[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr.K. (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 20 March 2009 (→‎Schwertleite reported by Dr.K. (Result: 24h): Thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    • 7th revert: [8]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)

    Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    —MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas reported by Dlabtot (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

    User:Viriditas is edit warring on this talk page, changing and removing my comments, violating WP:TALK as well as WP:3RR. In my zeal to restore my own comments, I may have violated or come close to violating 3RR as well, if so, I humbly apologize. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the page history, I haven't edited People's Park since 1 May 2008, and that was only to disambiguate a link.[18] On the other hand, the page history shows that you've been engaged in an edit war while tag teaming with User:Sierralaw, and User:Rkmlai against edits made by User:Apostle12. Most recently, you made a POV edit after starting an RFC. I arrived on the talk page on March 6 to try and mediate, only to be attacked by you and told that I have contempt for homeless people. Now, I discover you are pushing a minority POV in the article. Lastly, you started an RFC when you found that discussion between Apostle12 and Rkmlai was working towards resolving the impasse. Unfortunately, you didn't follow the conventions for article RFC's and you made comments about users instead of the topic. I removed them, you restored them, and then you tried moving the goalposts, claiming that I was invovled in the dispute (I'm not, I've only been mediating on the talk page). And that's where we stand. Article RFC's are not about users, and the RFC was changed to reflect the nature of the dispute, the words of which were written by you and you alone. I will admit, however, that my mediating style was overly aggressive, and had the effect of not one, but two elephants in a china shop, drunk on cheap wine. For that, I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the talk page history and the talk page version before you started reverting my talk page comments shows, my comment that you have deleted from the talk page was clearly presented as the comment of an involved editor and was never part of the RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but neither of those links show anything and I'm not involved in any dispute on this page. If you pay very close attention to the talk page, you will notice that I have criticized all parties involved from the very first edit I made as mediator. I'm surprised that you missed this fact. I would be happy to provide diffs if you need them. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I possibly nudge some admin to look at this? I would really like to restore my comments to this talk page but I don't want to do so if they are just going to be deleted again. I was advised elsewhere that this report would have been better made at WP:ANI, but it seems too late for that now. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would really appreciate some response from someone who is watching this noticeboard. It's been 10 days since I posted this notice. Perhaps dozens of reports have been responded to in that time. I don't understand why this report has been ignored. Tell me I'm wrong to post it, and why, or tell me to post it somewhere eles, or tell me whatever you want - just please don't pretend that this report doesn't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mrnhghts reported by happy138 (Result: Page protected for a week)

    • Previous version reverted to: [19]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Happy138 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-11T17:09:42 SoWhy (talk | contribs | block) m (3,698 bytes) (Protected Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]


    Dream Focus reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • Diff of 3RR warning: link (left by User:Sloane, third editor to remove the tag).

    DreamFocus has now reverted three different editors over the removal of the rescue tag from an unsalvagable article. He first tried to claim it doesn't apply unless he's reverting the same person[26] then falsely calls the removals vandalism[27] even though he is fully aware that 3RR does not work that way and that removing the rescue tag is not vandalism.[28] He is also beginning to edit war on Misa Kobayashi, removing a CSD tag despite his not being an administrator and it being obvious the CSD tag was applied in good faith and appropriately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't edit waring. The tag says anyone who disagrees with the speedy delete, should remove it. Another editor reverted you and agreed with me on that point. A voice actor working on three notable projects is just as notable as a regular actor on a non-animated film. Dream Focus 02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A rescue tag should remain in place until the afd is over. Removing it serves no purpose at all. It doesn't affect afd outcome and will not save the article from deletion if that is the outcome. The tag merely serves as a flag to guide the 'rescuers' who may be able to improve the article to a point were it may survive deletion. --neon white talk 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Completely concur. Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the {{rescue}} tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep articl;es on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. The template is for articles that have some potential to be referenced and rewritten, and editors can believe in good faith that that isn't possible. WP:ARS's work is good but it's not sacred. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe I suggested that ARS' work is sacred, in any case the underlying principle is the same as AFD. That one person doesn't decide if an article is kept or rescuable or not. It is a discussion. If an article will be deleted anyway who cares if the rescue tag is on it when it goes down? Ergo removing a please fix this article if you can tag seem rather pointy and possibly hostile. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or it could easily be a good-faith belief by an expert that the subject cannot be improved in this manner. {{afd}} has the support of years of consensus that removing it is disruptive because it delinks a conversation; no such custom protects (or should protect) {{rescue}}. "Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive" is a false statement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not really relevant that one editor may not think the subject can be improved, if another editor wants to try and asks for help with it, then that's good practice and is an attempt to improve wikipedia which is the goal of every editor. It should be encouraged. I can see no good reason to remove, it serves no purpose or benefit other than to deliberately hinder attempts to improve the project. That is disruptive and above all quite petty. --neon white talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed. Editors don't think it should be deleted, so should they remove the AfD template? Rescue templates should not be removed until the AfD is closed for the same reason. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tags are text. Reverting them is not vandalism per se. Whether they belong or not is up to the editors of the article. There is no 3RR exemption for restoring tags, no matter how passionately you may believe they belong. The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. is untrue. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there. would be nice, but failure to do it does not justify breaking 3RR, which is absolute. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That one editor feels an article might be salvagable and so tags it is a Good Faith effort to improve the project, whether the article is saved or not. This does not allow that another may remove it out-of-hand, no nore than it does removing an AfD tag. Removing such tags, whether as a refusal to accept the good faith of the tagger, or in disbelief in the article's slavagability, might reasonably be seen as (unintentional) "good faith" vandalism. Point: Have articles been tagged that did not survive an AfD? Yes. This does not minimalize the good faith of the tagger. Are atempts made to salvage tagged articles? Usually. Were some tagged articles actually saved from deletion? Quite definitely. Does removing that tag, that itself had been placed in a good faith effort to improve the project, work to disrupt the process of improving wiki? Yes. Properly replacing a removed tag acts to improve wikipedia, and should not be considered as a violation of WP:3RR for if the removal of the tag can be seen as vandalism, whether intentional or not, the replacing of the removed tag does not fall under 3RR as its removal was not condoned by policy nor guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Equating removal of an AfD tag and the removal of a rescue tag makes little sense. The removal of the AfD tag needs to be reverted because the process that it is part of will go on even if the tag is missing. Any editor can in principle do an out of process closure of an AfD process, although in general one should be careful about doing this.
    When speaking about vandalism on wikipedia you are making the definite statement that it is intentional. See WP:V. If the person performing the so call vandalism believes that what he is doing is for the good of wikipedia then it is not Vandalism. Taemyr (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.118.72.18 reported by User:Boston (Result: Result: 1 week semi, 1 sock blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    Essentially, there is a traditional view that Asian rice was introduced to the Americas by colonial Spain and Portugal. But more recent scholarship indicated that Africans may have introduced African rice first, shortly after, and/or as importantly. You can see discussion of this revisionism here and here. I am trying to express both trends in scholarship in the article per this edit but user prefers this edit. NB -Explaining both views is very important because the scholarship of the African rice deals only with its introduction to the Southern United States while the article is mostly about Latin America and the Carribean. In giving 3RR warning I assured the editor that the scholarship he/she wishes to highlight will be included. The intent seems to be to exclude the bulk of scholarship in favor of the newer scholarship which might not even be applicable to Latin America and the Carribean. The newer scholarship doesn't seem to dispute the old as much as it adds to it. Rather than allow these two (possibly complementary, possibly conflicting) understandings to be referenced user has chosen to template me for vandalism. I want to discuss both rices further but don't want to edit war. Even unrelated edits (i.e. additions to the "see also" section) are being undone by this editor's revisions.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [34] (by me) and [35] (by another editor)


