William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 742: | Line 742: | ||
: Previous block log and deliberately deceptive edit comments; 1 week [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
: Previous block log and deliberately deceptive edit comments; 1 week [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Cumulus Clouds]] reported by [[User:Orpheus]] (Result: ) == |
|||
* Page: {{article|Dino Rossi}} |
|||
* User: {{userlinks|Cumulus Clouds}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=250111875&oldid=249910275] (with minor changes) |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --> |
|||
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=250111875&oldid=250100630] |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=250187081&oldid=250174114] |
|||
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=250297226&oldid=250239991] |
|||
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=next&oldid=250297725] - reverting parts of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&diff=250115135&oldid=250111875 this edit], with edit summary to match. |
|||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> |
|||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --> |
|||
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cumulus_Clouds&diff=250326459&oldid=250314748] |
|||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> |
|||
User was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=250318868#User:Cumulus_Clouds_reported_by_User:Orpheus_.28Result:24_hours.29 blocked for 3RR] a couple of days ago, made first revert here 3 hours after block expired. Fourth revert isn't the same material as the first three, but [[WP:3RR]] doesn't seem to require that and the edit summary puts it clearly in the spirit of 3RR. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:38, 7 November 2008
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. |
|
Violations
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)
- Three-revert rule violation on Richard Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 2:48 AM
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: [2]
- 2nd revert: [3]
- 3rd revert: [4]
- 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116
- Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
- Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son
The359 reported by Sennen goroshi (Result:no action taken)
- Page: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: The359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
do talk pages not link on the 3RR report page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton
the talk page is where the possible violation occurred
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Hamilton&oldid=249240514
ooops I seem to have messed up which diff to show. the fourth diff should have been:
- 4th revert: [10]
the last diff was a strange one.. if I assume good faith I will assume that he only thought certain elements of my comment required removing. if I assume bad faith I will assume that he knew he had reverted me three times and decided to remove a small element in order to avoid hitting four reverts.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [11] not a warning to him, but a warning from him..does that count?
oh and this is about an article talk page, does 3RR apply there? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fourth revert isn't a revert at all; it's him adding a comment, Metros (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting. There was no need to revert that discussion, Metros (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Except it had absolutely nothing to do with the article, which counts as off-topic discussion, and the point made by the first user was simply stated in the template that was added, that off-topic discussion didn't belong there. It's no different than vandalism not counting towards 3RR. The359 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting. There was no need to revert that discussion, Metros (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I messed up the diffs, I have edited above to show which should have been the fourth diff - should I report this? I don't want to waste peoples time as it is only a small change. Well I guess I shall wait and see if people notice it has been changed or not.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be an ass, but can someone comment on this report please? It has been here for 4 days without a result. Thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- What fun. In the future, Sennen, please avoid deliberately continuing when another user has asked you to stop. Antagonizing people never turns out well. Besides, he's right; talk page discussion should be limited to encyclopedic things. It shouldn't turn into a forum for you to express how contented you are. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is great fun, I find it a little ironic that an editor can blatantly ignore one wikipedia rule (3RR) just because he wants to enforce another - but hey, the world of wikipedia can be an ironic place at times. When someone nicely asks me to stop something, I will of course cease whatever action is upsetting them, but the above editor didn't exactly ask me nicely, he just reverted me and acted as if he was the be all and end all of wikipedia - that kind of attitude is never going to result in me puckering up and kissing anus. I am happy to take shit from people who have earned the right/power to give me shit - others have to use manners and treat me as an equal if they want a decent attitude from me. But whatever, I will remember in future that wikipedia is not facebook and try to keep my contented attitude well hidden. BTW thanks for taking the time to at least look at this, it was annoying to see it staring at me, doing nothing, every time I checked it Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
81.149.211.246 reported by BMW67 (Result: Declined and moved to WP:BLPN)
- Page: Duncan Airlie James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 81.149.211.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [12]
[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
