422f2931915f677 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 912: | Line 912: | ||
Rvcx has clearly made four reverts which is a violation of 3RR. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
Rvcx has clearly made four reverts which is a violation of 3RR. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
: This notice seems to be a response to my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:QuackGuru_on_Larry_Sanger incident report] about QuackGuru's edits, which I and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Sanger&diff=268625735&oldid=268624415 other] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALarry_Sanger&diff=270311712&oldid=270307229 editors] consider to be blatant vandalism. [[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] ([[User talk:Rvcx|talk]]) 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:41, 2 March 2009
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Reports
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))
- Page: Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Kmhad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: [2]
- 2nd revert: [3]
- 3rd revert: [4]
- 4th revert: [5]
- 5th revert: [6]
- 6th revert: [7]
- 7th revert: [8]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [9]
User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)
- Page: People_to_People_Student_Ambassador_Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Nowthenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [10]
- All reverts [11]
C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)
- Page Bhimsen Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User C21K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Goethean reported by User:Ism schism (Result: Voluntary article ban suggested )
- Page: Ramakrishna
- User: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [12]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [18]
User:Goethean has made multiple reverts on the Ramakrishna page to try to force NPOV/Disputed tags onto the top of the article, against a clear consensus among editors. Please see Talk:Ramakrishna for the comments of other editors on this subject. There has been clear consensus established on this, aside from Goethean's continued tagging. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Result - I've asked him to take a temporary article ban (1 week). If he agrees then that'll give time for other editors to work through the problems that the article faces and give him a time out from apparent ownership troubles. Please inform me of any more reverts personally and then I will block (whomever). ScarianCall me Pat! 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- If he agrees then that'll give time for other editors to work through the problems that the article faces and give him a time out from apparent ownership troubles.
- Oh, with me out of the way, there won't be any troubles to work through! The NPOV tag will be removed from the article, the article will reflect the fantasies of a religious cult, and everybody will be happy! Of course, the readers of the article will be deprived of any academic material, but who really gives a shit about them? Let's focus on civility rather than neutrality. Right? — goethean ॐ 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting what I wrote, sir. I've written a very large paragraph of advice on your talk page... I'm gonna assume that some of it is at least helpful. Just chill out, friend. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the incidents related to Goethean that have been posted and discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I advise that the suggested Result be revisited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I suggest Goethean receive a non-voluntary article ban for a period of time - due to the above 5 reverts listed above, and the comments from multiple editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where there is cited evidence of personal attacks and demonstratons of incivility from Goethean. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots reported by Theserialcomma (Result: it's the trout for you both)
- Page: Glock pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [19]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
Nukes4Tots has been blocked 7 times under various sock accounts for edit warring and NPA. he is currently under checkuser/arbitration investigation for his sockpuppetry [[20]]. he is also currently engaged in a gratuitous edit war for no reason that makes no sense. he is edit warring to include a sentence that is not represented by the source, and reverting my attempts to make the sentence adhere to the source. he is also edit warring over grammar, whether a comma should come before and or after and i.e. ", and" vs "and,". he's wrong about the grammar, but he is seeking retribution against me for filing the sockpuppetry report, so he is harassing me by reverting and edit warring my valid edits. he hasn't violated 3rr because i refuse to continue the edit war, but he is violating the spirit of 3RR Theserialcomma (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- First, you've got quite the time machine if you can go in the future and forsee my 4th revert. I also went directly to the talk page and started a discussion amid your incessant cries of foul, edit warring, and other bad faith assumptions. This is, what, the 6th time you've reported me for something? I disagreed with you over one thing and I've endured your wikihounding ever since. I don't think that I've violated any spirit of anything nor any letter of anything. I'm trying to keep Glock a good article and make some improvements and I get you moving commas to change the meaning of sentences and demanding that sources be quoted word-for-word. I feel these are good items to challenge. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, don't mean to be nit-picky here because being nit-picky is counterproductive. But, having said that, looking at the edit comments, these are not reversions of the same content. I might be wrong, but I believe I only reverted the same thing twice, after starting the discussion on the talk page that Theserialcomma stated he would not engage in, preferring to report me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- you made 3 reverts of your 'and,' grammatical error. i explained on the talk page, with 2 grammar sources showing why it's wrong, but you won't listen. and you claiming that correcting and, to become , and somehow changes the meaning of the sentence is absolutely ridiculous. the semantics absolutely stayed the same. you've been blocked 7 times for this already under your accounts, and probably barely escaped countless other blocks due to leniency from admins. stop edit warring to include poor grammar just because i am the one who fixed it, and stop edit warring to include claims that are not backed by the sources. that is all. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Since it's just the two of you editing, I deduce that if there is edit warring on one side there must be on the other. Also, edit warring over where you put a comma is WP:LAME. My inclination would be that the comma should go back to where ever it first was, failing some intervention by the appropriate wiki grammar police, whoever they may be. Further edit warring will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- while it does seem super lame to edit war over a comma, there is no reason for any article in a respectable encyclopedia (wikipedia!) purposely to have incorrect grammar/punctuation. it is even lamer than the edit war if we keep incorrect grammar in an article just because it was already there. sure, you could say that if it were a big deal, then someone else would step in and fix it. but that's not the point. encyclopedias should not have purposeful grammatical errors, especially when specific attempts have been made to fix them. i won't edit war, however. the current version has correct usage of the conjunction and the comma. if anyone reverts to the erroneous version, i'll just seek an outside opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- You've since reported this "incident" again to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language where they told you that, far from being a "gramatical error" as you state, this is an alternative way of using a comma and its use was supported well enough by me. No reason to edit war, in my opinion. Further, you've gone about nit-picking nearly every comma in the article including removing a serial comma. I reverted that edit as well. There is something to be said for making sure that commas are used properly, but that is not the case here. Each time you report me and don't get the results you desired, you regroup and re-report me to some other place for the same thing or you scrutinize my edits and then report me for something else. If those don't work, you bait and badger till you get your desired result. Honestly, this does not seem very productive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:72.152.78.91 reported by User:Wikipedius Reparo (Result: 24h)
- Page: Syrian Social Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 72.152.78.91 (talk · contribs)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- 1st revert: [21]
- 2nd revert: [22]
- 3rd revert: [23]
- 4th revert: [24]
- 5th revert: [25]
- 6th revert: [26]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
Appears to be a sockpuppet of other IP users 94.192.38.247 and 76.67.185.74, also edit-warring on that page. Previously reported to WP:AIV for adding racist and inappropriate sidebars to multiple articles. Appears to now be moving to Antun Saadeh to begin edit warring there. Previously warned for vandalizing that article: see User_talk:72.152.78.91.
