Line 815: | Line 815: | ||
::Ignore the nonsense, and look at his block log and edit history. I'm the seventh editor to log a complaint in as many weeks. He's trying to deflect attention form his 3RRR. He's also trying to use the support of Minorhistorian, who he has been in conflict with for two years - he won't like that. [[User:Dapi89|Dapi89]] ([[User talk:Dapi89|talk]]) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) |
::Ignore the nonsense, and look at his block log and edit history. I'm the seventh editor to log a complaint in as many weeks. He's trying to deflect attention form his 3RRR. He's also trying to use the support of Minorhistorian, who he has been in conflict with for two years - he won't like that. [[User:Dapi89|Dapi89]] ([[User talk:Dapi89|talk]]) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
===Update=== |
|||
Kurfurts vandalism on the [[Battle of Britain]] talk page has not been reverted by USER: EnigmaMcmxc. [[User:Dapi89|Dapi89]] ([[User talk:Dapi89|talk]]) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:40, 29 June 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. |
|
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
Edit warring on Istanbul article
User:0oToddo0 reported by User:John Carter (Result: 24h)
- Page: Christian Conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [7]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
I would now be in violation of 3RR myself to remove the material sourced from the website, so I cannot remove the material readded from the fifth revert. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Niex05 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: 24h)
- Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Niex05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user has repeatedly added back in the same content to the article. He's reverted at least 5 times at this point: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
User was warned about the 3RR here: [14]
There is a seperate issue of a suspected WP:SOCK that is making the same reversions that I am filing on the SPI.
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Niex05 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)
- Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Niex05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [15]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [21]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
There is an ongoing discussion on talk page about the relevance of Sean Hannity's pledge to be waterboarded, Niex has been warned to discuss and not edit war, but has just finished his fifth revert to include the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I encourage the administrators to look at the article, the edits, and the biases by those who revert any criticisms. The issue we had discussed was on an edit regarding a promise made due to "waterboarding", we have provided sources (including a video with the author's own admission of that promise). How much more proof must be provided beyond a video with Hannity's own admission? - Niex05— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Kelly A. Siebecke reported by User:Walter Görlitz on Jesus music (result: bad user interface)
Editor continues to insert opinion. I attempted to restore article by finding citations. I also accept some of her edits, but she continues to insist that one factual section is POV and edits it. She also uses bad Wikipedia style by using two spaces after punctionation and turning plurals into posessives (ie. 1970's instead of the correct 1970s). I ahve attempted to talk to her on the articles talk page, but she refuses to answer questions raised and instead launches into ad hominem attacks. Her edits are turning into vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is a template for adding new reports here. Please use it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is. I couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing me right to it. The edit wars continue and you're stuck on form over function. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please guide me to the template and make it obvious. The interface is aweful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:LivefreeordieNH reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h)
- Frank Guinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LivefreeordieNH (talk · contribs)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: 13:18, 26 June 2009
- Returns section on two awards that was removed by Mountbaldface in immediately prior edit, among other reversion-like changes
- 2nd revert: 13:38, 26 June 2009
- Removes tags to direct readers at talk page discussion added by me in immediately prior edit.
- 3rd revert: 13:46, 26 June 2009
- Reverts article to preferred version, after my changes to show what I thought an NPOV version would appear like.
- 4th revert: 13:56, 26 June 2009
- Removes tags as before.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [23]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] is my statement that we're not supposed to write a he said she said article where Democrats and Republicans fight it out. [25] is my statement that I'm not a political operative, rather an encyclopedia editor directed by a noticeboard. The responses, visible on the talk page, do not adress the content of the reversions, but are rather focused entirely on calling me a liberal. While the user is blocked/restricted/whatever, I will not return my NPOV version of the article, but will rather restore the tags and wait patiently for others to arrive. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- 24h. However, please prefer discussion to reverting yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would contend that I have only one revert on the article, and it's the reinsertion of tags. I will not revert again. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- You may well be right on that - I just assumed your edits in between his reverts were likely to be reverts too. Carry on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would contend that I have only one revert on the article, and it's the reinsertion of tags. I will not revert again. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:NeroAxis reported by User:LeaveSleaves (Result: 24h)
- Page: Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: NeroAxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [26]
- Diff of 3RR warning: link
LeaveSleaves 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- See also this quasi-legal threat. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:K Melwani reported by Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) (Result: 24h all round)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Sindhi people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). K Melwani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 10:33, 24 June 2009 (edit summary: "Edits made to make the content neutral")
- 21:56, 24 June 2009 (edit summary: "You are required to provide a valid reason for each and every sentence you delete. You may edit the context if you feel you can write it better.")
