Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Reports
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan
- Page: {{article|Iğdır}
- User: Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
This is the third time I am returning to this board to report Abbatai for breaking the 3RR. After numerous warnings and corresponding blocks (see the comments by admins made and the warning of sanctionson his talk page here), it's clear that user does not want to play by the rules and, frankly, doesn't even care. His edits have come in the midst of a long range of vandalism on Armenian-Turkish related articles and I believe a more stringent action is warranted (see the comments in my previous complaint filing here). But to put it shortly: he has been edit-warring on this article without pause, and has failed to show a single reliable source to back up his claims. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Umar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Frank1829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: Original
The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books. Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violate WP:Reliable Sources and WP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violate WP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of Shia Here, which violates WP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violates WP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:neutral and WP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.
- Diff of 3RR and Edit warring warning: First Warning until Fourth Warning
Above all this, he vandalized my User page User:Sampharo in this diff link
Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.
- Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))) . As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point out WP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: Revision by Abd as of 20:43, 11 May 2009
- 1st revert: 14:53, 21 May 2009 (series of 3 contiguous edits by Abd)
- 2nd revert: 16:50, 21 May 2009
- 3rd revert: 17:17, 21 May 2009
- 4th revert: 18:38, 21 May 2009 (partial revert, restores some contentious material removed in preceding edit)
- Diff of 3RR warning: Abd is well aware of WP:3RR; curiously, he chose to warn another user about edit-warring while in the course of racking up 4RR of his own in less than 4 hours.
By way of background, Abd has been a central figure in a recent Arbitration case concerning cold fusion:
I consider myself too involved to render an administrative verdict here, but I view this as problematic edit-warring in the context of a much larger, festering dispute. An aggravating factor is that talk-page discussion appears to be against Abd's reverts, and that he is handing out warnings about edit-warring to others while rapidly violating the rule himself. Note that Hipocrite (talk · contribs) has also edited the page heavily today; I count 3 reverts on his part, and will leave the handling to the reviewing admin. MastCell Talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Abd's 4th revert appears to be an error - since he signed the edit, he appears to have desired to send it to the talk page.I am well aware I bumped right up to 3rr. Thus, I pledge on pain of enforcement of this pledge by block not to edit the article or its talk page for 24 hours from my first reversion except for obvious vandalism or blatent violations of BLP in the hopes that perhaps all of the parties in question can be convinced to discuss instead of reverting over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Abd has commented that his 4th revert was not in error. Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Its a toss-up between blocking Abd for 3RR, blocking Abd and H, or protecting the page. I've done the latter. Abd is urged to recall the rather weak and feeble Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG remedy 2.1, and to learn how WP:DR works before making unrealistic threats on talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I can claim to know what Abd is thinking, but the edit summary here seems to indicate that it was destined for the article itself, not the talk page. But whatever. MastCell Talk 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
mmm.... here is a report on my behavior, I responded, clearly answering the question about that alleged fourth revert, and it's removed by Connolley as "discussion." And then, on my Talk page, he suggests I answer the question, which I had already answered. Perhaps, looking only at diffs, he didn't notice that much of my comment was in a collapse box. To read the full discussion directly, not in a diff, see permanent link. Otherwise, I assume we are done here. My apologies to anyone offended by my defense of my actions. --Abd (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Romanpolanski reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
National Australia Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Romanpolanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Revert comparison : this revision.
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 09:50, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290921648 by Bidgee (talk) images of buildings = irrelevant without being mentioned in the text itself")
- 10:39, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291583986 by Bidgee (talk) you are being rude and you should engage on the discussion page instead")
- 11:03, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291588811 by F (talk) nice try Bidgee. why cant you explain why you think the images add value ? pls go to discussion page.")
- 11:28, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291592279 by Bidgee (talk) a ha yeah Bidgee, right.")
