page and directed him here. The rest is up to him. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One final point of clarification. He was initially using a blog entry but has subsequently switched to a BBC article that IS a RS. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit warring going on there (not just User:Thegoodlocust) so I've asked for full protection to encourage all parties to discuss. [323] --TS 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Setting content aside for the moment, multiple parties have engaged in the edit war rather than discussing, so the least draconian solution would be to protect the article and perhaps caution all sides against edit warring rather than to start issuing blocks. Page protection ought to be brief because this article regards a current event and is getting about 1,000 page views daily.[324] (I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of that traffic is the edit warriors themselves). - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think calling the article on the IPCC an "article [regarding] a current event" is a bit much. We can afford to spend a bit of time out to get this right. --TS 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's shorthand to mean that the article is getting increased traffic from people who are trying to understand an unfolding event that is in the news. If you look at the long-term trends it looks like traffic is up about 50-80% this month over past months, which is significant but not earth-shaking. The proposed content is argumentative and adversarial on the face of it, but not so much so that a neutral admin is likely to remove it over page protection. I would argue that leaving it up as the "wrong version" for the duration of a longish (say 2-week) block will subject many thousands of people to bad content that does a disservice to the reader and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. However, given the choice between blocking editors, leaving up bad content, intentionally protecting the "right version", or asking admins to enter a content dispute, I think that a shorter (3-5 days, so that those celebrating Christmas can have a break?) page protection is the lesser of all these evils. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. You're a bit of a wizard with that hit count gizmo, I notice. I don't think there's necessarily a "wrong version" here, just a question of balance and due weight. One paragraph of a WGII report seems to have been written from inferior sources and inadequately reviewed, but that's enough to have the Indian glaciologists scratching their heads. --TS 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted a couple times, took note of the reasons, and then changed the sources and rewrote the paragraphs to correspond with the changed source (of which I had three - the BBC, Science magazine, and a scientific report). The last two revisions, as you can see, are from my newer and better source, they reason given for removal was that the "blog" (written by an atmospheric scientist in a newspaper) was unacceptable, which I find to be quite a fascinating reason since "Real Climate," a blog that has been quoted hundreds of times in various global warming articles, and which has been contributed to by a wiki-user who continually promotes it, and whose authors have been demonstrated to have subverted the scientific process (among other things), is an acceptable source (a point I brought up to the reverter (who then deleted the comment)).

Fine, I don't expect rules to be applied consistently, and so I removed that source and replaced it with a BBC article. It was again reverted (several times), with the same excuse about my source(s), which could no longer apply - since the stated reason for deletion was no longer valid then I considered their reverts invalid - and so I changed them back (as per

).