- 17:47, 25 June 2009 (edit summary: "Gamesmasterg9, avoid deleting material which you personally feel is doubtful, do spend some time looking at the references provided at the bottom, stop making assumptions and stop assuming ownership")
- 22:51, 25 June 2009 (edit summary: "Removed statement of doubtful authenticity, Removed doubtful names - Sounds like you have clear your personal doubts before you start editing")
- 10:50, 26 June 2009 (edit summary: "I am not reading what you are seeing? I just copy pasted your words. Something is definately wrong with you. Please don't hesitate to bring this to the notice of the administrators.")
- Diff of warning: here
—Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There must be some reason why you think you're immune from 3RR but sadly I can't guess what it is. £rr from both sides; 24h for both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:79.97.98.207 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24h)
- Page: Audrey Tautou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 79.97.98.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [27]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [32]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Asked him to discuss it on talk page but hasn't responded. Not much else I can do really, but he has now violated 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't quite find it in my heart to block you, though you too have broken 3RR. Next time look in the mirror before filing, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well thankyou, but I think if you check the times you will see that I have not actually made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have made three though, which I admit is still undesirable. While he's out of the picture for 24 hours I will try to get the situation clarified. It's a policy point rather than an editorial one so hopefully it can be cleared up by the time he's back. Thankyou anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could I ask another admin to take a look at this. The user that brought this complaint was the first to break the revert policy and only the IP has been blocked, he is requesting an unblock on these grounds. I had a good look and feel he has been treated less fair than the user. In the previous case both users have been blocked, with this comment from the admin "There must be some reason why you think you're immune from 3RR but sadly I can't guess what it is. £rr from both sides; 24h for both". There should be some degree of fairness to the decisions for them to continue to be respected. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
- Yes I wa sthe first to revert his edit, after he removed an image form the article. However, over the last 24 hours in which he violated 3RR he made the first revert and made four today. I made three today and did not make more than three in a 24 hr period. I invited the editor to discuss it on the talk page but he wouldn't. He had his chance, and now I've requested a third opinion. The 24hr ban will allow other editors to respond to that before anymore reverts are made. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- You were actually the more experianced editor and dare I say it should have known better, this block of the ip is not so that you can freely find support for your situation. The IP is requesting an unblock, I am not supporting that but I am supporting you and him to receive equality of action. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
- He got a block for violating 3RR. I did not violate 3RR if you check the history so why should I receive equal action? I asked him to take it up on the talk page, where I had voiced my view. After he reverted the third time I gave him a warning that if he did it again he would be in violation of the rules. He had his chance to be reasonable and contribute to the discussion. he opted to break the rules so he's now paying the price for that. Hopefully this will be over by teh time his ban is up. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The revert rule is not so hard and fast. I have looked at the exchange and you are both equally guilty. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- No we're not actually. He broke the rule I didn't. I tried to resolve the dispute and he/you weren't interested in discussing it. I've asked for a third opinion, so we'll see where that gets us. The image is permissable under Wiki policy I feel, although other editors may think it's not a good editorial use. If that is the case I'm happy to stand down. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are technically correct. It was a whole 24 hours and 1 minute for you to make your 4 reverts. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- 4 reverts in 24:01 is clear gaming the system, and is something to be embarrassed about, not something to point to as justification for evading a block. Were I an admin, she'd be blocked for 24 hours and 1 minute, and I recommend an admin do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree, The IP is requesting an unblock, they were both equally responsible for the reverting and should have been treated equally. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- Yes I did play the system a bit but I was a bit annoyed he wouldn't discuss it with me. However in view of the fact the image's licence has been called into question I won't be re-adding it to the article until that is cleared up. In view of that I don't have any objection to the ban being lifted so he can join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, hopefully we can find an admin to resolve this. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- I looked at the situation and declined the unblock request. 79 broke WP:3RR, Betty did not. Yes, she was close, but that puts it into the blocking admin's discretion. Given that she has tried to discuss this on talk, I would probably have decides similarly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, hopefully we can find an admin to resolve this. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- Yes I did play the system a bit but I was a bit annoyed he wouldn't discuss it with me. However in view of the fact the image's licence has been called into question I won't be re-adding it to the article until that is cleared up. In view of that I don't have any objection to the ban being lifted so he can join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree, The IP is requesting an unblock, they were both equally responsible for the reverting and should have been treated equally. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- 4 reverts in 24:01 is clear gaming the system, and is something to be embarrassed about, not something to point to as justification for evading a block. Were I an admin, she'd be blocked for 24 hours and 1 minute, and I recommend an admin do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are technically correct. It was a whole 24 hours and 1 minute for you to make your 4 reverts. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- No we're not actually. He broke the rule I didn't. I tried to resolve the dispute and he/you weren't interested in discussing it. I've asked for a third opinion, so we'll see where that gets us. The image is permissable under Wiki policy I feel, although other editors may think it's not a good editorial use. If that is the case I'm happy to stand down. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The revert rule is not so hard and fast. I have looked at the exchange and you are both equally guilty. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