    Seems to have gone away. Let me know if the trouble recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry

    This is easier to read with bullet points:

    As seen here, User:jheiv has likewise been trying to restore the cited material but is opposed by User:Nillarse. Thanks - --Boston (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    N blocked as a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.67.115.63 reported by Logos5557 (Result: 12h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    User 70.67.115.63 insists on that the word "band" should be replaced with the original/actual word "density". He thinks that band was not used a single time in any of the books, so is completely unsuitable to be used in the article, because "uninitiated" can't grasp the concept with "band" he claims. Discussion is here [50].

    Since there seems no possible resolution, an administrator's intervention seems necessary. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimension is a more suitable word and has more precedent, both in the material and in commentary on the material on the internet. For instance a message board [51] that discusses the material commonly replaces the potentially confusing word "density" with "dimension." However under no circumstances do they use the meaningless and non-understandable word "band". Logos5557 has decided that his word "band" is superior and cut off discussion, reverting the word "dimension" over and over. At one point, Logos invited me to replace the word band, and when I did, he reverted the changes. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to present a distorted version of what happened.. First of all, user 70.67.115.63 did not discuss the density vs. band issue under the heading I opened in article talk page [52]. Instead he tried to "settle" the issue in my talk page [53], of course in an uncivil way. Neither density nor dimension is suitable for the concept that the word band imply in the lead. Dimension is not as broad as band. A "band" of spectrum can contain many "dimensions". Message boards mean nothing in this discussion and can not serve as any kind of source for wikipedia. It was not me cutting off the discussion. As it is clear from talk page, it was 70.67.115.63 who relieved himself from any more discussion and went back to his revertion game. Logos5557 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Band, density, dimension, who cares, this is all psuedoscience babble. Since the article uses the word "purported" a lot I guess it avoids AFD; but you certainly don't get any 3RR excemption for your reverts, so you can split the 24h between you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [54]



    Ratel has been waging a low level edit war over the past several days. He has repeatedly removed sourced material without so much as even a brief note on the talk page. CENSEI (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editor CENSEI, current under investigation for sockpuppetry, is trying to insert allegations of THEFT against The Huffington Post using a crummy blog entry, which contains the word "dumbass", written by some unknown hack journalist. [60] WP states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I am enforcing that at The Huffington Post page. CENSEI should be blocked for repeatedly trying to insert blog-based actionable material, which, even if true, probably refers to an editorial error that looks to have been immediately corrected and is thus completely non-notable. ► RATEL ◄ 01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The blogs are published by newspapers, considered RS's last I checked, and Wired has pucked up on the allegations. Regardless, Ratel is edit warring over the material and only decided to use the talk page after I filed this. CENSEI (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs are only RS if the person writing it is an expert in his field. The character who wrote the one you cite is a bozo who litters his speech with curses and IM acronyms. Ugh! What's next, using graffiti at your local train station as RS? ► RATEL ◄ 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like minor edit warring by both of you. No strict 3RR vio, talk amongst yourselves or go for WP:DR and avoid incivil edit comments (R in particular) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TharsHammar (talk) (Result: both sides warned for edit warring)

    Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Original 03:41, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Article criticizing Wikipedia */ Add liberal Huffington Post defending Klein, +ref saying As is standard journalistic practice, Klein "tested" the story by having his own researcher attempt to make")

    Revert #1 03:54, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Interviews with terrorists */ +ref "his journalistic methodology is scrupulously sound" because the "questionable sourcing" and part of a "smear campaign" quote by itself is POV without balance")

    Revert #2 03:58, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277564374 by TharsHammar (talk) - rv - use Talk to delete what you obviously oppose")

    Revert #3 03:59, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277565388 by AniMate (talk) - rv - please use Talk to delete this as the article appears POV without it")

    Revert #4 02:36, 17 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv TharHammar, not for vandalism reasons, it's just that he has misread the Talk page and hisory comments")

    • Diff of warning: here

    Editor continues to reject consensus on talk page, and revert the article against multiple other editors. Note 2 and 3 could be combined, but it is shown to demonstrate user is reverting against multiple editors, and even with combining those edits LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has violated the spirit and the rules of 3RR and continues to engage in edit warring against consensus.