This article has been extremely damaging to my personal and business reputation.We have taken appropriate steps to edit/undo article each time but the user continues to redo.The original article is based on fact and the edits by the reported user are malicious and extremely damaging to my business.I request that this user be blocked and that some editorial lock may be included on this article to prevent a repeat. (Miss B.M.Walsh pp Mr.Duncan Campbell/Airlie James) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.251 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Declined Malformed and no obvious violation of the 3RR rule. Rather long-term BLP relevant edit warring. Opened a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Duncan_Airlie_James.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed the formatting of this report. See the new entry for this case at the BLP Noticeboard. The case was filed by an IP, 78.150.162.251 (talk · contribs), who identifies herself as BMW67 (talk · contribs) (B.M.Walsh), a representative of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
68.251.188.63 reported by TheFEARgod (Result:no action taken)
- Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 68.251.188.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [32]
--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments: reverts are not within a 24-hour period, and removal of original analysis doesn't seem to apply. --68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Closing report as it is stale. For the record, just because it isn't defined as edit warring doesn't mean it isn't. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
TheFEARgod reported by 68.251.188.63 (Result:no action taken)
- Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: TheFEARgod
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [37]
--68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment for reviewing admins: first diff is not a revert. It was the initial insertion of the disputed info. As you can see in the history, I'm not attempting a 4th revert. The three other rvs were not done in 24-hour period--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Closing report as it is stale. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Dimitar2007 (Result:no action taken)
- Page: Guangzhou dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [38]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [43]
He repatedly reverts the sourced version, not giving precise explanation, simply commenting the other editors are not right or in his last same revert because of bad English. He also deleted the 3RR wornings on his talk page. Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Stale. Also, "bad english" is not a reason to revert somebody, and deleting 3RR warnings is allowed (it guarantees that the receiver has read them). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Opcn reported by Damiens.rf (Result:24 hours)
- Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Opcn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [44]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [49]
In the edit summary for his 4th revert, Opcn says "This is my third revert...". This appears to be so because he wouldn't count the removal of my comments on the 1st revert as a revert.
Also, he will sometime do minor changes to the reverted text (like strangely adding delete at the beginning of the deletion nomination so that it looks like a vote[50]) , and the revert may appear disguised. --Damiens.rf 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- User:Opcn has been discussing his edits on this forum[51] (warning: explicit language in offwiki attacks, etc). --Damiens.rf 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Does that I mean I can undo his revert? It would technically my 4th revert... but doesn't this count as an exception?
- Anyway, I would be glad if someone else could simply go there and do that for me... I would certainly avoid wasting some future time in explanations...--Damiens.rf 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since Opcn's removal of others' comments from the AfD violates WP:TALK I have undone his last revert. I also left a note of explanation in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for that. It seems Opcn is evading his block by using meat puppets and editing anonymously now, but I've already reported it to ANI and it will surely be dealt with there. --Damiens.rf 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since Opcn's removal of others' comments from the AfD violates WP:TALK I have undone his last revert. I also left a note of explanation in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Orkhan ankara reported by User:Aramgar (Result: No action - User stopped after warning)
- Page: Sultanate of Rûm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Orkhan ankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Established version: [52]
- Adds template: [53]
- 1st revert: [54]
- 2nd revert: [55]
- 3rd revert: [56]
- 4th revert: [57]
- 5th revert: [58]
User persists in adding an unsourced flag and an unsuitable succession box, while declining to participate in talkpage discussions. I have offered several invitations on his talkpage [59] [60] and provided pointed links in my edit summaries [61] [62]. I thought that there might be a language barrier [63], but this belated edit suggests otherwise [64]. It is my belief that Orkhan ankara understood the 3RR warnings on his page.
I might add that while this editor exhibits characteristics typical of a new user, all of his comprehensible edits are tendentious and designed solely to aggrandize the Turks.
Aramgar (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Declined The user stopped after their second warning. Although they did continue after the first warning, any block would be used as a preventative measure, which does not apply if they have already stopped. TigerShark (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result:24 hours)
- Page: Geoff Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [67]
User has declared his intention to continue reverting regardless. Orpheus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Josephjames21 reported by Amalthea (Result: 24 hours)
- Page: Wesley Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Josephjames21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [74]
- 1st revert: [75], a revert to a revision from 26 October of the user, undoing 49 intermediate revisions.