- He got a block for violating 3RR. I did not violate 3RR if you check the history so why should I receive equal action? I asked him to take it up on the talk page, where I had voiced my view. After he reverted the third time I gave him a warning that if he did it again he would be in violation of the rules. He had his chance to be reasonable and contribute to the discussion. he opted to break the rules so he's now paying the price for that. Hopefully this will be over by teh time his ban is up. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You were actually the more experianced editor and dare I say it should have known better, this block of the ip is not so that you can freely find support for your situation. The IP is requesting an unblock, I am not supporting that but I am supporting you and him to receive equality of action. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
Well I respectfully disagree with you. Have you seen the comments here from the other user who has here admiting basically gameplaying at one minute over 24 hours to 4 reverts in 1 moment over a day. And the IP's reverts made where as is stated here over the removal of a picture that's licence is in dispute and if you look at 3 r rules .. then removing disputed possibly copyrighted content in a BLP is not even to be counted as a revert.The block admin admit has said on his talk page that he is ok with a review. The other party in the revert war is saying here that they are ok with allowing the IP being allowed back.(Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
I do feel bad about this now and I should have handled it better - Off2riorob is right about that. My exasperation just got the better of me with him not willing to discuss it and putting a template repeatedly on my page, but I shouldn't have let it and there isn't an excuse for that really. The irony of the matter is that the dispute has been resolved due to external factors so there is no danger of it starting up again. With regards to the licence issue, that wasn't at the heart of the dispute - the licence was clean when the author added it. If I had been aware of the licence issue - or he had been and made me aware I wouldn't have restored it until it was cleared. Regradless, the dispute is resolved and my behaviour wasn't beyond reproach, and he's had a slap on the wrists maybe it's best just to wipe the slate clean?? Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your comments here will i am sure be appreciated by the IP and respect to you for adding them. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
User:66.67.66.55 reported by User24.176.191.234 (Result: malformed)
- 66.67.66.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Again engaging in edit warring of Lindsay Monroe to the uncited Linsday Messer. Likely being careful not to violate 3RR again, but made a total of 6 edits, including one to the Lindsay Monroe page that was just complete gibberish. I know they have not edited in several hours, and all the edits have been reverted (not by me) - but if someone will look at this person's history, they will see this behaviour has been going on for several months and a block did not seem to do any good. They have and will continue to engage in this edit warring again if not dealt with. Please help! Thank you. Trista (user Triste Tierra - unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Malformed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Marc87 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: Blocked)
- Page: Taiwan Major League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [34]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [39]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]
I'm just a third party, but it appears it's a political disagreement over the nature of Taiwanese independence manifesting itself -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:PeterSymonds; User:Readin also blocked 24h by User:Juliancolton. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Nihil novi reported by User:Rjanag (Result: Withdrawn)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Page: Perfection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [41]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [44]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]
I made a series of edits to this article removing the inordinate number of images there (see the version reverted to to get an idea) and left a rationale at Talk:Perfection#Images. Then Nihil novi came and reverted all of both my edits and another editor's previous formatting/MOS fixes, using a misleading edit summary (first revert)—he not only restored all the images I removed, but also removed legitimate maintenance tags I had added, without giving any rationale. I gave Nihil novi a warning and asked him to discuss this, but he reverted a second time. I know this isn't technically more than 3 reverts, but it is clear edit warring behavior, and the misleading edit summary is not a good sign either. There's not much I can do other than report him, since the editor refuses to come to the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- 2 reverts are as close to "clear edit warring" as your edits are to "vandalism". Stop reverting or block shopping to get an upper hand in a dispute, and start talking; discussion page is that way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't reverted since his last one, and I did "start talking"; see the discussion page to see that I started the discussion many hours ago, and Nihil novi has refused to respond and has edit warred instaed. As for the number of reverts, I suggest you read the message at the top of this page, which includes "3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." Piotrus, I know you have worked with this editor before and get along with him; I would appreciate an uninvolved editor here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was no call for User:Rjanag to delete the article's illustrations. Wikipedia encourages the use of appropriate illustrations, which prevent articles from being indigestibly dry and give some sense of realia and of the historic periods involved.