    —TharsHammar (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified of this complaint, [61] and has so far chosen to not refute the allegations. Please note that many intervening edits and reverts were not highlighted in the report, only those reverts related to one subject manner, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has reverted other information in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No refutation is necessary. A look at my edit history reveals I either did or I did not violate 3RR. I did not, and your claim that I did does not make it true. I think you do not understand 3RR since some links you use for support include additions, not reverts, among other things, like your previous false 3RR claim. I know you are a well-meaning person but I hope someone explains 3RR to you. I would but I know you would not listen at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I violated 3RR once before when I did not know any better due to inexperience. But I have that experience now, and I edit in a whole different style/manner, so 3RR violations will no longer happen to me, and I regularly build consensus even with those with whom I have initially disagreed, and vice versa. AniMate is just the latest example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 1 other editor propose a compromise that was rejected by all other editors is not "building consensus". You violated 3RR after repeated warnings. I played nice last time on 3/11 and just left a reminder on your talk page instead of filing a formal complaint. Others have warned you not to violate 3RR since then and you have still ignored them. Now that this has become a pattern of yours I had to file this complaint so administrative action could be taken. TharsHammar (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If editor promises not to edit war, there is no point in a block because the point is to avoid disruption, not to punish. However, the editor seems to be on a weird agenda-driven mission on Wikipedia to discredit Wikipedia as a cabal of liberals so I am not sure what good may come of this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see 3R from both sides; would you both like to be blocked? No? Then behave William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sloane reported by User:A Nobody (Result: no vio)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user in question has removed warnings and efforts to discuss the reverts with somewhat incivil edit summaries: [62], [63]
    • Editor in question is sufficiently familiar with revert warring as seen here. Given that Dream Focus was ultimately blocked for 24 hours for attempting to restore a template Sloane wanted removed, it seems in the interest of fairness that it should similarly not be okay for Sloane to keep restoring a template removed by multiple editors either, no? Moreover, I am in a larger sense concerned that the editor in question seems to be here to fight a "war." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, my first edit was the insertion of a speedy deletion tag, not a revert. So there has been no technical breaking of the 3rr. Secondly, I was reverting the removal of the speedy deletion tag by the creator of the article (User:Ks64q2-[64],[65],[66]), which the speedy deletion tag clearly states as not acceptable and I think can be considered a form of vandalism (although the creator doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith, which is why I didn't report him here or elsewhere). The creator has now agreed to just let an admin take a look at the article and decide whether it should be speedy deleted. I have also gladly engaged the other user, as can be seen here (archiving my own talk page is hardly a crime). Finally, I think User:A Nobody is only reporting me here, because he has taken offence to the drama listed higher regarding the "rescue" template, which is why he his dragging all kinds of crazy stuff in his 3rr report.--Sloane (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am taking offense to hypocritical behavior. If it is wrong for someone to keep adding a rescue template when multiple editors have removed it, then it is surely wrong for someone else to keep adding a SD template when multiple editors have removed it as well and when an AFD is ongoing anyway. Why not just let the AfD play out? And yes, seeing the post about approaching deletion as if it is a war is an uncompromising and uncollegial attitude to take regarding deletion here. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:A Nobody seems to be admitting he's only reporting me to make a WP:POINT.--Sloane (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I am reporting you, because you are edit warring, engaging in hypocrisy with regards to edit warring, and apparently think you are here to fight a war. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia in cooperation with our colleagues. Saying you are fighting a war on cruft is disrupting Wikipedia to porve a WP:POINT. Please do not edit war or treat wikipedia as a battleground. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:A Nobody also seems to be suffering from a serious case of humourlessness (now where's the noticeboard for that?)--Sloane (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I do have a sense of humor here, on occasion, but I don't find insulting the good faith work of our contributors funny, because Wikipedia:Editors matter. AfD should be for serious discussion in which actual policy and guideline based rationales are presented, not non-policy based comments that lack encyclopedic seriouness or that might turn off our colleagues. People can and should argue to delete in much better ways than saying to delete as part of some kind of war on cruft. See my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, for example. I cite a policy and also looked for sources to make sure that it did not meet that policy. But again, my concern here is the edit war over the speedy delete template. And again, why not let the deletion discussion play out? Now that multiple editors have argued to keep in the AfD, tossing a speedy delete tag on seems out of place. Should the article creator remove it, perhaps not, but let someone else revert him rather than be the one to add it four times now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Articles up for AfD regularly get tagged with speedy deletion and sometimes in fact get speedy deleted while the AfD discussion is ongoing. I have no problem with any user or admin disagreeing with me and removing the speedy deletion tag. But creators of articles should refrain from removing it. From WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your best bet is still to not go back and forth with the editor in question and anyway, Benjiboi has also removed the speedy delete template. Hoaxes, libel, and copy vios do, rightfully so, occasionally get speedily deleted during AfDs and I would not contest that. A couple articles I nominated for deletion wound up speedily deleted and neither I nor anyone else took issue, but here we have multiple editors in the AfD arguing to keep. Thus, perhaps consensus from the previous discussion has changed and as such, just let the discussion play out. It's best to avoid going back and forth with others. If you are correct than multiple editors will revert. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no 3RR violation; Sloane never made his fourth revert. As all parties are now at the AfD, I don't see any point in this report, aside for POINT purposes, but that's a discussion for another time. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Review request, because there has a clear violation of 3RR rule in this report Sloane's first edit is a "revert" given this edit made by 9Nak two days ago; tagging exactly the same template that Sloane used. He reported Dream Focus for the same matter and made him blocked, so the same treatment would meet the sprite of "fairness".--Caspian blue 06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just silly. Just because an article was tagged for deletion once, doesn't mean tagging it again constitutes a revert. Also, the comparison with Dream Focus doesn't fly, as I was basically removing a form of vandalism (creator of an article removing a speedy deletion tag), whilst Dream Focus was edit warring over a clean-up tag.--Sloane (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeatedly inserting the tag and making a pointless edit war are "silly". The legitimacy of the article has been disputed on the discussion of the AfD, so I don't see any justification of your 3RR violation. You did not revert vadalism at all.--Caspian blue 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll repeat WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • may not Good. Even the guideline does not say that removing the tag by the creator of a page is "vandalism". So applying the same rule is "fair".--Caspian blue 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • P.S. you made one more revert to the article; 5th revert whilst you're being reported here.--Caspian blue 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I made two ordinary edits. Go ahead and revert them if you disagree. And stop harassing me.[67].--Sloane (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What an outrageous accusation you make. I'm relying on the same rule that you used, so abiding by the same "justice" makes your logic to the blocking Dream Focus meaningful. Your bogus link shows "the history of The Motley Moose". Such false accusation constitutes " harassment and personal attack. You should stop the disruption. The ordinary edits are reverts, and you'd better read the 3RR policy again.--Caspian blue 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation I reviewed the report and I agree that there was no violation of 3RR. The 5th revert was not a revert but an ordinary edit and WP:AGF compels me to assume that Sloane did not want to break 3RR by readding the db-tag removed by the IP (because I will assume that he did not notice it). He stopped now and as such a block would be punitive in any way, contrary to WP:BLOCK's spirit of blocks as a preventive measure. I urge all parties involved to calm down and leave this page now, it's really not needed that you continue the discussion here. SoWhy 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    68.39.191.43 reported by Beve (Result: 1 week semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [68]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]