- 2009-02-26T19:21:06 Kralizec! (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 72.152.78.91 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Disruptive editing) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- On a second look, this looks a bit more dubious. I've indef'd W as a sock of User:Histopher Critchens and blocked HC for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Magnius (Result: indef)
- Page: Post-industrial music genres and related fusion genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Ada Kataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [27]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [31]
- 2009-02-26T22:02:34 Tanthalas39 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Ada Kataki (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Personal attacks or harassment), presumably for [32]. Seems a touch on the harsh side, perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Roberth Edberg reported by Sloane (Result: 12h)
- Page: Zeitgeist, the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Roberth Edberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [33]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [38]
--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
82.109.203.178 reported by richj1209 (Result: 48h)
- Page: Fred Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 82.109.203.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [39]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [45]
--Richj1209 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism not 3RR, blocked anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Nik Aziz Nik Mat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Mrboss x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [46]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [51]
Stephenjh (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Any special reason (other than the "this user name is bound to end up blocked" username) why I should block him rather than you? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mind you, not all agreed: 2009-02-28T03:36:09 Jclemens (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mrboss x (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
User:84.68.75.165, User:84.68.239.131, User:84.67.32.3 reported by User:Cigarettizer (Result: Revert )
- Page: Rayman 2: The Great Escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 84.68.75.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.68.239.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.67.32.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2:_The_Great_Escape&oldid=268127553
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=269565391&oldid=268956401
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=271928474&oldid=269657816
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=273268715&oldid=272956035
- Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.68.75.165&oldid=273646923
Some time ago, the Rayman 2 article was updated by several people, of which I was one (under my old account Mrbartjens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) to a version which is partly sourced and written according to wikipedia guidelines on video game articles. Since then, every now and then an anonymous (IP) account reverts it to an old version which is remarkably less of what a good wikipedia article should be like (sources and relevant information are removed, needlessly detailed sections on the individual game levels are added). I have tried to tell one of the IP addresses on its talk page that this is not the way to act and have also placed a new section on the article's talk page, but to no avail. Cigarettizer (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to give a 3RR block to a dynamic IP. Do you mind just reverting it from time to time? There only seems to be one edit every 3 or 4 days, so semi-protection would be overkill. Give me an update if he doesn't stop. Thanks, yandman 16:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Page: 2008 civil unrest in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Maziotis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version: 25 February, 18:06
- Reverts:
- No warning, user was previously blocked for 3RR on the same article and a very similar issue (reinserting of disputed anarchist-POV sources) in December
Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- 3 days. yandman 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket reported by Carpaticus (Result: unclear)
- Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Squash Racket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [52]
- 1st revert: [53]
- 2nd revert: [54]
- 3rd revert: [55]
- 4th revert: [56]
- 5th revert: [57]
- 6th revert: [58]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [59]
User:Squash Racket is always looking to cover up his reverts by "adding text/adding facts, reference" commentaries. Moreover he inserted some other text that unreasonably stuffed up the article, but I did not consider them as reverts. Carpaticus (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- In short: User:Carpaticus made 4 real reverts, I made 2. The above mentioned diffs are NOT reverts. (Example: in Carpaticus' mind that would be a "revert", see the diffs above.) Thank you.
- REAL reverts made by User:Carpaticus:
- 1st real revert:[60]
- 2nd real revert:[61]
- 3rd real revert:here he calls his clear revert "not a revert" in his edit summary
- 4th real revert:[62]
- No need to warn the user, he knows the rules very well, he sent me two(!) 3RR warnings after my single revert there. BTW he inserts material that is a weak, scant duplication of Origin of the Romanians and is irritated when I add referenced info to balance his edits. I'm waiting for an explanation on the talk page of the article why we should repeat the lengthy debate in Origin of the Romanians article in this article in a biased and incomplete way.