- Diff of warning: here
The user is also accusing me of being F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) however I'm not that editor nor do I know that editor. I'll be happy to have a check user to prove it. —Bidgee (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! Today is the first time I met Bidgee. We just happened to revert the same page at the same time, I promise. :) F (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
24h for 3RR. But indef, since the username looks impermissible William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Toxygen reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)
- Page: Ján Slota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Toxygen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: The original form reverted by user.[5]
User removed material with 2 english sources:[1][2] He added no references to prove his statements. Already told him to STOP on my userpage:[10] NOTE: he is removing references from the article Robert Fico too. [11]
- ^ Cas Mudde (2005). Racist extremism in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge. p. xvi. ISBN 0415355931, 9780415355933. Retrieved 2009.05.22..
{{cite book}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help); Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); More than one of|pages=
and|page=
specified (help) - ^ Zoltan D. Barany (2002). The East European gypsies: regime change, marginality, and ethnopolitics. Cambridge University Press. p. 313. ISBN 0521009103, 9780521009102. Retrieved 2009.05.22..
{{cite book}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help); Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help); More than one of|pages=
and|page=
specified (help)
- Diff of 3RR warning: [12] Warned 2 times (me and another user)
Baxter9 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
72.79.221.240 reported by Anaxial (Result: 24h)
- Page: White privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 72.79.221.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [13]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [18]
Anaxial (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
70.106.202.243 reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24h)
- Page: Portal:Current events/2009 May 23
- User: 70.106.202.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 2009-05-23T01:58:30
- 1st revert: 2009-05-23T02:22:37
- 2nd revert: 2009-05-23T02:25:13
- 3rd revert: 2009-05-23T03:39:46
- 4th revert: 2009-05-23T03:43:40
- 5th revert: 2009-05-23T04:22:50
- 6th revert: 2009-05-23T04:52:01
- 7th revert: 2009-05-23T05:06:22
- Diff of 3RR warning: 2009-05-23T04:49:02
- The anon has refused to answer my question[19] and continued blanking any entry inserted by others except one that he inserted (Madagascar's political parties). Since my politely asking and 3RR warning did not stop his disruptive blanking, I submit this file. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Mosedschurte reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Human rights inside the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mosedschurte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- Time of edit warring: 01:07, 23 May - 06:11, 23 May.
- Total reverts: 6
- Straight reverts: 4
- Complex reverts: 2
- Total warnings before last revert: 2
- User notified of AN3 report? Yes
Straight reverts
- 01:07, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:03, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "whoa, hey, slow down on the reverts on the outside the article material")
- 01:18, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:11, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "More direct: Please stop WP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
- 01:28, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:18, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop WP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
- 02:11, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:91.63.151.181 to previous version at 01:34, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv POV language by IP")
Complex reverts
- 02:40, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:Larkusix's removal of tags and lead section[20] and restores tag and lead section to previous version at 02:30, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "restored tags and improperly deleted through mass revert")
- 06:11, 23 May 2009 Reverts User:SlimVirgin's removal of tags [21] and partially restores tags to previous version at 04:05, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "a few (but not all) of the most obvious deleted tags -- see talk for discussion of each")
- Diff of warning: here and here. User continued to revert after first and second warning were given. User notified of this discussion, here.
- Note: The only way to "compare" the complex reverts in 02:40 and 06:11 was to cite the diff for the change by the previous editor. In this way, the complex revert jumps out of the diff when compared separately to the user's revert diff. Using this method, the date of the version reverted to appears as the "old reversion" and the material being reverted appears struck-out. Comparing the first diff with the "compare" diff using pop-ups, for example, makes the reverted material immediately clear. If I was to simply compare the two diffs from the previous version and the revert, the complex revert would not appear in the preview pane. If there is another method to do this, let me know and I will fix them. If there are any questions, please contact me or post a request here. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Page: Cornish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Josquius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [22]
- 1st revert: [23]
- 2nd revert: [24]
- 3rd revert: [25]
- 4th revert: [26] - includes huge removal of references that don't agree with his opinion
- 5th revert: [27]
- 6th revert: [28]
- 7th revert: [29]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [30], subsequently deleted, and duplicated on my talk page in a tit for tat move
- I realise my edits could also be seen as edit warring but I'm not the one making changes that go against the references, and I don't see why an article should be compromised in this way for any amount of time.