    Beve (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this, NovaGrad70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to be identical to the anonymous user that was reported. I see a self revert about one minute apart, and both users seem to claim to be reverting "malicious" changes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems easiest to semi-protect it for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evenmoremotor reported by Anonymous user (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [79]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    • Comment. I've never posted on WP:3RR before so apologies if I've missed something important. Basically, I'm here because User:Evenmoremotor has reverted my edit to List of Jewish American mobsters several times without giving any reason why. I originally edited the page because it had a {{nofootnotes}} template and I spent awhile converting the references to in-text citations. I not only converted the existing references but I added three additional sources. I've done this to a few other pages but this is the first time I've ever had an issue with another editor. One of the links had been reverted by a Bot but I thought it was a useful external link so I added it back. Maybe this is the issue, and I don't nessessarily have an problem with with that, but I don't really understand why Evenmoremotor feels he needs to remove the in-text citations. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also reverted my edits to Ike Bloom and Johnny Spanish so I've stopped editing until this can be resolved. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EMM seems to have got carried away by an excess of zeal. But you have been edit warring too. So 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wasn't edit warring. At first I didn't understand his edits and when I reverted back to my version I carefully explained my reasoning. He wasn't so considerate in his edit summeries ("not needed" / "Undid sockpupet 71.184.49.28 / 72.74.209.246"). When he continued to revert my edits, I stopped editing altogether and brought the issue here. Another editor interveaned prior to this and was more than happy to discuss it with Evenmoremotor. I waited almost a day for him to respond and when he didn't I assumed he didn't have a problem. I think it's unfair to block me when I've gone out of my way to settle this and not be disruptive. 72.74.198.46 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.24.233.37 reported by Scjessey (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [89]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

    There are actually more of these in the last 24 hours, but I figured 6 would be more than sufficient. Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.154.12.116 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [97]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

    This user has gone on to argue with at least five editors who have reverted his removal and changing of content both on their talk pages and on the talk page for the article making claims of obstructionism. He's edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    63.3.1.2 reported by Aktsu (Result: Already blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: [103]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [108]

    --aktsu (t / c) 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: blocked 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [109]



    User:Vexorg was blocked for 3RR violation on this page just two days ago, after defiantly refusing to revert himself following his fourth revert inserting disputed material. He asked to be unblocked, stating OK, I will not breach 3RR and refer back to the talk page of that article Since his return, he has continued to try to edit-war in the disputed material. On the Talk: page he continually claims there is "no consensus" to remove the material, and on the Talk: page and in edit summaries that "NO rationale for removal has been given for this properly sourced relevent section". This is despite the fact that copious, policy based-rationales have been provided for its removal. In the past two days his insertion has been reverted by four separate editors, all of whom have explained at length why the material is not appropriate. Despite this, his edit summaries indicate he fully intends to continue edit-warring this material into the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalej78 reported by Grsz11 (Result: 24h block)


    • Previous version reverted to: [113]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [118]

    Edit warring a sourced statement off the page. Also note article subject to terms addressed by article probation. Grsz11 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked The first revert is the same as the "version reverted to" so this is, being pedantic, 1 edit and 3 reverts and thus not a strict violation of the three-revert-rule. However, because the article is on probation and Dalej78 has been previously notified of this, I am blocking him for 24 hours for disruptive edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MrSpammy reported by Grsz11 (Result: blocked 72 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [119]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [124]

    Also see terms of article probation. Grsz11 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Foam takeout container (result: 24h all round)

    4RR at Foam takeout container:

    Badagnani (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for both of you. Gosh, this just has to be the most boring thing to edit war over. What on earth convinced you that it was vital, today, now, with no delay, to re-insert "Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarely recycled."? Couldn't it have waited until tomorrow? Or at least until you could discuss it on talk? Still, at least I get a blog posting out of this mess: [129] if you're interested William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this be on WP:LAME? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    98.19.46.251 reported by JJB (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [130]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

    New IP user keeps inserting same Bible verses and interps, does not get the point of WP yet. Refused dialogue attempts. Will a 3RR block get this person talking? Technically this is ~40 hours (was trying to avoid 3RR myself, though I had help from User:Nubiatech and User:Boston); but I trust the pattern is obvious. JJB 07:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamiemichelle and 74.4.222.208 reported by Headbomb (Result: block+semi)

    • Previous version reverted to: [link]

    Check the article history, the case is too complex to be summed up.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Numerous places on Talk:Frank J. Tipler.