- Regarding additional sources, if Rjanag has some, no one is preventing him from adding substantive information. As to the article's "balance," he has offered no concrete concerns, other than the article's reliance on a highly respected historian of ideas who literally "wrote the book" on the subject. Nihil novi (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Withdrawing; now that this report is opened, the user has decided to discuss at the talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:MasatoKong reported by User:EEMIV (Result:Blocked)
- Page: Virtuality (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: MasatoKong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [46]
- 1st revert: [47]
- 2nd revert: [48]
- 3rd revert: [49]
- 4th revert: [50]
- 5th revert [51]
- 6th revert [52] (after 3RR warning)
Account's only contributions are to add this spam, which has been removed repeatedly over the last several days and restored by other IPs and SPAs.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [53]
Blocked Next time, though, you can report users like this to WP:AIV for spamming, which is a form of vandalism; no need to go through this noticeboard. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, it looks like this was more like edit warring than spamming (disagreement over whether a link should be included or not), so this was the right place to post it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:203.206.108.116 reported by User:Jpeeling (Result: 24h)
- Page: Twenty20 Champions League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 203.206.108.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [54]
- Diff of 3RR warning: []
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]
--Jpeeling (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User:Jpeeling has also reverted four times, but removal of copyright abuses is specifically allowed by WP:3RR#Exceptions to 3RR. I have reverted the IPs addition of the copyright images. Black Kite 17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Turkish Flame (again) reported by User:Bosonic dressing (Result: 7 days)
- Page: 2009 flu pandemic in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: 2009 flu pandemic in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Version before revert: [60] / [61] Version after revert: [62] / [63]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This entire section on the Asia talk page (which I initiated) deals with the issue, and has been linked to from a number of other related articles for wider input; also recently warned on article talk page and through edit summaries .... again.
Comments: Freshly after being blocked for edit warring (see above report), Turkish Flame has resumed edit warring (in moving Russia's entry from the Europe article to the Asia article, despite stability on this point and without consensus) amidst ongoing discussions and in spite of numerous cautions. There is FAR too much discussion on the talk page regarding these points of minutiae, and this editor's behaviour is bordering on trolling, but I'd be remiss otherwise. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't violate 3RR today but he put 4 revert diffs to report. After blocked, I changed my point of view and supported other editor's views to reach a consensus, which Bosonic is higly against again. He reverted my edits 3 times and I reverted his edits 3 times. I want to remind admins that Bosonic started first this edit war with moving some transcontinental countries to Asia [75][76] (Cyprus, Turkey, Azerbaijani etc. except Russia) which he thinks they are not European eventhough cases in Turkey are in European part of the country. During my block, another user came and moved back some of these countries back but Bosonic reverted him too.[77] --Turkish Flame ☎ 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are edit warring across two interrelated articles, shortly after being blocked for doing just that for similar reasons. The link which TF provided above highlights the fact that the IP changed one article and not another, and the changes were not discussed. (A sockpuppet, perhaps?) Entries in the articles should be organised sensibly and consensually: I maintain this should be in accordance with the arguably neutral UN geoscheme (which reflects common usage), while this editor is ... well, all over the place. Anyhow, TF seems unable or unwilling to either wait or garner additional feedback before making disagreeable edits, so I stand by my reports and edits but apologise for any errors. If need be, I will withdraw for now. That is all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't violate 3RR today but he put 4 revert diffs to report. After blocked, I changed my point of view and supported other editor's views to reach a consensus, which Bosonic is higly against again. He reverted my edits 3 times and I reverted his edits 3 times. I want to remind admins that Bosonic started first this edit war with moving some transcontinental countries to Asia [75][76] (Cyprus, Turkey, Azerbaijani etc. except Russia) which he thinks they are not European eventhough cases in Turkey are in European part of the country. During my block, another user came and moved back some of these countries back but Bosonic reverted him too.[77] --Turkish Flame ☎ 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 7 days Multiple edit-warring and 3RR over various articles, immediately after a block for exactly the same thing. Black Kite 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:71.172.192.64 and User:71.172.188.113 reported by User:Kafka Liz (Result: Already semi protected)
- Page: Greeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 71.172.192.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User: 71.172.188.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Text added by banned user: [78]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [83]
Sock of banned User:Deucalionite attempting to insert the preceding text to Greeks article, in the face of reversions by three different editors. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Page protected Black Kite 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Aogouguo reported by MITH 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC) (Result: warned)
- Page: United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Aogouguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [84]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [89]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