I guess it doesn't matter though, since, as I predicted, they've come up with a new excuse for deleting the paragraphs that I wrote. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Unhappy with the situation, TGL has decided to post
  antagonistic comments on my talk page (diff, diff). I would happily support a block of this unproductive, antagonistic, agenda-driven "editor". -- Scjessey (talk
  ) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And saying you'd use a can of "RAID" on the "bugs" like me isn't antagonistic? I'm perfectly happy with those comments that I made - far less rude than your treatment of me, and the constant blanking (something I consider vandalism) of you and your friends. Apparently I got under your skin though - perhaps you should look at your own behavior instead of lashing out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? When insects are bothering me, I like to spray them with bug killer. You were bothering me, so I removed your antagonistic comment. It's not my fault if you don't like the metaphorical flair I used in the edit summary. Hopefully, some wise admin will see you for what you are and call in the exterminator to indef block you. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, hoping for a perma-ban - and all this started because I inserted some well-needed and well-sourced facts into an article. I aspire to be as civil as you and your cohorts. 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning on personal attacks and not assuming good faith on User talk:Thegoodlocust, in relation to three very hostile comments on the IPCC talk page. He has (just over a year ago now) had long blocks for personal attacks and the like, and more recently he was topic banned from articles related to Barack Obama for "clearly [appearing] unable to interact with other users in good faith on Barack Obama related article." There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. I think we should ask him to be on his best behavior on this controversial issue. I think everybody should be on their best behavior. Remarks about RAID are also personal attacks. --TS 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue any warnings to Scjessey? No? Hmm.....TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No warnings to me are necessary. I haven't edit warred, POV-pushed or baited other editors like you have been doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You caught me mid-edit. As far as I'm aware ScJessey does not have your history, but remarks about RAID are attacks. -TS 03:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh he doesn't? Well, since you are unaware then allow me to enlighten you - [325], [326],[[327] and several blocks which can be gathered by perusing his talk page. Of course, wikipedia culture does indeed have a bias and if you hold some views you are more likely to get blocked than if you hold other views - deny it if you like, but that's a fact. My "attacks" have been tame in comparison to their repeated vandalism, although, I guess I do take it a bit more personally than they do - I spend the time to write up a nice section to improve an article and they simply delete, destroy and report. I suppose their tactics are easier and more impersonal. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You may consider me enlightened. I see a history of personal attacks by ScJessey noted by arbcom and a topic ban for six months, an admonishment and a one-year editing restriction on Obama-related articles. The two other links you give seem to be to inconclusive discussions. Neither of you is any angel, and both of you know better.

It's never a good idea to refer to another user's good faith edit as vandalism, as you do above. Other editors have discussed their reasons for disagreeing with your edits at some length (eventually) on the relevant talk page. They're not trying to harm Wikipedia, indeed from their point of view it may appear that they are preventing harm to Wikipedia by removing inappropriate material. Please assume good faith. --TS 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone can look at what I added, which, to give some context, was in the criticism section of the article. I used as neutral language as I could and relegated the harsher criticism to direct quotes from my various sources. There is no good reason to keep it out, but it does fit in the long-standing pattern of all global warming related articles on wikipedia - if it promotes AGW then it is in, but if it cast doubt then it stays out. Blanking is vandalism as defined by wikipedia. I changed the sources, and as I predicted, they came up with a new excuse to keep out my section - this obviously isn't about the rules - those, apparently, are just a means to an end. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing content from Wikipedia is not the definition of vandalism.

You were unaware of the discussion on this content going on at the talk page of the article on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Now you are aware of it. Please join that discussion, which pertains to part of the content of AR4. If it is considered to merit inclusion in that article, then you will have a stronger case for inclusion in the general article about IPCC. It seems unlikely to me that you can persuade editors to accept it in the general article if you have not persuaded them that it belongs in the AR4 article. Does that make sense? --TS 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Yes, that makes sense - I highly doubt it'll be included in that article though and if it is (by some miracle) then they will just say it doesn't need to be in the main article since it is in the satellite article. Have a good one - you were surprisingly fair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, more than 30 minutes after the above response from The GoodLocust, someone created a new account at 6:55, 24 December 2009 under the name

User:Marknutley. I'm tempted to file an SPI, although the person using the Marknutley account appears to be covering their tracks so it might not turn up anything. Viriditas (talk

) 11:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That Kekkian account looks like our old friend scibaby indulging in some opportunistic mischief. I suggest that you add the account (the Kekkian account only) to the checkuser case on that basis. --TS 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Article protected for three days by Vsmith. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:3RR
  violation on

Tin whistle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 14:10, 23 December 2009

• 17:04, 23 December 2009

• 17:06, 23 December 2009

• 17:08, 23 December 2009

• Diff of warning and Response: [330]

I accept it takes two to edit war. In mitigation of my own actions I wish to Highlight MF's comment at User talk:HighKing/Archives/2010/January#British Isles. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this, this is a fall over from editors going round multiple articles inserting what they think or desire an article t reflect as regards Ireland and the british, Mister Flash has done nothing worthy of a block, all he has done is resist the pov push.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Page locked for one week. Try talking about it at Talk:Tin whistle first, eh? Thank you for providing some perspective on this, Off2riob. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the page Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Peppylemew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [331]