    I acknowledge I am myself 3RRing, but reading the comments will show that while the letter of 3RR is indeed violated, the spirit is not.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a look at this now? We're at 45RR and going strong.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamiemichelle was blocked by William M. Connolley for 24 hours. Ruslik (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:Peripitus semi'd the page. HB probably gets a mild rebuke for breaking 3RR, or maybe not, I can't be bothered to work it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I read on Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Request for third opinion I extended the block to one week (personal attacks). Ruslik (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BigbossSNK reported by Herr_Gruber (Result: 24 hour 2x )


    • Previous version reverted to: [136]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [141]

    Previous report for the same thing on the same page: [142] Herr Gruber (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ks64q2 reported by User:9Nak (Result: 1 block, 1 direction to continue disengagement)


    • Previous version reverted to: [143]


    There is lots (and lots) of acrimonious history here across multiple forums and pages, but seven (and counting) reverts in less than 24 hours does rather take the cake, I think. 9Nak (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No problem. This was a completely new edit, and I would be happy for any admins to review that. Furthermore, I put details on the talk pages, and messaged the editors who made changes to especially ensure it fit the intent of their edits in. Please feel free to check that. I'm afraid this is all smoke and mirrors trying to take attention away from the behavior of some of these users in the AfD of this article. Please feel free to review my Wikipedia editing history in it's entireity, I'm certain you will see there is no problem here. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure -- I'm deeply involved on this from the other side of Ks6 and when i saw this report i checked my own self out. There's a good chance that I'm over the line (though there may be an argument for leniency that i was involved in reverting BLP issues). At any rate, for the moment have disengaged over there and am alowing Ks6 to own the article and add unsourced/poorly sourced information about living people as he sees fit.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ks65q2 blocked for 12 hours - Bali ultimate told to stay away from article for duration of block, since user already disengaged. Remember, WP:3RR does not require that the version reverted to be exactly the same every time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendrick7 reported by Tony1 (Result: prot)

    • Previous version reverted to: [151]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [156]
    • There have been attempts by three regulars to protect long-standing wording during this 24-hour period, using conciliatory edit summaries. The matter, inter alia, is the subject of an RfC for which the proposal wording has apparently been agreed to by all (Questions 1 and 2).
    • This comes straight after a strong warning by an admin for abusing User:HWV258 on the talk page of the guideline ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") and referring to the edits of two other users as "nonsense" in edit summaries.
    • This exasperated comment by the experienced and typically cautious Kotniski, a regular at the guideline page, sums up Kendrick7's behaviour.
    • I appreciate that Kendrick7 has clearly worked him/herself up into a state of anger; I think I speak for all regulars at the page in saying that we are concerned on a personal level. However, his/her behaviour is becoming uncontrollable. Tony (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is precisely the sort of personal attacks ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") that causes many editors to just throw up their hands and say that contributing to Wikipedia just isn’t worth the pain. No editor should be able to make deeply cutting insults on the intelligence of another as a tactic to beat them down. A strong warning is, IMO, insufficient. Kendrick has clearly gotten spun up too far with his editwarring and personal attacks; an imposed cooling off period is in order. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-18T14:44:53 CIreland (talk | contribs | block) m (29,040 bytes) (Protected Wikipedia:Linking: Edit warring / Content dispute: Protected until end of ArbCom case on Date delinking. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Another mistaken prot (IMHO) but it's done William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mydarkglobe reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: peace?)


    • Previous version reverted to: [157]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [162]


    Seems to be a single purpose account too, as well as a conflict of interest, as evident here [163]. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No reverts since warning. Let me know if it recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: prot)

    • Previous version reverted to: [164]



    not inaccurate, kid Jeremie Belpois (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-18T20:03:23 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs | block) m (22,398 bytes) (Protected Code Lyoko: Edit warring / Content dispute: indefinite protection until the dispute is resolved, PLEASE use the discussion page, it's there for a reason ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Personally I prefer blocking people to prot, but others disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjecina reported by Bizso (Result: 24h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [169]



    • Comment: User edited page and I added extra information precisely sourced from Britannica, and corrected text according to sources already cited by user (Bellamy p 39.). I kept his initial edit. User then reverted my edits 5 times.--Bizso (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow moving edit war at Anderson, Indiana (result: semi)

    75.50.45.104 (talk · contribs) 71.98.106.197 (talk · contribs)

    Two IPs, who I suspect are each from two competing news sources, have been engaged in a slow moving edit war for the last week on the article Anderson, Indiana. One IP will remove a link to the Herald Times, [175], and replace it with a link to the so called Anderson Free Press, [176]. Anderson free press appears to be a managed and hosted by a single person, likely the person who keeps inserting it, and I think it may qualify as link spam. I would like an admin to semi-protect the page please. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for a week or two to see if they get bored. Rv to you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Charles Edward (Talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rouge Penguin reported by Jeremie Belpois Result:

    no 3rr or anything yet, but he is clearly starting one on Odd Della Robbia and Aelita Hopper. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Following the Code Lyoko article getting protected, this is just ridiculous. Jeremie already fought tooth and nail to try to revive these articles once before and failed. He was told in no uncertain terms to discuss instead of recreating them elsewhere. 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    you're starting this, penguin. you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is ridiculous behavior on both sides. It's simply not worth fighting over. The article does seem to have changed some. Why not just let it be recreated and nominate it for AfD again. Then see what the consensus of the community is - that will get a definitive answer without the "he said she said". If enough people think it has not changed significantly from the last AfD it can be snowballed into a speedy. All these accusations and reversions are not addressing the supposed issue about the merits of the article. Mfield (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your advice. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thewanderer reported by PRODUCER (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [177]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [181]