- 2nd revert: [76]
- 3rd revert: [77]
- 4th revert: [78]
I have not explicitly warned the user of 3RR since I didn't realize at first that he reverted to one of his earlier versions of the article, and didn't just strip the article of some of its content and all of its references. He has though been warned and urged to explain his edits multiple times by several editors on User talk:Josephjames21 however. His only response was that the article as it was doesn't "make sense". He never provided any specifics, although asked to [79] [80].
He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3).
AmaltheaTalk 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I understand that Tiptoety doesn't object if a different admin closes this case, which is related to the one below. Josephjames21 clearly went over 3RR and has a tendency to make large reverts without much explanation. In the future, consider WP:3O, WP:RFC and more discussion when conflicts occur. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Amalthea reported by Josephjames21 (Result: Decline )
- Page: Wesley Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Amalthea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [81]
He also hoarsly lied and took things out of contex. "He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3)." There was no bullying whatsoever, I was trying to get those users to stop reverting the correct version into the incorrect and badly worded verison. Having mispelled words, and fragments [85]. There is also no wikipedian law that says you can try to stop people reverting to the wrong edits, by telling them that you will block them, if there is a law that says you can't do that, Amalthea did the same.November 2008 He was also very rude, and kept reverting to the wrong edits. I was urged to explain my edits only by Amalthea, and hadn't done so because the other editors had not done so either.
Josephjames21 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- No violation While I do agree that both parties are engaged in a edit war neither have violated 3RR. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have Warned both parties. Any further reverts/edit warring will be met with a block. Tiptoety talk 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Quartus81 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: no vio)
- Page: Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Quartus81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [86]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [91]
Ben (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not within 24h, sorry. Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Arzel reported by 66.86.173.180 (Result: 24h)
- Page: RealClearPolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249863412
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249666528
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249780169
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249843295
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249866270
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
User continues to work against talk page consensus, erased multiple warnings and has broken 3RR rule countless times in the past on a variety of articles.
- What a bunch of BS. There is no consensus, and this anoyn is is not even bothering to discuss on the talk page. The section in dispute is Original Research, and undue weight for the lead. There are two editors which are currently discussing, both of which agree that the material does not have concensus. The date stamps on the vandalism by the anoyn do not fall within 24 hours, and even if that was the case the Anoyn has made the same number. I move that this bad faith submission be closed immediately. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Submission denied. 66.86.173.180 blocked for 24h for 3RR/edit warring (not 4R within 24h but close enough). I decided that A's revert of 65.246.42.2, which he marked as rv vandal, was fair enough, given the anon's edit comment, even though the edit was removing exactly the same material as was at issue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
User:PatGallacher reported by User:IronDuke (Result: no vio)
- Page: Cynthia McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: PatGallacher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynthia_McKinney&oldid=249672791
- 1st revert: [96]
- 2nd revert: [97] (this edit reverts a different section than the other three, but still, of course, counts as a revert)
- 3rd revert: [98]
- 4th revert: [99]
- Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PatGallacher&diff=249800252&oldid=247631999
Three reverts consist of removing a quote by noted scholar Alan Dershowitz, using an imaginative reading of BLP to say that negative material can be removed as long as you disagree with the conclusions raised by the source.