- Josquius has engaged in edit warring and been warned about it before: [31] [32]
- Much discussion has been made on Talk:Cornish people and Josquius is the only contributor continuing to change the article according to his personal opinion, without citing a single reference. His changes also disagree with the references provided, but refuses to read them.
- Warned — User was warned and appears to have stopped. I gave an extra warning just in case, as the user is clearly engaging in disruptive editing, but has otherwise been productive and has not edit warred recently. If he resumes, please report back; or, it other editors join in the edit war, please request page protection due to a content dispute. Cheers. --slakr\ talk / 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
User:89.236.165.232 reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 1 week)
- Page: Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
- User: 89.236.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [33]
This IP is edit-warring for days to remove a project tag that the project's members have placed there. Enough is enough.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [38]
Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week Also appears to have hopped around several other ips around May 10th, necessitating semi-protection of the talk page back then. If it gets bad enough again during this block, feel free to report to requests for page protection --slakr\ talk / 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Biblelight reported by User:Farsight001 (Result: warned)
- Page: Seventh-day Adventist eschatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Augustinus Triumphus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Donation of Constantine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Page: Vicarius Filii Dei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Biblelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Never reported a user before, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, especially since the warring encompasses multiple articles.
User first started editing Vicarius Filii Dei with several edits. History:[39]. Policy was explained on talk page, user continued to edit, article was protected. User continued to complain on the talk page, once threatening me here:[40]. User then moved on to articles Donation of Constantine and Augustinus Triumphus, and made very similar edits there. Policy was crudely explained again in my revert summaries. User Biblelight then moved on to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology and added the same information to that article. Has ceased discussing things with other users and simply re-adds his information. One more revert and he violates the 3RR, which I told him. Here's the 3 reverts so far:
I really don't know what to do because biblelight simply moves his edits to a different article if people revert enough, and nothing I tell him seems to change his mind.
Again, this is the first time I've reported a user, so apologies if I did it wrong. Feel free to correct me in any way. :) Farsight001 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have left a proper warning for this editor, and notified him of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
If the sysops will please review the aricles I have been posting to, they will see that I have been trying to post verfied historical information from reliable sources in an effort to counter demonstratably false statements, in particular false information regarding Seventh-day Adventists. In the latest incident, to demonstrate the point, I have been charged with vandalism of the article on Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Gentlemen, I AM a Seventh-day Adventist, and quoting the SDA commentary on Rev. 13:18 is NOT vandalism, particularly when it completely exposes the claim in the article that the same commentary rejects the application of Vicarius Filii Dei to the papacy. That false claim in the article is NOT verified in any manner. It IS demonstrated as false by what I am trying to post. Farsight001 is censoring me from posting information that I believe is within Wikipedia rules. He charges me with rule violations because he wants patently false information to remain, he is censoring verified reliable from being posted because he does not want that information to be available. I request that the matter be looked into by nuetral admins so that I can get a ruling of some sort about the acceptability of the information I have been trying to post, and clear specific reasons why, about what is ruled inadmissable, if anything. Biblelight (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is the unsupported false claim,
According to Burden of evidence "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Am I not allowed to follow that rule on an article that purports to represent the church I belong to? Biblelight (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a 12 volume set, the Commentary on Revelation, authored by Ranko Stefanovich, Ph. D. which is mentioned in the ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No 139 totally different, not part of the SDA Commentary! But then since he is NOT Adventist, Farsight001 would not necessarily know that. I want him to right this error by reverting to my last post and allow me to continue editing there. Biblelight (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