- He also tends to misrepresent what sources say to support his POV, see page history of the article Gesta Hungarorum where I had to add what the cited references actually say. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that the POV pushing by Carpaticus is well understood from this edit summary [63] "studies sustain the Daco-Roman continuity". Seems the user is obsessed by trying to "prove" this theory and tries to shoehorn this material into random unrelated articles like in this case a summary style article that covers Hungary in a period where it's form of government was monarchy a pretty long period with a lot of events that need to be summarised. There is no reason to replay the same dispute on theories in unrelated articles. The two theories are migration from the south in the 13th century and the other this daco-roman theory. It does not help that the article that discusses these Origin of the Romanians are currently listed as "needs to be rewritten" "factually disputed" and some other problems. It seems that in light of this the content, Carpaticus tried to insert was inappropriate for the article and hence disruptive. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The 6th revert made by User:Squash Racket in less than 24h: [64]
- What should I say when I see such a fanatic user? My first edit was a brief phrase about the situation of Transylvania in the Middle Ages (see link: [65]). Thereafter Squash Racket was reverting and inserting new text between the lines again and again in order to change the initial sense of the quoted text. From a simple phrase, after he/she "balanced" my edits, the initial phrase has become just huge, please see the following link:[66] All my edits were to diminish, as much as Wikipedia rules allow, the effect of User:Squash Racket's reverts. Seems like it was in vain, since this user has been continuously reverting...
- Carpaticus (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Carpaticus, enough with the lying now. I made exactly 2 reverts (the one you showed above is the second one), Carpaticus made 4 reverts in less than 5 hours. Please check the already provided diffs.
Meanwhile another user removed the ethnic stuff inserted by Carpaticus as irrelevant to the article. I fully agree, the debate is presented in full length at the article Origin of the Romanians (yes that article needs cleanup, more sources etc. but there's no reason to spread the whole debate into other articles in a scant form). Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- User:Squash Racket, please calm down, your inadequate tone and words are supporting what I said before: you are a fanatic user that should not be a part of Wikipedia. Arrogance and intimidation should not be allowed here. I really want this conflict to stop, therefore I will let the admins to do their job.
- Carpaticus (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm (BTW you are being arrogant bolding a personal attack, I just pointed out you're not telling the truth about the reverts). Based on the comment of User:Hobartimus admins can decide who is fanatic here and who is not. Yes, let the admins do their job instead of misleading them. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some help for admins to decide who is a fanatic. (Removing Hungarian related materials from articles, POV pushing) [67], [68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78]Baxter9 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Now is quite clear that here is a clique of a few Hungarian users who are using Wikipedia to promote in a chauvinistic manner Hungarian POV regarding history. The group of 4:User:Squash Racket, User:Baxter9, User:MagyarTürk, User:Hobartimus are supporting each other and they accept only references that support Hungarian POV, the other materials being characterized as: irrelevant, of low quality, Romanian POV though they are States of America scholars or | US Gov materials However, User:Hobartimus characterized them as "daco-romanian POV pushing that's irrelevant to this article" (see link: [79]). If we look to the history of some other pages (Treaty of Trianon, Origin of Romanians, Gesta Hungarorum, Transylvania, Michael the Brave) there are many similar examples. Carpaticus (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some help for admins to decide who is a fanatic. (Removing Hungarian related materials from articles, POV pushing) [67], [68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78]Baxter9 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am perfectly calm (BTW you are being arrogant bolding a personal attack, I just pointed out you're not telling the truth about the reverts). Based on the comment of User:Hobartimus admins can decide who is fanatic here and who is not. Yes, let the admins do their job instead of misleading them. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, Carpaticus also tends to misrepresent what sources say to support his POV, see page history of the article Gesta Hungarorum where I had to add what the cited references actually say.
User:Carpaticus seems to be bothered by the Princeton University Press and the Harvard University Press books I added at Treaty of Trianon to clarify the caption of a map and by the ABC-CLIO reference I added at Origin of the Romanians. (I don't see much other activity going on at these articles recently.)
The above mentioned "States of America scholar" Barbara Jelavich, an honorary member of the Romanian Academy only told one side of the story. Even she was referring to "contemporary Romanian historiography" when she talked about the controversial Daco-Roman theory. All the pro and contra arguments are mentioned in the article Origin of the Romanians. You won't repeat a biased version of that article in Kingdom of Hungary. User:Carpaticus used the "US Gov materials" to support what Jelavich said in a misleading way. No comment.
User:MagyarTürk made one edit this week, he isn't much around.
This noticeboard is about Carpaticus making 4 reverts in less than 5 hours and lying about the number of reverts of another editor in his "report". Making further false accusations won't change the purpose of this noticeboard. Squash Racket (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Who is who lying here? The edits you referred to were done always after yours, so if, in your opinion, my four edits are "reverts" then judgmentally, your six edits are reverts, too. Carpaticus (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Carpaticus is lying here again. These are reverts:
- 1st revert:[80]
- 2nd revert:[81]
- 3rd revert:here he calls his clear revert "not a revert" in his edit summary
- 4th revert:[82]
- The ones you presented above with the exception of two are NOT. Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor. I added new material, didn't delete/change your edits even if I disagreed with them. So simple and easy to check who broke 3RR and who didn't even get close to it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Carpaticus is lying here again. These are reverts:
I can't see 4R in the original report. The last two are clear enough, the rest are murky. You'll have to make your case better. Better still, of course, would be for both sides to discuss the matter and perhaps find some common ground - I'm not really sure what you are arguing about William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Phi Kappa Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Lhakthong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User: Magkantog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
Edits by Lhakthong
Edits by Magkantog
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273730552
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273688329
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273735954
- Diff of 3RR warning: N/A, see talk of article page.