3RR doesn't count if the user was reverting a change which doesn't have consensus. (WP:BRD) Discussion hasn't been made about the change on the talk page so the edit was reverted until consensus is gained on the talk page. Aogouguo (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It does actually. Besides your edit is not the consensus anyway, otherwise you wouldn't have had to revert so many different editors. Once reverted you should have opened a discussion, yet you continued to revert and start an edit war.MITH 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted to a long standing version of the article as no discussion on the change has been proposed on the talk page by those proposing the change or discussed by all involved on the talk page or gained consensus on the talk page. Aogouguo (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- No matter what you think you did you still broke the 3RR rule and have turned down the chance to self revert in order to avoid this edit war in order to support the edit which you made and three different editors have reverted you on.MITH 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted to a long standing version of the article as no discussion on the change has been proposed on the talk page by those proposing the change or discussed by all involved on the talk page or gained consensus on the talk page. Aogouguo (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a wake up call to veteran users such as user:MusicInTheHouse, that if they want to make an edit to an article they should go about it like everyone else has to. I think the real problem here is they feel superior to other users and the guidelines don't apply to them. Aogouguo (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- What is the wake up call exactly?MITH 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- User:MusicInTheHouse if you wanted to make a change to the article so much that you brought it here why haven't you even proposed it in the talk page let alone discussed it? No, because such users see themselves as Kings of Wikipedia, and if they want an edit made it will damn well be made, whether it's by themself or by getting their cronie friends to do it for them. Such users can't bring themselves to think of lowering themselves down to the standard of average users and use the talk page, infact the only time they use the talk page is to use it as an old boys' club and discuss their control over the page with their cronie friends, and anyone who gets in their way will be bombarded with millions of contradicting Wikipedia rules which favour themself, failing that they'll threaten users with blocks and bans and God knows what to scare them in to submitting, hence this I'm having to write now trying to defend myself from the onslaught that's been brought upon me for standing in their way. Aogouguo (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss the merit of any edit, the point is to report you for breaking the 3RR rule and engaging in edit warring as you so no sign of any remorse for engaging in the disruptive behaviour. Instead you go on how more "experienced" editors are out to get you, instead of acknowledging your behaviour and attempting to solve the issue by altering your actions. Anyway I'll cease my discussion on this page, the policy is clear on what happened and no positive discussion is going to take place here obviously. I'll hand it over to an admin.MITH 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the one with disruptive behavior? I'm the one restoring the long standing version of the article. You are the one trying to implement an undiscussed change to the article which hasn't got consensus or been discussed or even proposed on the talk page. I'm the one restoring the long standing version of the article. It's you trying to bully a change through on the article. Aogouguo (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try using the talk page before reporting me to this then in future. Just another sign of your bullying behavior. And to have the cheek to say I'm the one with diruptive behavior. Too long have you thrown your weight around on here to bully non-veteran editors to get your way. Your behavior is like a selfish child running to their mum because the other kids won't do as you want rather than acting reasonably and talking with them. Aogouguo (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats another rule you've broken. Please don't make personal attacks against other editors.MITH 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another rule is don't bully newbie users because you're a veteran user and used to getting your own way, or expecting getting your own way. Aogouguo (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are millions of users on Wikipedia. If you weren't trying to bully me you would have moved on by now and left me alone. You keep tracking my account trying to make it unviable for editing as revenge for editing an article you consider to belong to you in a displeasing manner to you. Anyone looking at our user histories can see that. Hence we are here with you desperately trying to get me banned. Aogouguo (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Warned The first given revert does not appear to be one, merely an altering of the image. Having said that, this rather lame edit war continued longer than it should have done, and should've been on the talkpage after the first set of disagreement. Clearly User:Aogouguo is most at fault at here, but it takes two (or three, or ...) to tango. Black Kite 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Kurfürst reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: malformed, probably no vio, not the venue)
- Page: King George V class battleship (1939) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An edit war has been going on over King George V class battleship (1939) for some time. User:Kurfürst has accused User:Damwiki1 of OR; over time the edit war has produced what I feel are improvements to the article, as Damwiki1 and others have tried to meet Kurfürst's objections.
Kurfürst has accused others of bad faith - see Talk:King George V class battleship (1939)
Technically Kurfürst has remained within the three edit rule. See Revision history of King George V class battleship (1939). I think someone needs to have a look at this.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above is mere forum shopping, without even an case. The whole issue revolves around the repeated edits of User:Damwiki1 who tries to remove a referenced information from the article, probably because he does not like it (he had similiar behaviour about the secondary armament of this ship class in May) with various reasoning given used (ie. 'undue weight', proven wrong by primary sources etc.), consistently replacing it with his own OR and with his own conclusions from primary sources. After several attempts to remove the reference sources, he now 'further refined' the article as he puts it, by placing contradictory secondary references and placing said reference source he tried to remove earlier into a footnote. As a result of his edits, the article devotes a grossly unreasonable amount of text to a minor question within the article. A compromise was suggested, which removed the contestable statements and only concentrated on a brief summary of the facts accepted by all authors, but he reverted this again.