- This discussion needs to continue at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. All parties need to abide by WP:3RR and not try to force their version in by edit warring. A member of the SDA church has no special authority on this article. Use the discussion to present reliable sources for your view. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
86.165.81.180 reported by StarScream1007 (Result: semi)
- User: 86.165.81.180 (talk · contribs)
- Page: List of characters in the Resident Evil series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Reverts:
- 1. 13:46, May 22, 2009
- 2. 08:56, May 23, 2009
- 3. 15:09, May 23, 2009
- 3RR Warning: 15:28, May 23, 2009
- 4. 03:04, May 24, 2009
- Comments: IP has been reverting edits made by me, and some other users for quite some time. The anon user has been reverting the plot details that were supposed to removed/modified from the article based on a consensus on the Talk:Resident Evil 5 discussion page. The user is ignoring requests from myself and other editors to read over the consensus. Similar IPs have been making disruptive edits on relate pages: 86.143.125.177/86.165.81.180/86.170.16.43 Please leave a comment on my talk page if you further require my help. Thanks -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Page semiprotected. See Talk:Resident Evil 5#Wesker's "death" for background on this long-running dispute, which has continued in spite of past admin actions. Please comment if you can think of anything better to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please take a look at Hot Fuzz and The Thing (film) to see if semi-protection is necessary there. This user has been edit warring on those too. This my be coincidence or this user may be watching my contributions, as we have several articles in common. Geoff B (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 86.165.81.180 for edit warring on several articles. 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- He's back as 86.132.133.20, same editing habits, on Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy and Albert Wesker this time. Geoff B (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 86.132.133.20 24 hours, semiprotected Albert Wesker. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help so far guys. Do you have any suggestion for dealing with this problem if the issue continues? Perhaps a block-ip ban? -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 86.132.133.20 24 hours, semiprotected Albert Wesker. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- He's back as 86.132.133.20, same editing habits, on Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy and Albert Wesker this time. Geoff B (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked 86.165.81.180 for edit warring on several articles. 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please take a look at Hot Fuzz and The Thing (film) to see if semi-protection is necessary there. This user has been edit warring on those too. This my be coincidence or this user may be watching my contributions, as we have several articles in common. Geoff B (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Page semiprotected. See Talk:Resident Evil 5#Wesker's "death" for background on this long-running dispute, which has continued in spite of past admin actions. Please comment if you can think of anything better to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Page: JetAmerica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Jerrykme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [44]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [48]
The information being reverted to by Jerrykme on the JetAmerica page is outdated before the airline reorganized under its new name and identity. Sources have been provided for each change, including links to the company's own website reflecting the change. The airline's current reservation system remains outdated as several markets are listed that were dropped due to ending relationships with other company - sources also referenced on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venture79 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Result- Jerrykme has not edited since receiving a 3RR warning, and he is not over three reverts yet, at least on this one article. I've notified him of this complaint, and marked this report as 'Waiting for reply', in case Jerryme may want to respond. Even if it turns out that he is justified under WP:V, his repeated reverts at JetAmerica with no discussion or edit summary could be improved upon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)- Would it be permissible to correct the information again since I do have valid sources to back up the information (everything is getting documented in discussion as I go on the JetAmerica article)? I don't want this to be an edit/revert war, but the information there is inaccurate based on latest reports. Thanks for looking into this. Venture79 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be a genuine content dispute between the two of you, and it's not clear who is right. Since you filed a report at WP:AN3 you should wait till it's resolved before editing any contested items further. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be permissible to correct the information again since I do have valid sources to back up the information (everything is getting documented in discussion as I go on the JetAmerica article)? I don't want this to be an edit/revert war, but the information there is inaccurate based on latest reports. Thanks for looking into this. Venture79 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Since Jerrykme did not respond to the edit-warring concerns, but simply deleted Venture79's comment from the article Talk page, he is blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