Based on the edit history, there seems to be a dispute over the inclusion of some content. There appear to be multiple editors involved, none of which have made substantial edits outside of that article. The talk page for said article also seems to have an "impressive" conversation which suddenly started on Feburary 19, 2009. Also, I believe sock puppets are probably involved given the pattern of edits. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Magkantog. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- User:Lhakthong: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Jesusmariajalisco reported by José Gnudista (Result: No violation)
- Page: List of space agencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Jesusmariajalisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [88]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [92]
- User keeps reverting List of space agencies without providing arguments. - José Gnudista (talk) 02:00, 28 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded reported by José Gnudista (Result: No violation)
- Page: List of space agencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [93]
- 1st revert: [94]
- 2nd revert: [95]
- 3rd revert: [96]
- 4th revert: [97]
- 5th revert: [98]
- 6th revert: [99]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [100]
User keeps ignoring arguments and keeps adding on sources that do not prove his/her point. - José Gnudista (talk) 02:08, 28 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Rotational reported by Rkitko (Result: no vio)
- Page: Barnard 68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Martin Vahl (botanist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Jerome H. Remick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Rotational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are multiple articles involved here, so I urge you to check the history for the ones listed above, but I will lay out the diffs of only one, Barnard 68.
- Previous version reverted to: link
- 1st revert: link
- 2nd revert: link
- 3rd revert: link
- 4th revert: link
- 5th revert: link
- 6th revert: link
- Diff of 3RR warning: link
This user has, for quite a long time, protected his articles against what he views as vandalism, which is mostly other editors trying to bring his articles in compliance with WP:MOS, specifically MOS:HEAD and MOS:IMAGES. Rotational's personal aesthetic seems to not agree with Wikipedia's manual of style. Instead of altering his user style sheet as I suggested to him recently, he edit wars the manual of style changes away. Older conversations that may help inform this report:
- User talk:SilkTork/Rkitko - Rotational Discussion (an attempt at dispute resolution)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381#Ownership and accusations of wikistalking
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Rotational conflict
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#heading levels
- Diamphidia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (an older example of edit warring)
I realize this is not an explicit violation of WP:3RR because there are not four or more reverts on a single article within a 24-hour period, but the pattern of long-time edit warring is problematic. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's hard to see this as a vio. Tempers seem to be getting a bit frayed on both sides, e.g. [101] isn't exactly helpful. Come back if it gets worse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- How much worse is "worse"? I agree the tempers displayed by both sides don't help (and I'm not entirely innocent in that regard), but this is a pattern of editing that has gone on for more than a year. He's been very careful to not violate the 3RR, but what's worse - consistent and prolonged edit warring over styles that could easily be set through his user style sheet or a one time violation of the 3RR? I appreciate the civility warning, though. --Rkitko (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- You probably need WP:DR. If it's been going on for more than a year, perhaps a RFC would be a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Already tried several dispute resolution methods (see link above to discussion with User:SilkTork as mediator). I haven't checked in with RfC in a while, has it gotten better? Past experiences with that process have required a lot of work with very little input and little to no resolution or participation from editors outside those involved. It's such a silly little thing that could easily be fixed by a user style sheet. I'm still baffled why Rotational doesn't take advantage of the style sheet so that he sees all of Wikipedia the way he prefers. --Rkitko (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well... Yesterday, User:TheFarix went through Rotational's edits and fixed MOS edits back to February 16, as noted here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#heading levels. Rotational's only edits so far today were to revert back to his previous versions. User:Jenuk1985 then reverted Rotational's edits. Is that worse enough? This clearly isn't a BRD cycle, this is an edit war of one person against many and the MOS on several issues (headings, infoboxes, image placement...). --Rkitko (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Harry the Dirty Dog reported by Are you ready for IPv6? (Result: warnings all round)
Harry the Dirty Dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Guy vandalizes talk pages by blanking legit comments and then trolls by falsely calling them vandalizing and gives generic template warnings against the rules Has done it to me and others. He has a history of bullying other users. User does not respond to communication and just continues. I have left several warnings, specific to him and he just erases them without responding. The user repeatedly reverts this [102]. Is there anything wrong with this edit I made? I can see nothing with it. He also continues to revert any talk page communication I leave him and then sends me generic template warnings.