    Don't be so hasty with the warnings. In four years I have never broken 3RR, and I certainly wouldn't simply to teach someone such as yourself a lesson. If you'd like to involve administrators, I think that would be more than welcome. My viewpoint in this mini-edit war - that ethnic group infoboxes should not contain census data nearly three decades old from a country that no longer exists and whose successor nations are already represented in the infobox - will surely be supported by admins, and other sensible users. You are clearly attempting to inflate the number of declared Yugoslavs by citing duplicated statistics (Yugoslavia in 1981 + Croatia, Serbia, etc. in 1990s and 2000s).--Thewanderer (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite your clean slate you've clearly breached 3rr. There is no rule explicitly stating that infoboxes must be current. Even if they must, this ethnic group can clearly be a special exception because of its type. By not adding the amount of Yugoslavs declared at the time Yugoslavia existed, the article loses a very historically crucial point. Anyone with half a brain can put two and two together and realize why its there. As for the accusation for inflation, I'm not trying to fool anyone, the years are clearly given. Ive never touched the total population figure. PRODUCER (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you thought I actually breached 3RR? 3RR states you cannot perform more than three reverts in a 24-hour period (even I know that, and I think two and two is seven, apparently). Anyways, every ethnic group has historically relevant population figures, and populations are always changing. The infobox is clearly present to provide current data, as up to date as possible. I think pre-Holocaust Jewish populations, pre-expulsion German populations in Eastern Europe, etc. are important. But that doesn't mean we report these figures in the related infoboxes. The point is, these reported "Yugoslavs" in '81 (who atill lived in a country called Yugoslavia) no longer report themselves as such. It's an interesting historical piece of information, but not a relevant modern statistic to be included with (and confused for) modern census data.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are both warned re edit warring. Any further reverts without using the talk page will get you a block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ashley kennedy3 reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: These are complex reverts, a diff will be provided for each


    • 1st revert: [182] - restores "the intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom", reverting back to this version, and undoing my own edits here
    • 2nd revert: [183] restores "with reservations as Golda Meir expressed it when meeting the press at just after the announcement of the UN Partition plan vote; "We have no alternative." - reverting back to this version and undoing edit by Canadian Monkey
    • 3rd revert: [184] restores "occupied" and "earmarked", reverts this edit by GHcool
    • 4th revert: [185] same as 3rd revert, labeled as a revert in the edit summary


    • Diff of 3RR warning: has been warned about and blocked for 3RR numerous times

    I reverted separate parts to reflect the wording of the separate references quoted on the separated content disputes involved...PS no warning has been given on any of the separate individual issues....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll leave the 3RR details to administrative oversight. But it should be remarked that NoCal100 (a wikistalker and POV warrior), seems to exercise an avocational passion for going after AK, as his record shows. He is going for his scalp, one more time.
    (1)Any checking of what AK was doing will show that, in a 3 to 1 editing context, AK was correcting bad edits . NoCal's bad edit, eliding the mention of Judah Magnes as opposed to partition, says the source refers to Biltwater, not to 1947. Well, he is not familiar, as is AK, with sources. It is well known Judah Magnes was consistently opposed to any partition plan, from 1937 to 1947. Had NoCal100 been interested in the article rather than in creating problems for AK, he would have either put a courtesy [citation needed] note on Ashley's edit, or checked for himself, and he would have found that historically AK's remark was spot-on (William M. Brinner, Moses Rischin, Like All the Nations? The Life and Legacy of Judah L. Magnes, SUNY Press, 1987 p.36). What NoCal100's edit does is fudge up the impression Jewish opposition to Partition was from commies and fringe lunatics by cancelling AK's legitimate point that there was serious opposition by mainstream Zionist figures like Judah Magnes.
    (2)AK's edit on the Benny Morris quotation, replacing GHCool's (a precise editor normally), is word-perfect with Morris's text, which is the source for the passage (‘the previous Jewish occupation of Arab-earmarked territory’. Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 p.149)' One should add that GHcool's elision of words taken directly, verbatim, from the sourced page dismisses them in his edit-summary as 'removing POV'. Since when is editing strictly to source (and one of high historical quality) a matter of inserting a POV? This cannot be counted.
    (3)I cannot analyse the Gold Meir piece because I am unfamiliar with it.
    NoCal is counting as reverts edits of one editor against three others. AK's edits correct wrongly removed information, or restore the precise wording of the source. This is editorial responsibility to the texts and history, not reverts, though in NoCal100's world, it would appear, any challenge to what he alone apparently thinks of as a truth-team tag effort, is mustered as a 3RR violation. This is a disgraceful piece of gamnesmanship again, a farce. Since when is editing to sources against poor users of sources reverting? Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For just how poorly informed NoCal100 is about the history of the events described on the page he is editing, predominantly against AK, see the exchanges at the end of this section Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AK is banned from the article for 24h, and until he learns how to use the "preview" button William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    user_talk:96.224.128.15 (result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [186]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [192]

    Has been warned several times about it and has ignored warns.  rdunnPLIB  10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Laveol reported by MatriX (Result: 1RR imposed)


    • Previous version reverted to: [193]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [197]


    I decided to report user Laveol because, although he didn't violated 3RR to the end, he blatantly and repeatedly removed sourced material from the Miladinov Brothers article. I warned him about this disruptive behavior, but it seems it wasn't useful as he continued to remove referenced material from the page. I tried to restore my edits twice: [198], [199], politely asking him to stop removing sourced material from the article. Please note I didn't removed other sourced info from the page, I only added more info into the page and properly referenced it. MatriX (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions applies. You're both now on WP:1RR parole on that article. You'll need to find some way to talk this through William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dfrench reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [200]



    Two 3RR warnings issued within the last 24 hours - 6 reverts made. Not relevant to the 3RR report, but this is an article started by the above user, while using a sock IP, the article is about the user and is highly self-promotional, relies on self-published sources, lacks 3rd party sources and is non-notable.

    I have stepped away from the article after being warned by an admin that edit-warring is not the way to procede, however the above editor is continuing to revert. I do not wish to enter into an edit war, and have no desire to edit this article while another editor is edit warring.

    カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! was warned by the admin not to proceed with his editing, the content was restored to it's original form and no further edits have been made by me. Dfrench (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    To be accurate, after you were given your second warning for 3RR in aprox 24 hours, you made your sixth revert within a 24 hour period.
    I wasn't given a 3RR warning, I was given the following message Hello Sennen. I think you want an AfD rather than a speedy, if you believe the article should be deleted. Please don't tempt fate by getting into an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    When you got the second 3RR warning you were lucky it wasn't a block for breaking 3RR, to follow that second warning with yet another revert seems to be close to an open request to be blocked. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, my comment to Sennen was *intended* to be a 3RR warning. Do you prefer {{uw-3rr}}? I don't see that either party has committed a technical 3RR. One way to resolve the issue would be to see if Dfrench settles down after the current AfD is over. If the 3RR closer agrees with that idea, then a verdict of 'No action' might be appropriate. Note that a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Dana L. French is continuing. That is a forum in which any further problems can be reported. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on some points and disagree on others, I do see Dana French's actions as a breach of 3RR - however if the article in question is dealt with in a pretty clear manner, that would hopefully put an end to the reverts. And to answer your question, no I would much rather have friendly advice than some nasty template, templates are for those who are unaware of the rules. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned D. If he reverts again, a block is clearly in order. The COI is so obvious that he cannot revert that article anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Nouse4aname reported by Zaps93 (result: use the form)

    Keeps reverting edits on bmibaby for his own liking. Discussion was held on bmibaby and came to an agreement, see: Talk:bmibaby. But yet Nouse4aname keeps reverting thinking he is best. Also note the he has already been blocked 2 times because of edit wars. Thanks Zaps93 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't be bothered to report this properly, despite the clear instructions at the top. So I can't be bothered to investigate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grrace reported by Dana boomer (result: 24hr)

    • Previous version reverted to: here



    • Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Grrace (initial welcome, specific comment, warning of this report)


    Continues to change sourced information in Mustang (horse). I have reverted twice, (see links above), both times with edit summaries asking them to take it to the talk page. I also posted polite warnings on their talk page and started a discussion section on the article talk page. The user is adding blatantly incorrect information to the article, and changing information that is sourced to reliable sources. I cannot revert again without violating 3RR, and the user has not technically reverted me 3 times. However, the editor is continuing to add their POV without sources and without discussion on any talk pages. I have never used this page before, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong! Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha ha, that's better, 24h anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, I keep messing things up. Sorry :( Thanks for the quick response, anyways. Dana boomer (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and a question: Am I allowed to revert the article again without breaking 3RR? Or could you? Thank you so much! Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nouse4aname reported by Zaps93 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [209]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Errrm... you are reporting yourself? Or why are your diffs to reverts by you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Im confused, new at this thing? I read guides but now I'm lost. Zaps93 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are supposed to be demonstrating that your "opponent" is reverting. That means you need diffs showing *them* doing a revert, not you. Unless you'd like to be blocked, but there are simpler ways to achieve that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ginger.iphone reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [214]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [219]

    Note that I understand the 3RR warning was for another article however the user was properly warned and understands what the 3RR is even going so far as to remove my warning. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry chaps but this kind of gratuitous edit warring without any pretence at trying to reach a reasonable conclusion on the talk page merits a block for you both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ks64q2 reported by Sloane (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: /

    Reverts are a little more complex:

    Ah, I'd like leniency but if did step over the line, I'll take my medicine (I can't honestly tell what's a revert anymore with this fellow Ks6 -- another editor removes an anonymous blog post he inserts, i happen along later, i remove the same anonymous blog post, but am not aware that it's a "revert"). Won't like it, but understand why that redline rule is in place and the general communal good it does. As a favor to me and if its important to Caspian, i ask that he goes through the trouble of providing the diffs in a separate report (like this one). Once again, I've stopped engaging the article completely, as that's the only way to avoid edit wars with Ks6. The field is all his, caspian.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the recent ugliness on AN/ANI/WQA/RFA, the reason that reporter only reports the Ks6 looks obvious. If the reverts are based on consensus, I don't quite get the fact that Sloane let the edit war happen between the two. Also Bali has several experience of filing to here[234], he knows 3RR clearly. There is no excuse for 3RR violation except vandalism. Well, any reviewing admin would be looking through your reverts as well since I mentioned it. I'm not agreeing with K at all but the user needs to learn a lot of policies in civility. --Caspian blue 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that Bali violated 3RR - the versions he "reverted" to were all clearly different.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While KS reverted to different versions as well, the case could be made that repeatedly removing artimprove tags could be considered as reverting the same material.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't really matter what Bali reverted. Any reversion counts towards breaking the 3rr rule.--Sloane (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps such a case could be made, but it's debatable. In at least two instances ([235], [236]), Ks64q2 used proactive edit summaries to explain his actions and to indicate his intention to improve the article; he does not appear to have reverted any challenges made to these explanations. In short, Ks64q2's involvement appears to be entirely good-faith. I have doubts, however, about the good-faith of this report. It is peculiar, to say the least, that Sloane and Bali ultimate suddenly took an antagonistic interest in a page that Ks64q2 had edited, given that, at a contentious AfD from around the same time, both of the former editors had recently endorsed the deletion of an article that Ks64q2 had worked on heavily. Of course, one mouse click can lead to another, and WP:Wikistalking doesn't necessarily exist at that point. But for one of these editors, furthermore, A) to have made only one edit to the article in question, and B) to report a very iffy and ambiguous case of 3RR on it? I don't know what it all adds up to, but I don't think it amounts to a blockworthy indictment of Ks64q2. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing "iffy or ambiguous" about this case. All reverts happened after other editors had made clear they disagreed with Ks64q2's actions. Perhaps a more clearer rundown of events: Ks64q2's sock adds a link [237], other editor reverts [238], Ks64q2 reverts [239] (REVERT #1). Other editor adds refimprov tag [240], Ks64q2 reverts [241], other user reverts [242], Ks64q2 reverts again [243] (REVERT #2). Fact tag is left at end of sentence by user [244], Ks64q2 removes it [245], other editors puts it back in [246], Ks64q2 reverts again [247] (REVERT #3). Other user adds advert tag[248], Ks64q2 reverts [249], I add it back in, [250], Ks64q2 reverts again.[251] (REVERT #4). All in 24h. Edit summaries don't excuse you from edit warring. Also, please assume some good faith on the part of your fellow editors. --Sloane (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here he admits to using socks [252] (one of which to reinsert material of a nature he was told was not up to snuff -- a blog post by "moo means hello" here [253] and here [254]. He not only refuses to abide by consensus (see Talk:Remote Area Medical - which he tried to wipe clean with the false edit summary "cleanup of resolved discussion points" [255]) but he claims agreement/consensus when there is none. For instance my last revert on this article was his removal of an advert tag placed by another used, about which there had been no discussion by him on the talk page. He had already been told multiple times to seek consensus. Yet he removed it with this edit summary "With editor Bali's and my new edits, I believe this has been addressed. Removing advert tag; if more work is needed, let me know where, and I'll polish it up" [256]. The thing is i hadn't made any edits to the page since the advert tag was placed, and had no communication with him on the matter. It's just more game playing and disruption from this fellow.