79.122.9.209 reported by ChyranandChloe (Result: Withdrawn)
- Page: Health effects of tobacco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 79.122.70.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [49]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [54]
This is an anonymous user with a dynamic ip-address. A direct message on the user's talk page is difficult: I have placed a message on all known talks[55][56] which deferred the 3RR warning to the article's talk. A block may pose impractical because of the dynamic nature of this user's ip-address, semi-protect may be a necessary alternative. Full disclosure is on the article's talk page. The ip-address above is the most recent, the remaining are: 94.27.220.95 and 79.122.70.79. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Sorry, need to refresh on 3RR. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (Result: 24h)
- Page: Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Raymond Dundas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [57] May 21 17:48
- 1st revert: [58] May 22 20:32
- 2nd revert: [59] May 23 2:56
- 3rd revert: [60] May 23 18:06
- 4th revert: [61] May 23 18:07
- 5th revert: [62] May 24 2:20
- 6th revert: [63] May 24 2:21
- 7th revert: [64] May 24 19:02
- 8th revert: [65] May 24 19:03
- Diff of 3RR warning: [66]
User deleted 3rr warning then made more reverts. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring. It would be good to see more extensive use of the Talk page by all parties. Raymond Dundas, however, continues to revert out a connection between liberalism and science that appears to be supported by all the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Plains2007 reported by HLGallon (Result: 24h)
- Page: Battle of the Plains of Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Plains2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [67]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [72]
The paragraph in question is badly written and irrelevant to the main topic of the article. It contains a number of WP:SYN claims. The user has accused two editors who have provided good rationale for deleting the paragraph in edit summaries and on his/her talk page of Vandalism. HLGallon (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
92.11.154.60 reported by WebHamster (Result: semi)
- Page: Blur (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 92.11.154.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [link]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [77]
User under different IP addresses for at least a couple of weeks seems intent on changing the status quo of the article by changing the origin of the band from the explained London to Colchester. There has been no attempt to source this change or discuss it. As it's borderline and I'm already on the verge of 3RR myself I've brought it here. I haven't reverted the editor's last change. --WebHamster 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Semi protected for a month William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
130.13.170.197 reported by dave souza (Result: 24h)
- Page: Darwinius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: 130.13.170.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [78]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [83]
Having been rebuffed for trying to delete information and source links from ScienceBlogs (linked above as the previous version reverted to), what appears to be the same anon with a slightly different IP changed to adding a slightly derogatory description of the author, without sources and hence a violation of WP:BLP, and repeated this three times so far, the third time after being templated with a 3RR warning. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- 5th revert: [84]
Budelberger reported by Miacek (Result: blocked)
- Page: Livonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Budelberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [85] (note that he keeps changing the infobox mainly; other changes made in the meantime have remained)
A clear case of wanton 3 RR violation (we have a content dispute there with User:Ohpuu and me having a dispute with Budelberger). Also note two things:
- the user has a long history of making nasty personal assaults here in en.wiki: once calling me 'a savage', 'stupid', even a 'terrorist' referring to another user is edit summary: 'don't waste OUR time with your childish attitude'. This must stop
- Please note also Budelberger's long history of cross-wiki intimidation and what people concerned called trolling. This has led to him being permabanned from a number of wiki projects already. I've referred to his fr.wiki adventures here and hence shall not repeat this.