Here is where he violates 3RR on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
- Revert 1 - 11:30, 28 February 2009
- Revert 2 - 14:24, 28 February 2009
- Revert 3 - 14:40, 28 February 2009
- Revert 4 - 14:49, 28 February 2009
Here is where he violates 3RR on User talk:Harry the Dirty Dog
- Revert 1 - 14:27, 28 February 2009
- Revert 2 - 14:35, 28 February 2009
- Revert 3 - 14:43, 28 February 2009
- Revert 4 - 14:52, 28 February 2009
Hopefully I did this report correctly. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you ready for IPv6? consistently added nonsense to Talk:Fritzl_case and readded trolling comments removed from Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. He was warned, but instead of heeding the warning continued to add the nonsense and made bogus warnings of his own. This is hardly a case of edit warring! It is a user who fails to understand why he has been warned and why his bogus warnings have been removed from my TP. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann -- you bullied an IP editor by blanking their comments repeatedly. Talk:Fritzl_case this is what he kept reverting. I tried real communication on your talk page and you blanked it all. You spammed generic vandalism warnings for things that were not vandalism on my talk page instead of communication. You have been trolling, vandalizing, and bullying other editors for a very long time. And instead of communication, you violate 3RR. If I or anyone else had kept reverting you, you would be guaranteed to keep reverting them over and over until someone blocked you. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both of you: Stop edit warring right now and talk to each other. Throwing generic vandalism-templates and edit-summaries around isn't going to resolve a dispute, neither are accusations of vandalism and trolling. It took me a while to figure out that this seems to be about User:Are you ready for IPv6? using "Australia" instead of "Austria" on Talk:Fritzl case. Whether that was intentional or not, I can't tell, but a polite discussion would've cleared this up before either of you reverted each other three times on that page. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Conti but I wasn't edit warring. I was removing vandalism and trolling. The Fritzl article gets vandalised regularly by people inserting Australia for Austria, as Are you ready for IPv6? did repeatedly. So we revert and warn. That is the practice I did inform Are you ready for IPv6? of my reason for the reversion and that's when he changed it to Austria, the version that is now there. But I am sorry, removing what is on the face of it vandalism and trolling, especially on a BLP is not edit warring, nor does the 3RR rule come into play. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- You reverted Are you ready for IPv6? 3 times [104] [105] [106] and left 3 generic vandalism warnings on his talk page [107] [108] [109] before you bothered to tell him in your fourth warning why you were reverting him in the first place.[110] Don't you think that this all could have been prevented if you would have first told him what was wrong with the edit, and then left warnings on his talk page if the behaviour would've continued? --Conti|✉ 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It appeared to be generic vandalism and trolling. He could also have asked instead of leaving aggressive messages on my TP. That sort of thing is not conducive to making me want to communicate beyond generic warnings.. The fact that he was less than honest in this report (claiming the whole time that his last edit was the one he was making all along) tells me a lot about how this user "communicates". Harry the Dog WOOF 15:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he could (and should!) have asked instead of leaving counter-warnings, just like you could and should have told him what was wrong with the edits in the first place. All this could have been prevented if both of you were a bit nicer to each other in the first place. :) Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars exists for a reason. --Conti|✉ 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- My view is that when someone is aggressive, the best thing to do is stick to the minimum possible communication. In any event the matter is resolved and I will bear all this in minds if I cross paths with this user again. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Completely disinterested sidewalk observer here but the use of the terminology "identified as vandalism" that is bandied about with fair abandon (excuse the mixed metaphors and inadvertent slip) can be seen as a contributing factor. The labelling of an established editor/contributor or the use of "templating" is not the best method of dealing with people. This has once occurred to me and I know that I was offended (harumph, how dare you...) and there are some position papers extant on Wiki project pages that admonish established users to not treat the regulars with these tactics. All that being said, the edit history of all concerned may lead to simply the caution, to "back slowly to the door" and let this issue die as it reeks of "beating the dead horse". FWiW (... not much in today's environment) Bzuk (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- My view is that when someone is aggressive, the best thing to do is stick to the minimum possible communication. In any event the matter is resolved and I will bear all this in minds if I cross paths with this user again. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to stick my (possibly unwanted) equally disinterested comment in; the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article has been a magnet for vandals since its inception, and Harry has performed sterling service in keeping it intact. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Anthony.bradbury, I cannot find anything wrong with the stuff Harry the Dirty Dog has been reverting in Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If there is a reason, it's some obscure one.
also...
Reverting continues in Talk:Fritzl case:
- revert 1 - 11:32, 28 February 2009
- revert 2 - 14:22, 28 February 2009
- revert 3 - 14:35, 28 February 2009
- revert 4 - 15:55, 28 February 2009
- revert 5 - 16:03, 28 February 2009
- revert 6 - 16:17, 28 February 2009
I have not edited the page further. Harry the Dirty Dog did three more reverts to other people. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s initial and subsequent communications on my TP were aggressive and confrontational. I reacted as I did because the Fritzl article is a magnet for vandals and "Australia" for "Austria" is a typical one. I initially left a very low-level warning, assuming it was an honest mistake. User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s subsequent actions made me question that which is why I escalated the warnings. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Now, just donning my referee's jersey (I was one once, now that's a thankless job!), I certainly was not inferring anything to anybody as I am a true spectator here, I merely conjectured that the original comments in edit histories may have been a bit un-judicious on both parties' parts. However, your explanation is more than sufficient in that editorial changes were required and again, the proviso, still remains, somewhere on this page, rather frankly stating: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Now I think everyone has expended enough energy on this topic. Can we agree to move on... (there's nothing here, using the Jedi mind-trick). FWIW (tell me if the Jedi mind-trick still works) Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- I agree, but User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s initial and subsequent communications on my TP were aggressive and confrontational. I reacted as I did because the Fritzl article is a magnet for vandals and "Australia" for "Austria" is a typical one. I initially left a very low-level warning, assuming it was an honest mistake. User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s subsequent actions made me question that which is why I escalated the warnings. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Parallel discussion opened here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can we keep this all on the same page, I think we are close to done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Well, what I was going to say at AN/I, in response to this, but before an edit conflict with this direction to return to AN3, is the following: You might not need consensus for removing violations, but it can sure come in handy when determining whether such violations exist in the first place. You have not demonstrated how "sourced speculation" is a blatant violation of BLP. Feeling somewhat charitable, I decided to play devil's advocate, and pointed out that the comments arguably run counter to BLP's caution against sensationalism. But that is a matter of opinion, and the appropriate way to express opinion in a community-based project is to state it, not to remove the entire forum on which it can be stated. Speaking of sensationalism, though, the media has turned Fritzl into a well-known figure, who therefore arguably falls under WP:WELLKNOWN, which is a section of BLP that states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There might be debate as to whether the sources I provided are reliable, but the appropriate way to debate is, well, to debate--not to remove the entire forum on which this can be done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can we keep this all on the same page, I think we are close to done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- "...not to remove the entire forum on which this can be done." I didn't. The section remains with the contentious edit removed, and the discussion was continuing. That is the appropriate place to continue it. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- One of the contentious issues is in removing talk page commentary which is rarely done. Is there a way that constructive discourse can still take place in regards to determining violations of the WP:BLP provisions? What I see are two (three) very experienced editors who have made substantive contributions but all want to be treated with respect and deference. Can we all agree that no one is a vandal and the issues revolve around differences of opinion re: interpretations of community standards of verifiability. FWiW The don't bite the regulars should be a rule as strictly adhered to as don't feed off the newbies. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Talk page commentary that violates BLP is subject to removal. A good example is repeated attempts to post slanderous stuff about Barack Obama on his talk page. Its being sourced to some tabloid or other dubious source is irrelevant. The editor could point to the article without restating it within wikipedia. Removal was appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree but was it not germane to bring up the topic in an effort to see if it was suitable for inclusion in the main article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- It could be. And once it was apparent it was a BLP violation, that would be the end of it. But even at that, he could simply say, "What about this?" and link over to the tabloid article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree but was it not germane to bring up the topic in an effort to see if it was suitable for inclusion in the main article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Talk page commentary that violates BLP is subject to removal. A good example is repeated attempts to post slanderous stuff about Barack Obama on his talk page. Its being sourced to some tabloid or other dubious source is irrelevant. The editor could point to the article without restating it within wikipedia. Removal was appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- One of the contentious issues is in removing talk page commentary which is rarely done. Is there a way that constructive discourse can still take place in regards to determining violations of the WP:BLP provisions? What I see are two (three) very experienced editors who have made substantive contributions but all want to be treated with respect and deference. Can we all agree that no one is a vandal and the issues revolve around differences of opinion re: interpretations of community standards of verifiability. FWiW The don't bite the regulars should be a rule as strictly adhered to as don't feed off the newbies. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- "...not to remove the entire forum on which this can be done." I didn't. The section remains with the contentious edit removed, and the discussion was continuing. That is the appropriate place to continue it. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, yet again. First off, IMO there is far too much trash on wiki talk pages; alas the system is heavily weighted in favour of leaving stuff in just in case. Since removing trash is so uncommon, people (wrongly) assume that talk pages are sacrosanct. So, HTDD is commeneded for removing stuff that clearly should be removed [111] is the Fritzl case, and CL reproved for re-adding it. As for 3RR on HTDD's talk page; it is well established that (a) you have effective immunity from 3RR on your own talk page and (b) you should not re-add warnings that have been removed. AyrfI is cuationned re that latter point and advised to look up the former. As for the MM, I'm still looking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, as for MM, I tkae it this [112] is the text concerned. In that case, it's hard to tell from the outside whether it should stay or go, which means (sorry) that dumb inertia means you'll have to live with it staying. Removing it once, or even twice, is not unreasonable; edit warring over it's removal (or re-insertion, hence the warnings all round) is not tolerable. If any of the editors who have touched that bit of text remove it or replace it in the near future I'll block them (if someone else doesn't get there first). while I'm here, please tone down the edit comments. Again all round, but that particular one earns AyrfI a caution re civility; even if you believe that to be true the place to raise such issues is not in an edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
User:LifeStroke420 reported by User:GaryColemanFan (result: 24h)
- Page: WrestleMania XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diff of 3RR warning: [118]
GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up: 6th revert: [119] GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- 7th revert: [120] GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that this using has a history of edit warring and a previous block for violating 3rr. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- 7th revert: [120] GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing invalid sources isnt vandalism.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then why are you removing a Slam! source as well? [121] I agree that 411 is disputable, but you are removing a very reliable one as well. -- Scorpion0422 20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- For something like a Reception section, 411mania is fine for giving reviewer's thoughts. The article passed a GA review, and the source wasn't a problem. The issue at hand is edit warring, though, and 7 reverts in an hour and a half certainly qualifies for a block . GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
411mania isnt a valid source slam is ive fixed MY mistake.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- 2009-02-28T21:35:22 J.delanoy (Talk | contribs | block) blocked LifeStroke420 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: on WrestleMania XI) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048 reported by Amethystus (Result: 3h)
- Page: Mehmed Talat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Ibrahim4048 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [122]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [128]
- No proper warning (put them on the users talk page, not buried in an edit comment), and a noob, but I doubt anything but a block will help, so given 3h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
K;;m5m k;;m5m reported by Warren (Result:12 hours )
- Page: Kernel (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&oldid=273818401
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273818688
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273820235
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273821005
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273825351
- 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=274009654
- Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K;;m5m_k;;m5m&diff=273828118&oldid=273826763
This user received a 3RR warning and was subsequently blocked for 12 hours after the 4th revert. 5 hours & 20 minutes after block expired, the user carried on with the 5th revert, their explanation being something to the effect of, "Wikipedia is useless, the Internet is useless, you are an asshole, the article is a piece of shit." A more lengthy second block is probably necessary to avoid further disruption from this user. Warren -talk- 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User had already been given 12 hours by User:Chillum, after all but one of those reverts but before this report. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:77.42.179.51 reported by User:Phil153 (Result:both editors blocked )
- Page: Edoardo Agnelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 77.42.179.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [129]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [135]
There's a good chance that Qiswi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reverts: [136][137]), who signed up today, is the same user logged out. Same page, same kind of edit summaries. The editing pattern went 4x IP, 2x Quisi, 1xIP.