- It should be also be noted that there was an ongoing investigation for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive in connection with him. The suspected sockpuppet ever since limits its working to supporting User:Damwiki1 on various talk pages, or repeated the same edits as User:Damwiki1. The suspected sockpuppet is otherwise completely inactive.
- There are no 'other' editors, except his suspected sockpuppet, which does the same edits as him. Some other editors made small tweaks to cites, and [in one case rewrote a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_George_V_class_battleship_(1939)&diff=298914735&oldid=298655681 weaselish edit] from User:Damwiki1. There were also some edits, removing the same sentence via using anonym IP editors and [90].
- This editor, User:Damwiki1 is repeating intermittently this kind of behaviour for a period of six weeks now - removing the same statements from the article from time to time. Due to this a section of the article is complete wreck, filled by paragraph long footnotes, putting a minor question into 'proper' context, using a primary source as a basis... Its entirely unreasonable to assume good faith with someone with suspected sockpuppets, and keeps removing the same information periodically, every week or so. User:Damwiki1 should be prevented from editing this and other related articles to prevent further problems. Kurfürst (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The sock investigation was closed as showing the two accounts were not socks. Kurfurst seems to have added the information again since the report was filed, putting him over 3RR. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The latest edit of mine is an entirely different section, and an information that has not been present in the article so far. The only similarity is that it uses the same book, Garzke and Dullin as a source, but it is on a different matter (torpedo protection. The contested question was the unreliability of the main guns of the ship). Kurfürst (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the complainant hasn't actually listed the sequence of reverts that supposedly violate 3RR then I recommend that action isn't taken against Kurfurst. Looking at the history a lot of edit warring is going on and you are obviously not going to settle this between yourselves so I suggest filing an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Until the dispute is resolved the article should be returned to its most recent stable state. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Comment – As pointed out above, either an RfC or some sort of mediation would be more appropriate here Black Kite 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Taciturnsole & User:98.248.32.178 reported by User:HarlandQPitt (Result: 24h each)
- Page: Chris Denning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Taciturnsole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 98.248.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tacturnsole
98.248.32.178
Both proceeded to continue edit warring after being warned. Both users had been in a dispute previously over a similar article and had 3RR warnings on their pages for that already. HarlandQPitt (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Catholic sex abuse cases (Result: Page protected)
- Page: Catholic sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An IP is claiming 3RR violation. I'm just reporting the issue here and my suggestion is to fully protect the article while they resolve the issues Corpx (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Page protected - but blocks may follow. Black Kite 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Freely admitting that if anon's edits don't qualify as vandalism (though I consider them to), that I broke 3RR, and thus will be understanding of a block. I just didn't know what else to do about it. Anon and Sturunner seem to have broken 3RR as well(I think?). Thank you for protecting the article. It will help force discussion. And since disputes should not be brought to this page, that is all I will say here. :) Farsight001 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:K Melwani reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: 72h)
- Page: Sindhi people
- User: K Melwani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After the expiration of a 24 hour block all round for edit-warring on this article [103], User:K Melwani immediately reverted yet again
- 20:32, 27 June 2009 (edit summary: "Man, you really need to get a life!")
Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Immediate re-revert after release of block. Black Kite 05:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:SOPHIAN reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: 24h)
- Page: Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [104]
- 1st revert: [105]
- 2nd revert: [106]
- 3rd revert: [107]
- 4th revert: [108]
- 5th revert: [109]
- 6th revert: [110]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [111]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]
The user has just come off a 48-hour block for editing-warring [113]. Meanwhile, he is adding a disputed, apparently copyvio, paragraph to the article in question, against the consensus on talk page [114], while refusing to take part in the discussions on the talk page, to obtain a consensus for his edits. He is gaming WP:3RR, and has reverted several different users on that page, 6 times within the last 48 hours. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- not within 24h but edit warring. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:MataNui44 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: 24h)
- Page: Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: MataNui44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [115]
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Sendibaad reported by User:Ohms law (Result: 24h)
- Page: Death of Neda Agha-Soltan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Sendibaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User: Burdoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [121]
- 1st revert: [122]
- 2nd revert: [123]
- 3rd revert: [124]
- 4th revert: [125]
- 5th revert: [126]
- 6th revert: [127]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan#User:Burdoh and the "Skeptical Analysis" section.
I've never done this before, so I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly or not. This person started this last night and was apparently blocked by User:Gwen Gale. This is the exact same material that was being revert warred over last night, now with an apparent sockpuppet, so I figured I should report it.