I suggest he be blocked for 3 RR violation, additionally be put on a parole and if it does not help in the future, sent to eternal holiday from our project, too.Miacek (t) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Page protected — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, this edit was technically not a revert. Therefore the 3RR has not been violated, as far as I can see. — Aitias // discussion 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you are indeed missing something. It is a very clear revert to this revision. Colchicum (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oh, yes, you're right. Thanks for the pointer. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried to explain above that this is partial revert so to say. The user concerned removed the User:Ohpuu's changes and reverted back to the statement that Livonian is extinct ('28 February 2009, when Viktor Berthold died.'). Also, I suggest the user's troublesome record be considered here, I don't think it's worth wasting our time to start a new thread somewhere else. Miacek (t) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you are indeed missing something. It is a very clear revert to this revision. Colchicum (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, this edit was technically not a revert. Therefore the 3RR has not been violated, as far as I can see. — Aitias // discussion 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Ward3001 reported by User:Garycompugeek (Result: Agreement)
- Page: Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Ward3001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: [91]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [95]
This editor refuses to accept a change in consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- He hasn't broken WP:3RR because he's only got three reverts. –xenotalk 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, however this user refuses to accept consensus in the face of overwhelming support against his position. I trust that he is currently being watched now and will hopefully correct his behavior. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've notified Ward3001 of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. I hope he will express his willingness to search for a compromise, and propose what the next step should be. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, however this user refuses to accept consensus in the face of overwhelming support against his position. I trust that he is currently being watched now and will hopefully correct his behavior. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If I edit warred, I think it's a safe bet that Garycompugeek did also. And Doc James has (as he has done in the past) misrepresented the situation simply because he can't convince everyone that he's an expert on a psychological test when he's a physician and not a psychologist. I do not represent the American Psychological Association here. I represent myself; I have profressional ethics that guide my opinions. Am I not supposed to have those Doc James? Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two editors here have both made three reverts in 24 hours, Ward3001 and Garycompugeek. (A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts). I think this case might be closed with no further action if both parties will agree not to revert the disputed item for one week unless a clear consensus is first obtained on the article Talk page. If only one party agrees, the other will be in a bad spot. If neither agrees, we should consider full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I had already resolved not to revert the article for at least a week; so I have no difficulty with that suggestion. As for my willingness to compromise, please see the lengthy details in the archives. The current dispute actually arises from an attempt to scrap a previous, hard-fought and difficult compromise. There has been much compromise by editors on various sides of this issue in the past. I recognize that anyone can challenge a previous consensus that brought peace to the article for almost a year, but please don't think that compromises have not occurred. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly consensus in this matter has changed regardless of Wards denial. I was supporting Xeno, an uninvolved admin, claim that consensus has changed. Many other editors and admin have valiantly tried to impress logic upon Ward but he refuses to see it. I have no qualms about and agree not to revert the article for at least a week. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Gary and I have a difference of opinion about whether consensus was achieved. But let me clarify a misconception he has created. Xeno was an uninvolved editor in the Rorschach debate. Xeno himself/herself acknowledges that he/she was not functioning as an admin on that page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Closed with no admin action, since the submitter and the other party have agreed not to revert the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Viriditas reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result: )
- Page: Talk:Human rights in the United States (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Human rights in the United States|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is an expecially egregious case of WP:3RR, because the reversions involves the deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors -- User:Mosedschurte, User:Biophys and User:Yachtsman1 -- in violation of WP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (bold emphasis in original Wikipedia guidelines).
- Previous User:Biophys Talk Page comments (later deleted): link; diff here
- Previous User:Yachtsman1 Talk Page comments (later deleted): link; diff here
- Previous User:Mosedschurte Talk Page comments (later deleted)link; diff
Straight reverts:
- 1st revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte)
- 2nd revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte)
- 3rd revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Yachtsman1)
- 4th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)
- 5th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)
- 6th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)
Complex reverts:
On a different ANI thread (see below), mention was made of User:Viriditas's repeated Talk Page deletions here.
- 1st Complex revert (move of Talk Page comments to take them out of Rfc comments): User:Viriditas then began to move same the talk page comments from their Rfc section, in edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=292288758&oldid=292288216 here.
- 2nd Complex revert (changed section title to take Talk page comments out of comments again): User:Viriditas then later changed of the comments section in which the talk page comments were located to effectively take them out of the normal comments section to "These comments need to be merged into the RFC so that they properly reflect the position of Yachtsman1 and Mosedchurte. The RFC is designed to solicit outside opinions. That is its purpose.": here
Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
- First, I warned User:Viriditas that "One more deletion of other editor's Talk page comments, and we're going STRAIGHT to ANI -- that's not how RFC's work"
- Then I warned him on his Talk page about Talk page deletions "RFC's are for all users, not just some users. Deleting other's Talk page comments is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy."
- Then I warned him yet again "If you continue this practice, you're going to ANI, and keep in mind that they take a very dim view of deletion of other's talk page comments (look through past ANI actions for an example). Such actions are not just gross violations of Wikipedia policy, but violations of the core of the project.
Finally, this 3RR warning: here. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)