Phil153 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of differing lengths to encourage editing from registered user Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Maz112 reported by GoldCoaster (Result: 12h)
- Page: Marilyn (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Maz112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [138]
- 1st revert: [139]
- 2nd revert: [140]
- 3rd revert: [141]
- 4th revert: [142]
- 5th revert: [143]
- 6th revert: [144]
- 7th revert: [145]
User: Maz112 has been engaging in edit warring since his account was created in November 2008 on both the Marilyn and Despite Straight Lines article pages. The user often reverts information, continually adds his own unofficial fansite as the artist's URL, adds details that are factually inaccurate or irrelevant to the article, and generally has little comprehension of (or respect for) Wikipedia policies (particularly WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:EL). The user has been warned on several occassions about his/her edits in the past couple of months by various users, and also by myself over the past two days, but has persisted in edit warring. The above list of edits is from the last 24 hours only, but if you look into the history of the article pages mentioned, you will see far more. The user's fan site is of particular contention. As an unofficial fan site, it is inappropriate linkage. Until today, the fansite (which is based in Germany) actually identified itself as a fansite. However, after receiving a warning about why the site cannot be linked to, the user has just amended the site to remove all mention of it being a fan site and is now claiming it to be official so that he/she can link to it from Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence that the site is official or even officially endorsed, and given the user's apparent behaviour, it seems extremely doubtful that it is. Obviously, there is also a COI issue as he/she is promoting their own personal website. There are further details of the problems on the article talk page. GoldCoaster (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
The user has just carried out yet another revert, which I have listed as 7th revert above. GoldCoaster (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment — there are WP:SPAM and WP:CoI concerns here too. One of the things Maz112 is trying to enforce on the page is a link to a site which he maintains and claims is "official". Not quite convinced User:Maz112 has grasped our policies on such things, nor even if he understands what the 3 revert rule is. I'm gonna leave this to someone more experienced and versed on band matters though.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- 12h - and warned re COI William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Darvit Chandhurai reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 12 hours)
- Page: Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Darvit Chandhurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [148]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [153]
Edit warring including inflammatory edit summaries and attacks on other editors. O Fenian (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment No actual violation of the 3 revert rule. Edit warring to replace a photograph with one "less good looking" is very far from compliance with the spirit of wikipedia's biography policies, however, and the user's recent history consists of little but unproductive edit-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 12 hours for disruptive warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Version reverted to is [13:35, 27 February 2009, reverts are at 13:37, 28 February 2009, 18:05, 28 February 2009, 23:50, 28 February 2009 and 13:57, 1 March 2009. Four reverts in 24 hours and 22 minutes would generally be seen as a violation. O Fenian (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- O Fenian, you have three reverts for the day yourself, two of which came after listing this report. This is skating on thin ice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry that I chose to correct an error with my third edit that an editor introduced without checking the edit history or the talk page, I won't bother doing it again lest some heavy handed admin threatens me with blocking. O Fenian (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I saw that revert of Snowded like that. But it looks bad if you report someone, then while clarifying that it's for edit-warring rather than 3RR, you revert them again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was that editor - apologies I assumed that 51 was meant to be 15 reading the entry as DoB. O Fenian did the right thing and its not 3RR --Snowded (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry that I chose to correct an error with my third edit that an editor introduced without checking the edit history or the talk page, I won't bother doing it again lest some heavy handed admin threatens me with blocking. O Fenian (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Muscovite99 reported by Offliner (Result: 2 weeks)
- Page: Putinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [154]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [159]
Muscovite99 has also been blocked earlier for edit warring on the same article. Offliner (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- First, the last edit is obviously the opposite of the prior ones (all of them simply removed literal duplication). But the real question (in terms of Wikipedia's benefit) as regards this article (Putinism) is: Are we creating an encyclopedic article which is essentially on the subject as designated, and written in a basically grammatical English; or are we playing silly kids' games? The latter i clearly discern in the latest actions of both Offliner and Ellol: it is quite obvious that they have conspired to lay a trap for me as a kind of thankyou for my proofreading and correcting their grammar mistakes and duplications for the past couple of days. I also see their malevalent intent to essentialy destroy the article by dumping utterly irrelevant and meaningless fluuf into it: What do rising wages have with the nature of the political regime in question? Yes, they were rising; since last autumn they are dropping like a stone (and Putin is head of the RF government): does this chane the essence of the subject. I am not trying to discuss the content; i am simly saying that these two editors, to my mind, have a destructive way of editing this particular article. Therefore, i should hereby request sanctions against both of them.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks In fairness some of the reverts did contain sound English corrections, but it's like this editor has accepted that being blocked is a permanent nuisance in his life as an editor of Putinism, as the businessman accepts taxes or something. Editor needs to change fairly soon or an indef is probably on its way; perhaps he'll take the two weeks to think about it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wetman reported by Phalanxpursos (Result: no vio)
- Page: Tethys (mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=273965834&diff=273965834 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_(mythology)&oldid=274132152
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=274028421&diff=274028421
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=274160688&diff=274160688
- 3rd revert: [link]
- 4th revert: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83d40m#Tethys_.28mythology.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wetman#Reply_to_83d40m_talk_page_about_Tethys