1. [332] 16 November
2. [333] 21 November
3. [334] 25 november
4. [335] 28 November
5. [336] 2 December
6. [337] 5 December
7. [338] 7 December
8. [339] 9 December
9. [340] 10 December
10. [341] 12 December
11. [342] 15 December
12. [343] 17 December
13. [344] 18 December
14. [345] 19 December
15. [346] 21 December
16. [347] 23 December

Page: End Times (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Similar reverts, just check the history from 12 November 2009 to 23 December 2009.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [348][349][350][351][352]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, user was told to post in a talk page in July, November and December and he hasn't done so.

Comments:

He has never explained his edits: no edit summaries, no comments left in any talk page, no replies to warnings in his talk page.Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And again 1 and 2. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours - relatively new user, but editing can be intermittent; recommend longer blocks if user does not find the time to engage in discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Julie & Julia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Evilhenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NW (Talk) 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Japan–Korea disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [353]

• 1st revert: 2009-12-24T12:51:07 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 2009-12-24T09:05:28 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 2009-12-21T09:54:34 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 2009-12-20T11:44:45 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 2009-12-12T16:08:11 (UTC)
• 6th revert: 2009-12-07T09:19:52 (UTC)
• 7th revert: 2009-11-30T08:55:34 (UTC) sourced provided http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=144836
• 8th revert: 2009-11-23T08:50:42 (UTC)
• 9th revert: 2009-11-19T04:31:37 (UTC)
• Note - the malformed report with no time stamp filed by User:Kingfall is implemented by me.--Caspian blue 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link Note bogus 3RR warning (warning to totally different editor given by also another editor). --Caspian blue 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
The user has made it clear in his editing comments he has no intention of discussing said edit on the talk page, despite repeated requests from the user he has been warring with (not myself). Based upon the comments he has left in his edits, he does not seem to be fluent in English. I have not warned the user as I am unsure how the warning system works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsfall (talk • contribs) 2009-12-24T20:05:07

• Comment;
  gaming the system
  to block Historiographer.

1st revert 2009-12-24T09:42:27 (UTC)

2nd revert 2009-12-24T19:43:02 (UTC)

• Kingsfall has neither engaged in discussion nor provided sources unlike his edit summaries and argument here. 青鬼よし did not bring in any source while Historiographer already gave a source for his edit according to this edit.[354] However, 青鬼よし rejected it and then continues edit warring. Moreover, if Kingsfall wants to blame the tendentious edit warring, the user should've reported 青鬼よし first who not only initiated the edit warring at
  Japan-Korea disputes but also reverted 3 times over 3 different articles from Dec.20 to today.3RR warning 1warning 2warning 3 Kingsfall also did not do anything to resolve the issue nor gave Historiographer any single warning but directly jumped to frame his opponent. Moreover, if you look at the article history, 青鬼よし reverted the most than any other editors engaged in editing the article. The general reason that such edit warring occurs is that 青鬼よし has a tendency of distorting sources and history or misreading sources with his poor language ability. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka.--Caspian blue
  21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:青鬼よし's reverts only regarding Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea

Page: Japan–Korea disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 青鬼よし (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
With the same logic of Kingfall, I'm listing the all reverts by 青鬼よし regarding Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. However, 青鬼よし's tendentious revert campaign and false edits are not limited to these reverts.

• 1st revert 2009-11-18T12:19:20
• 2nd revert 2009-11-23T02:04:19
• 3rd revert 2009-11-29T10:27:36
• 4th revert 2009-12-06T04:28:23
• 5th revert 2009-12-12T14:25:29
• 6th revert 2009-12-20T06:02:57
• 7th revert 2009-12-20T08:05:21
• 8th revert 2009-12-20T11:55:51
• 9th revert 2009-12-24T01:45:02

--Caspian blue 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)