— Ω (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- 24h for S. Was there some reason you thought you were immune to 3RR yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Unitanode reported by User:TreadingWater (Result: more info)
- Page: List of United States Presidents by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [128]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [133]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]
I have never reported an editor for 3RR before, so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in this report; I'm trying, in good faith, to do this correctly. User Unitanode has blatantly disregarded Wikipedia rules and made clearly innappropriate edits. I will focus here, though, just on his violation of 3RR in this case. When he made his fourth edit within 24 hours, I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR, and asked him to please self-revert this fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert this edit, but he erased my 3RR warning from his talk page! I then pointed out on another page again that he was aware of 3RR because he had referenced his understanding of the 3RR rule yesterday, and I also then provided him with a new link describing the specifics of the 3RR rule to make absolutely sure he understood this rule, and again asked him to please self-revert. He has seen these warnings but refuses to self-revert. Because he has chosen to so blatantly disregard Wikipedia rules, I ask you to please give him a long enough block from editing so that he will be deterred in the future from disregarding Wikipedia rules. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the first "revert" a revert? This is clearly an edit war, in which both sides should back off and use the talk page more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Baxterword (Result: 24h)
- Page: John Russell (Florida politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Baxterword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [135]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [141]
This is a bit of a nasty situation right now--the editor involved has accused me of trolling, not knowing Wikipedia guidelines, having a personal agenda which entails destroying a series of crucial articles on Florida politics, etc. Attempts at conversation have been met by barely understandable rants, inappropriately placed on my talk page, which appear to be soapboxing--they weren't addressed to me, for example. User went to Editor Assistance to report me, again as a troll. It's really all a bit silly, and I was perfectly ready to drop this--until xe reverted again, and this article on a wannabe politician who never won an election is now 10,000 bytes large and filled with excrutiatingly trivial matters.
In the meantime, another user has prodded the article for deletion and I've seconded; the first AfD, a couple of years ago, ended as no consensus and I think it's time to bring it up again. But that's beside the point, which is that Baxterword is disruptive and not yet knowledgable enough about what Wikipedia is to edit in the way that xe does. I'm not really interested in beating up on this user, but xe seems not to want to understand that this is serious business. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:TheEditor22 reported by User:Cyberherbalist (Result: Indefinite block)
- Page: ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: TheEditor22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This report pertains not necessarily to reverts but to what appears to be an edit war which seems to include at least 2 sockpuppets being used to back up their apparent creator, as well as one of them making actual edits.
In the article ACN Inc. User:TheEditor22, a new WP editor with no previous edit history, began making changes that received a couple reverts from User:Insider201283, but TheEditor22 reverted the reversions. In the article talk page User:Insider201283 noted the reason for the first revert, and a discussion ensued. The discussion included uncivil commentary by User:TheEditor22 to User:Insider201283 which included such remarks as the following threats and innuendo:
- "You are a truly evil character, to want to deceive somewhat naive people into believing that these MLM companies are a good opportunity. In fact, you truly sicken me"
- "You and your lies are an embarassment to the human race."
- "If this was the cold war I can tell that you would be Russia."
- "I am going to take you down Insider....I 100% am going to strive to present an accurate portrayal of ACN on this article whatever it takes. And if you keep this up I'm going to include Amway in my to do list..."
Also at one point, three brand-new Wikipedia editors appeared, created within a few hours of each other, and both showing up in edits around the ACN Inc. article and discussion page. I suspect these are sock puppets of TheEditor22.
- 16:29, 28 June 2009 Martin Ford - edited the ACN Inc. article at: Special:Contributions/Martin_Ford, and was also used as a backup for TheEditor22 in a discussion.
- 19:16, 28 June 2009 CabbageMan57 - used to provide an opinion (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at: Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases
- 21:31, 28 June 2009 David J Steadson - used to provide an opinino (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases
In short, TheEditor22 is editing Wikipedia in bad faith, with an implacable bias, and is creating a veritable sockpuppet army to achieve his ends.
Would somebody please check this guy out? If anyone thinks this mess can be resolved on the talk page, I suggest you have a look at it. This will quickly disabuse you of any notion that this is possible.