I am lawmaker of very high standards, with unfortunately a very bad temper. I am also very unpatiened due to circumstances, the situation about Wetman is that he appears to be a button clicker. He doesn't edit pages to his liking, but deletes every single content I provided. So eventhough Tethys is very dear to me, does Wetman give me the treatment that I am not welcome on the Tethys page. I contributed to the page, Wetman doesn't really improve the page but only decides to delete what I improved. Incase you people are confusing Wetman with Okeanos, then must I disappoint you. Because I guarantee you that Wetman is not the same person as Okeanos, as a matter of fact with all the Roman history I have studied am I greatly disappointed about the Romanology of Ouranos & Okeanos. I believe in Roman Gods, but I refuse to accept Oceanus & Uranus. Eventhough I believe in Roman Gods, I calculate Ouranos & Okeanos as deities needed for sea travel. Long story; I am a very angry person, I need to be soothed. When this doesn't happen, great trouble could occur. I had a dream of Tethys in a visionary pelgrimage of Western Europe, in where I learned she is infact the mistress of rain. Have been initiated into the mysteries of Civilization by dreams from the Pleiades & Hyades, I am a person with a very bad temper. Actually do people need to be protected from me when I get angry, have written morally-correct legislation which contribute to the wellbeing of Human Dignity and the Commonwealth. I really suggest you people should read my morally correct legislation, because I don't want any credit for my work that's why I actually should post all my writings at wikipedia as opensource because I don't want credit for my work just that people learn from me. The truth is that I have such a bad temper, that I don't belong in public places such as wikipedia. Phalanxpursos (talk) 18:48, 1 March 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. As an additional suggestion from me, you might wanna consider depriving Talk:Tethys (mythology) of her virginity before coming here again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Though I am equally unpatiened and notoriously intolerant of marginal literacy, I am too smart to run afoul of the 3 revert rule, even were I intentionally incited to do so by reverting of my edits, which are up to my usual standard in this case. A benchmark of minimal competence in a Wikipedia editor is the understanding that quoted text is never "fudged" to align it with our own preferences. And minimal competence in added disinfoboxes requires that existing formatting not be left in disarray for more careful editors to repair. The rest is full of sound and fury: I do not address it. A sample of this editor's manners and more than slightly daffy personal fantasies can currently be seen at User_talk:83d40m#Tethys (mythology): I quote:
- People I work for the genuine Intergalactic Federation and have been assigned to represent Tethys, so you are now appointed as the personal bodyguards of the Tethys page the way I have updated it. Or face dire consequences, because Tethys is also mistress of Warfare and the Thunderbolt. Please don't worship me, worship a system when it is good for the people. The way I represented Tethys, is indeed the Goddess of chief Rivers.
- Surely nothing further will be needed from me. Closer adult supervision of Tethys (mythology) is badly needed. Almost anyone will have a kinder touch with the delusional than I. I am removing the page from my Watchlist for a few weeks, as my reserves of diplomacy and tact are in perennial short supply, and I must save them for important occasions. --Wetman (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to take this account so seriously as this. I have warned the user that if he continues to disrupt wikipedia I'll indef him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not catch the bits where he claims to be working for an "Intergalactic Federation" and to be "lawmaker of very high standards"? Or how he's going to zap wikipedia back to 100 BC?[160] All that's well and good, but when such throw-away accounts start launching non-serious 3RR reports that's where admins start considering indefs. Not worth the time. If I've missed something here then feel free to tell me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Gabriel Bethlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Baxter9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [161]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [166]
- And, of course, he well knows this rule, because he warned me [167] :-)
--Yopie 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- First link is not a revert, just an edit of mine! (I changed my edit later). Here are the reverts of user:Yopie:
- 1st revert: [168]
- 2nd revert: [169]
- 3rd revert: [170]Baxter9 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Definitely no WP:3RR violation on either side, but reviewing background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Baxter9's offense was the lesser, but has recently been blocked for similar activity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
129.234.217.155 reported by Rwiggum (Result: 12 hours)
- Page: Dear Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 129.234.217.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [171]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [176]
Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Rwiggum, why are you expecting your own violation of the 3 revert rule to be treated more leniently?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Namely because I never violated the rule. I reverted his edits three times today, but stopped after that. The one edit I made since was not a revert, as I simply removed a few unneeded and extraneous references. The content that he added remained. Although I am curious as to why you thought I violated the rule. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this is actually a partial revert too.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why is that? (I'm not asking that to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious, btw.) I didn't actually remove any of the disputed content. More than that, there wasn't a dispute over what I removed. I just thought that having five or six references in the row was overkill, (not to mention it looked bad) when one reference could do the same job. Even then, most of the references were from smaller sites that wouldn't normally be considered valid references anyway. Thanks for your input. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's because of the definition of revert, per WP:3RR, is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. I agree though that your 4th revert wasn't hardcore edit warring, but I encourage you in future to revert less and talk more. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded reported by José Gnudista (Result: no vio )
- Page: List of space agencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [177]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [182]
- Disruptive user disregarded 3RR warning as "nonsense" while constantly ignoring a RFC in the talk page [183], refusing to explain how an article at a fansite and a poorly-written article in a newspaper support his claims of automatic creation of a space agency (despite the massive amount to evidence on the contrary). - José Gnudista (talk) 00:04, 2 March 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. They are spread out over a period of time longer than 24 hours. There is however drawn out warring over the past few days, and so I've protected the article for 3 days to allow discussion to take place in a cooler environment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Larry Sanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Rvcx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [186]
- Reverted to an older version[187]
- 2nd revert: [188]
- Reverted to an older version[189]
- 3rd revert: [190]
- Reverted to an older version[191]
- 4th revert: [192]
- Reverted to an older version[193]
Rvcx has clearly made four reverts which is a violation of 3RR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- This notice seems to be a response to my incident report about QuackGuru's edits, which I and other editors consider to be blatant vandalism. Rvcx (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)