(FWIW, I have technically only reverted twice -- the first reversion I made was to undo the edit of a banned editor. I mention this only to emphasize that I like to keep reversions to a minimum.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)
- IronDuke did not inform me that he had raised this complaint here. I consider that this was a case of removing a poorly sourced claim from a BLP, where the 3RR does not apply. I am not disputing that Dershowitz said this, but his statement contained factual claims which were not and have still not been clearly sourced. I would add that BLP concerns were even greater than normal since this article was the biography of a candidate in an important election on the day the poll was taking place. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I buy the BLP stuff. For future ref: please make claims of BLP-exemption very clear in your edit summaries. However [100] appears to be reverting anon vandalism (again, please be clearer).William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
70.248.192.203 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)
- Page: Template:African American ethnicity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User: 70.248.192.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [101]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [106]
Please see history where Malik is likewise reverting 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:African_American_ethnicity&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Three-revert rule violation on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [107]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [111]
There have been several long standing issues and attempts to engage this user in talk. Currently we are in a med cab [115] but the behaviour hasn't stopped. The med cab has stalled and I have seen no post from the administrator in three days. The user continues to revert and use this as a tool to block material off of the article.--scuro (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think its an excellent idea not to bother tell us which article the reverts occurred on. Its far more exciting that way - we can click through all 2M wiki articles trying to guess! (yes I know.) Or... you could actually bother to fill out the report properly William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK. But thats only 3 reverts, the last of which was on the 3rd. 3RR warnings should be on the users talk page, normally, not on some medcabal page. And I can't see the warning there William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ragusino reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31 hours )
- Page: Junije Palmotić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Marin Bunić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: House of Bunić/Bona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Ragusino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [116]
- Previous version reverted to: [117]
- Previous version reverted to: [118]
- 1st revert: [119]
- 2nd revert: [120]
- 3rd revert: [121]
- 4th revert: [122]
- 5th revert: [123]
- 6th revert: [124]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [133]
Please note, first of all, that this is a Balkans related issue that falls within the scope of the ARBMAC decision.
Ragusino is edit warring on these three obscure articles to ensure the primacy of the Italian versions of the surnames in question. He may in addition be editing while logged out to pursue this battle, see Special:Contributions/190.21.87.162. These edit wars have been ongoing for weeks. See, for example, the revision history of House of Bunić/Bona since 23 October [134]. Ragusino's version is the one with 4,448 bytes; the consensus version (supported by me, User:DIREKTOR, User:Pip2andahalf, User:Edward321, User:Admiral Norton, User:JdeJ and User:Ivan Štambuk) is the one with 4,225 bytes. In the case of Marin Bunić, his reverting also removes its AfD notice. Enough is enough. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For the time being I am not going to place any of the involved editors on any arbcom restrictions outlined here, as I am hoping they will not be needed. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
68.46.139.114 reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)
- Page: Kamau Kambon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 68.46.139.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [139]
IP that has vandalized a number of other articles [140]; [141]. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP's claim that he is reverting vandalism is not credible. In any case, edit-warring to add contentious claims to a biographical article is never wise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:96.232.251.177 reported by User:AzureFury (Result: discussed with users)
- Page: John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 96.232.251.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [142]
- 1st revert: [143]
- 2nd revert: [144]
- 3rd revert: [145]
- 4th revert: [146]
- 5th revert: [147]
- 6th revert: [148]
- 7th revert: [149]
- 8th revert: [150]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [151]
AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the above two users were involved in an edit war, with the IP removing another IP's supporting comment in an RFC while adding own opposing comment. See [152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I warned AzureFury against edit warring. He deleted my warning and kept edit warring. 96.232.251.177 (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
diff of warning more diffs 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
Please note that reverting vandalism (such as deleting another user's comments) is never "edit warring" according to policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please review your edits. While you were restoring the OTHER IP's comment, you were also DELETING 96's comment, which was not vandalism. BOTH of you were at fault. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh please, he deleted the other user's comments and added his own at the same time intentionally. I'm not going to bend over backwards to restore the comments of someone who can more easily restore his comments without deleting another user's. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's up for a nice cup of tea? Honestly, let's all settle down and solve this maturely. I'll break it down;
- AzureFury: Please don't be so biased against IP editors. Going into something with the intention of getting the other person blocked is highly bad faith and I wouldn't recommend it in the slightest. Also, please avoid calling other peoples' opinions useless, as every contribution is a contribution, regardless of whether you think so or not.
- 96.232.251.177: remember that Wikipedia is not defaming anybody if we are just reporting on what sources have said. In this case the material you removed was sourced and therefore valid. Also, don't strike/delete/tamper with other users' comments.