Mike (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I emplore anybody to look at the ACN.Inc discussion board. Mike is an ACN rep and is is acting on extreme bias to present a positive image of ACN. Take a look at his own page and you'll see blatent ACN advertising. Insider is a well known Pro-MLM write and owns the website www.thetruthaboutamway.com. I have strong suspicions that he is being paid to defend Amway, Quixstar and ACN. I have not been using sockpuppetry and have been acting entirely independently. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whether TheEditor22 is using sockpuppets or not remains to be seen, but I support the edit-warring claim, as well as uncivil behaviour, and clearly a single purpose account. The user has also linked numerous times to other personal sites of mine, including here, which I suspect falls under WP:OUT. I have categorically told him several times that I am not paid by anyone to edit wikipedia however he continues to spread the false information. This time at least he changed it from fact to "strongly suspect". I have also put in a request regarding this situation to WP:OVER for immediate action. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmed sockpuppets David J Steadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Martin Ford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Likely CabbageMan57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blocked indefinitely as a disruptive single purpose attack account. There are other ways to address alleged conflicts of interest. Thatcher 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Underdog Mike reported by User:Every Dog's Day (Result: 31h each)
- Page: Mike S. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Underdog Mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [145]
- 1st revert: [146]
- 2nd revert: [147]
- 3rd revert: [148]
- 4th revert: [149]
- 5th revert: [150]
- 6th revert: [151]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [152]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]
User has continuously reverted a biography of a living person, removing sourced information and adding unsourced information. Every Dog's Day (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
... which would have been fine, except the reporter was adding allegations sourced only by unreliable sources. Therefore, Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours
User:Twospoonfuls reported by User:Number36 (Result: 24h all round)
- Page: Eurymedon vase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Twospoonfuls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
(Just some examples)
- Diff of 3RR warning: [159]
User Twospoonfuls has been consistantly reverting the page Eurymedon vase, these changes have been made by a number of editors, and on the talk page clear arguments for catagory headings were put forward and agreed upon by everyone except Twospoonfuls who explicitly admited that he feels ownership of the page and disregards anybody who disagrees with him, and also feels he doesn't have to put forward an argument to support his position. His reverts were originally characterized by such edit summeries as "no thanks" etc, but he has been reverting all the recent changes as vandalism, despite having it pointed out quite clearly that good faith edits should not be described as such and pointed in the direction of the relevent guidelines. As well as the three revert rule also being pointed out to him. The original discussion on the talk page ended with Twospoonfuls declaring that he would treat any edits he did not agree with as vandalism, him saying that changes to the page were his decision as the major contributor to the page and unilaterally stating that the discussion was closed. Number36 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the bit of the template that said "evidence of trying to solve the dispute on the talk page"? Weeeeelllll... its not there just for fun, you know. 24h both parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User:AndreaCarax reported by User:SoWhy (Result: 1 week)
- Page: In a Perfect World... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is not a 3RR report but a edit-warring report, thus no diffs. This user has been removing genres from In a Perfect World... despite being warned and blocked twice for violating 3RR. Since I blocked them the last two times, I'd appreciate if another admin here were to handle the continued edit-warring by this user from here (to provide a second set of eyes). Regards SoWhy 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Aitias // discussion 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User:I Pakapshem reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: 1 week)
- Page: Himarë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [160]
The user seems to be a newcomer (ca. 1 month) and part of a pro-Albanian team of the already 4 times blocked user User:Sarandioti. It seems quiet erroneous, but he insist on deleting the town's mayor (and main representative of the Greek minority in Albania) in the list of notable personalities. He also continues the same activity in the articles: Spyros Spyromilios (3rr), Lunxhëri (3rr). Although I've tried to make an reasonable approach in his talk page [[166]], he continues the same activityAlexikoua (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would add that at this point, some sort of ARBMAC sanction such as revert limits might be in order in addition to a block. --Athenean (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Kürfurst reported by User:Dapi89
Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues.
1 [167] 2 [168] 3 [169] 4 [170]
Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- These are from two different articles and do not violate 3RR at all... take note that there is an ongoing consensus forming process on the subject, and the reporting editor simply ignores it and behaves as he owns the article and behaves confrontationally on the talk page, see: [171] I have reverted to the version of Bzuk, who had suggested a discussion on the talk page. This editor ignores this complete, and continues to edit the disputed section to push through his POV. Take note of his edit comments.
- This editor has an ongoing feud against my person which is going on now for about a month. I am trying to put up with it and not respond, I can provide dozens of diffs for this, but for simplicity, it is also evidenced on the editors talk page, see [172] [173].
- The editor has been warned dozens of times, by me, several administrators, and all his blocks have been received because of personal attacks and incivility against my person. I ask the admins to intervene and stop this behaviour pattern of his. Kurfürst (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore the nonsense, and look at his block log and edit history. I'm the seventh editor to log a complaint in as many weeks. He's trying to deflect attention form his 3RRR. He's also trying to use the support of Minorhistorian, who he has been in conflict with for two years - he won't like that. Dapi89 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Update
Kurfurts vandalism on the Battle of Britain talk page has not been reverted by USER: EnigmaMcmxc. Dapi89 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)