- FangedFaerie: While you have the right to politely ask users not to interact with you, please don't report them as vandals when they are not.
I'm not going to block anyone. However, if you keep edit-warring, a trigger-happy admin could easily block you two for edit-warring. Don't give them reason to. Questions are welcome on my talk page. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are a very nice person. I'm glad Wikipedia has good people running the site. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
User:soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result:discussing)
- Page: Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [160]
- 1st revert: [161] 21:43, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring image
- 2nd revert: [162] 22:00, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
- 3rd revert: [163] 22:16, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "First Nation and Inuit" phrasing
- 4th revert: [164] 22:18, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "Europeans first arrived when the Vikings settled briefly at L'Anse aux Meadows around AD 1000" phrasing
- 5th revert: [165] 15:21, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image size, "The French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
- 6th revert: a series of reverts restoring previous version of history section:
- [166] 15:29, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image
- [167] 15:32, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring position of image
- [168] 15:35, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements..." etc. prhasing
- [169] 15:43, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The English established fishing outposts..." phrasing
- [170] 15:47, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "However, internal unrest errupted..." etc. phrasing
- [171] 15:54, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The desire for responsible government..." etc. phrasing
- [172] 15:57, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The signing of the Oregon Treaty by Britain..." phrasing
- [173] 16:00, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's Conservative government..." phrasing
- soulscanner is a well established user and is aware of 3RR; the above edits are part of a strange content dispute at that article. soulscanner also seemed to be in breach of 3RR at the same article earlier, but this was not reported.
- [174] 01:16, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
- [175] 01:36, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
- [176] 02:26, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by WilyD
- [177] 05:49, 1 November 2008 - edit that also removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
--G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about this; instead of a constant revert-then-tell-other-person-to-discuss cycle, you both actually discuss. This way you're both on the same playing field (yes, I'm aware of your previous pasts; no, those don't factor in right now). That doesn't mean that you can revert seven ways to Sunday, Bambino; nor does it mean that you can own the article, scanner. It simply means that I want you guys to discuss this as if you didn't have any previous conflicts. No veiled threats, no contempt from either of you. This way we can get some consensus.
- So, to sum up:
- No editing the page until you've agreed on the issues above;
- No pointlessly pushing points if there is consensus against your edits
- No antagonizing.
- Use common sense; just because I haven't specifically told you not to do something doesn't mean you can go ahead and do it. Please be reasonable.
- If this all goes according to plan nobody gets blocked and no pages get locked. Sound good? :D If you have any questions I'm open to replying. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- It all sounds well and good. However, there have already been attempts at discussion; in fact, the last series of edits by soulscanner undid everything that was done to address the concerns he expressed at talk. I'm at a complete loss, and I look forward to an explanation from him. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've simply asked that you gain consensus on edits before making them. Do you agree to this? --soulscanner (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, actually I don't agree. Not only have you not adhered to the same restriction yourself, WP:BRD allows us to be bold. If someone reverts, then we discuss. Discussing minor punctuation and wording changes seems rather a waste of time, though. --G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. If you don't agree, then I can't help you. You appear to be more interested in getting your way on the edits, which were made to make a point about my saying that the article was too long. --soulscanner (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel that progress can only be made within the bounds of your own rules, then I fear that things will not go well. Making baseless accusations about points, when the person you are accusing was only trying to address your concerns, is really not very impressive, either. We will get much further if that type of behaviour ceases. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Respecting consensus is not my rule. Refraining from editing to make a point is also not my rule. You used my saying that the article was too long as an excuse to delete content. You were editing to make a point, which is against wiki civility conventions. You deleted content without gaining consensus: that is against wiki conventions. Restoring deleted consensus content is not a 3RR issue. Just agree to gain consensus on the discussion board before deleting content and we'll be fine. --soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel that progress can only be made within the bounds of your own rules, then I fear that things will not go well. Making baseless accusations about points, when the person you are accusing was only trying to address your concerns, is really not very impressive, either. We will get much further if that type of behaviour ceases. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. If you don't agree, then I can't help you. You appear to be more interested in getting your way on the edits, which were made to make a point about my saying that the article was too long. --soulscanner (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Any changes should be discussed on the discussion board first and gain consensus before they are made. --soulscanner (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- It all sounds well and good. However, there have already been attempts at discussion; in fact, the last series of edits by soulscanner undid everything that was done to address the concerns he expressed at talk. I'm at a complete loss, and I look forward to an explanation from him. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Just a little side note. I have been dealing with the Roux/G2bambino conflict for a little while now. Something I have come to learn, is that simply telling G2B that he needs to stop and or take something to the talk page very rarely actually results in that. I feel at this time that there needs to be some form of administrative action taken, seeing as G2B's two editing restrictions seem to not work and I continuely see violations of said restrictions, not to mention basic en.wiki policies. Because I consider myself "involved" I will not take any action, and will leave that up to a reviewing administrator. Just my 2 cents. Tiptoety talk 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- G2bambino won't accept the compromise. Soulscanner has already agreed to it. I suggest that the admin who closes this issue should impose a 1RR per day on G2bambino on Canada for a one-month period, if he chooses not to sign on to the same restrictions as Soulscanner. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm an inactive editor but I still check up on Wikipedia articles every now and then and checking the Canada talk page and by chance I came across these issues with Soulscanner and G2bambino. In my experience Soulscanner is an incredibly difficult person to work with and he is unwilling to compromise his position or accept other viewpoints. He reverts you like crazy and will not stop at all if he disagrees with your position. If you look at the articles I have worked on, he is extremely antagonistic against any notion of the Quebec nation and people and takes a hardline federalist approach which has a distinct anti-francophone bias. If you look at Talk:Canada you will find other editors supporting G2bambino and questioning why Soulscanner keeps reverting his otherwise legitimate edits.
The fact that Soulscanner has broken 3RR numerous times (again check my edit history, I have reported him before, and this going back to last year!) and reverts anything G2bambino does is incredible! Admins should not place all the blame on this person. Soulscanner is a major problem and he unfortunately seems to be getting away with everything as he did last year in his opposition against me and User:Mathieugp.
BTW this is all coming from someone who disagrees strongly with G2bambino's politics! Laval (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And had a grudge against me. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Soulscanner has also used sockpuppets for malicious purposes: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soul scanner. Again this is from last year. His behaviour has not changed incredibly enough. Laval (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is false. Those are my IP servers. Please retract this statement. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any obvious vio of 1RR by G2B William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne reported by 75.49.223.52 (Result: reject)
- Page: Fitna (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [179]
Strangely this began after I agreed with Arcayne. This user is exceptionally abusive. The matter has been discussed and has Community Consensus.[185], that Community Consensus can be overturned is of course true - but it must first be discussed and overturned before the changes are made. Not exactly a contentious point on my part.75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Arcayne here. Perhaps the anon (who has been blocked numerous times before as an abusive IP farm gaing the system and stalking my edits) should have pointed out that after disregarding current consensus, (s)he decided to edit-war and remove cited information from the article that both meets our standards for inclusion and enjoys a current consensus amongst the editors working the article. What the anon also failed to mention is that after being appraised of their 3RR limit for the day, they disruptively ported out of six-month old archives a prior consensus and posted it as a defense. They do not listen to discussion, and seem unwilling to actually listen to anyone but themselves.
- Oh, and reverts 1-3 are simply my reverting the removal of cited information from the article itself. Reverts 4-5 are removal of the multi-line posts from April, 2008, inserted into article discussion. No 3RR was actually committed.
- If I seem "exceptionally abusive", it might be due to the fact that I have to deal with this particular user once or twice a month, and they usually file baseless ANI, 3RR and wikiquette alerts (this is #10, and all the prior attempts were dismissed out of hand). I have my own personal Grawp with this anon user, and I am bored of having them toss mud whenever they want, praying that something sticks. Can someone just ban the anon's particular range and be done with it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The IP account should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note that this is but a new account, the old one being 75.49.223.52 (talk · contribs). Note the SPA nature of the accounts. I can present almost two dozen of the prior IPs used. The user specifically uses anons so as to be able to claim that they did not see a warning, or that any misbehavior is the first such occurrence. Of course, this is pretty much old news to anyone having interacted with the user before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That I have a dynamic IP does not make me a "sock farm", Arcaynes Wikilawyering notwithstanding. My edit was honest and clear, it defended consensus and agreed with Arcayne's position at that time to not label the film as propaganda. I have edited this article for nearly a year, never have I pretended to be more than one editor - ever. My edits in this article precede Arcayne's. He followed me to it after I made an edit to one of his pet articles, I had merely hyperlinked his project to this article.75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a way for you to avoid such suspicions IP. You should create an account. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- GD, (s)he's been told that about two dozen times, as well. The anon pointedly refuses to. If they were out and out egregious, I would ask for a checkuser, to check if they are an actual banned user (which is what their past behavior and familiarity with wiki procedure would suggest).
- Here's a better suggestion: since range-blocking would remove the rest of the folk unfortunate to live in their proximity, maybe just ban them from posting to articles I contribute to. There are millions of articles to choose from; they can simply avoid the 2-3 dozen that I am active in. I certainly don't go seeking out the user. The solution neatly resolves the wiki-stalking and conflict. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a way for you to avoid such suspicions IP. You should create an account. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That I have a dynamic IP does not make me a "sock farm", Arcaynes Wikilawyering notwithstanding. My edit was honest and clear, it defended consensus and agreed with Arcayne's position at that time to not label the film as propaganda. I have edited this article for nearly a year, never have I pretended to be more than one editor - ever. My edits in this article precede Arcayne's. He followed me to it after I made an edit to one of his pet articles, I had merely hyperlinked his project to this article.75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note that this is but a new account, the old one being 75.49.223.52 (talk · contribs). Note the SPA nature of the accounts. I can present almost two dozen of the prior IPs used. The user specifically uses anons so as to be able to claim that they did not see a warning, or that any misbehavior is the first such occurrence. Of course, this is pretty much old news to anyone having interacted with the user before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- The IP account should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject, obviously. There are only three reverts. The talk page is a different page. 3RR applies, as it sez, to *one* page. If you (A) care to provide evidence of vexatious litigation on the part of this anon, please do. Anon: you are advised to get an account William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Masonfamily reported by John Smith's (Result: 1 week)
- Page: Yamato period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Yakiniku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Kumdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Masonfamily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 5 November 2008 (Yamato period)
- Previous version reverted to: 01:13, 1 November 2008 (Yakiniku)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 5 November 2008 (Kumdo)
- 1st revert: 04:57, 7 November 2008 (Yamato period)
- 2nd revert: 06:54, 7 November 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:03, 7 November 2008
- 4th revert: 22:14, 7 November 2008
- 1st revert: 05:12, 7 November 2008 (Yakiniku)
- 2nd revert: 06:47, 7 November 2008
- 3rd revert: 15:00, 7 November 2008
- 4th revert: 22:24, 7 November 2008
- 1st revert: 05:12, 05:39, 7 November 2008 (Kumdo)
- 2nd revert: 15:05, 7 November 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:33, 7 November 2008
- 4th revert: 22:30, 7 November 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 20:21, 7 November 2008
This user clearly has broken the 3RR rule and has tried to hide his last reversions as not being reversions, even though he is still reverting by removing material and replacing it with the same thing/similar text. He knows the rules, having been blocked twice in the last few months. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and he has now reverted for a fourth time on the Kumdo article. John Smith's (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Previous block log and deliberately deceptive edit comments; 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result: )
- Page: Dino Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [186] (with minor changes)
- 1st revert: [187]
- 2nd revert: [188]
- 3rd revert: [189]
- 4th revert: [190] - reverting parts of this edit, with edit summary to match.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [191]
User was blocked for 3RR a couple of days ago, made first revert here 3 hours after block expired. Fourth revert isn't the same material as the first three, but WP:3RR doesn't seem to require that and the edit summary puts it clearly in the spirit of 3RR. Orpheus (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)