    As i've said before, if my behavior is appropriate and if i've stepped over the 3rr line, I'll take my medicine. But please, separately report my actions so this behavioral issue and my (possible) behavioral issue don't get muddled and jumbled (wikilawyers like to play the turn the accusation around game. I won't do that).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. I can't see any point in looking at anyone else William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.187.132.100 reported by User:Wikidemon (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [257]


    1. 04:35, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "We are not going to rewrite this page every time an UNRELIABLE source changes its wording.")
    2. 15:31, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision by Ratel, identified as vandalism.")
    3. 16:14, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 278348825 by Soxwon (talk) Stop going against consensus.")
    4. 18:49, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Stop the edit war. You are going against the consensus.")
      • Diff of 3RR warning: [258] (to which editor replied "Don't you have anything better to do?"[259] and reverted two more times)
    5. 19:44, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Seems like you aren't reading the talk page. Collect, ChildofMidnight, and I are all taking the same stance. Looks like Soxwon is the only one still going against consensus.")
    6. 22:44, 19 March 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "It is undue weight to mention bias in sentence 1. Show me one other article that does this.")

    Note: based on the article talk page, the editor is suspected of being,[260] and seems to admit being,[261] an IP-hopping ban evading sock. So a range block or article semi-protection may be necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrafn reported by DaleLeppard (Result: sanctions)


    • Previous version reverted to: NOTE: this is my version from yesterday and I have added much to it despite the disruption by user Hrafn which has been ongoing for about 10 days [262]


    • 1st revert: by user Hrafn [263]
    • 2nd revert: my previous [264]
    • 3rd revert: by user Hrafn [265]
    • 4th revert: my current as of this writing [266] This is what I want it to stay as while I expand the article.

    Please see also: Discussion board for Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User Hrafn may not have reverted 3 times in a day but it is a continual pattern of harassment over at least ten days.


    This issue has been ongoing for about 10 days. User Hrafn submitted the article for deletion which ended in non-consensus. A few people weighed in on both sides but essentially it has been an edit war between the two of us. User Hrafn continually threatens me with Wikipedia violations that are apparently only in his mind. He stated openly his own contempt for non-regnant royals and then told me I was forbidden to edit the article because I am an officer of the organization. He tagged me with COI even though I made no secret of my affiliation. He, on the other hand, did not reveal his bias against non-regnant royals until he let some statements slip on the discussion board.

    User Hrafn continually challenges all source records without reasonable foundation. As an example he challenged a book published in Spain as unreliable because he couldn't find evidence that the publisher (an Academy) was "recognized". There is no Wikipedia requirement that I know of that requires a source to prove to be "recognized". When I asked by who or what he stated the Cronista Rey de Armas of the Kingdom of Spain (a post which is vacant and not likely to be filled and which has no bearing over institutions in any case). I pointed that out and he then challenged it as simply unreliable. I challenged him several times to read the source (available cheaply for purchase online and free electronically from myself to any enquirer). Finally I provided the names of the authors who are themselves Wikipedia sources in other articles. User Hrafn then claimed that he could find NO Wikipedia entries for them. If you type the surname of the first named (Montells y Galan) into GOOGLE the number 3 and 4 returns are Wikipedia articles citing him as a source. I pointed these out to user Hrafn as well. Each and every time he removed the source and called it unreliable. Further, he tagged every section with sources required and removed all my general sources as deletable because they did not reference a specific claim or part of the article. Pointing out the meaning of general did not help. So I included inline sources. He removed them reverting to a shell version and then added tags requiring citation for every sentence in the first section. This was not even controversial material. He was being disruptive. So I added citations for each place he so indicated and he still reverted to a version showing that sources were needed and citations were required. It is maddening. I am doing my best to improve the article and he is disruptively reverting and ignoring everything he doesn't personally like. And to add insult he continually accuses me of COI and claims that he has a "consensus" which is not indicated on the discussion page. He has had a few people concur with him but these are I believe also largely based on his versions which he keeps reverting to. It is impossible to fix something when he continually removes the work. I spend half my time finding my last good version to revert to myself before I can continue the editing. This user is in my opinion a bully who is imposing his personal opinions on others. He continually quotes Wikipedia rules in non-applicable situations in an apparent attempt to bluff his way and intimidate others. I have tried to satisfy his demands outrageous as some of them were, but it is clear that he has no intention of being satisfied until this article is successfully proposed for deletion. I need help. Thank you for reviewing my complaint. DaleLeppard (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. DaleLeppard's evidence is mal-formed. His links are to old versions, not difs, and two are to versions created by his own edits.
    2. DaleLeppard is a WP:COI editor on this article whose edits/reverts repeatedly violate WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS & WP:MOSLINKS, as well as removing legitimate templates (most notably one pointing out his COI).
    3. I will not attempt to address his lengthy diatribe, other than to say that I generally dispute its accuracy.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're both banned from editing the article for a week. DL is encouraged to find some other interests William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.118.142.7 reported by User:Magnius (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [267]
    • Previous version reverted to: [268]
    • Previous version reverted to: [269]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [270]

    magnius (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not obviously in vio. You seem to be reverting the anon's edits as "vandalism" but how is the outside world supposed to know that? Please don't run to AN3 without having made some effort to resolve the situation on the article's talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: Not blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [271]


    24.187.132.100 reported by Ratel (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [273]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [279]

    user:94.192.38.247 reported by user:Alefbe (result: semi)

    This user has already violated 3RR in Nowruz. Also, it seems that he/she is already familiar with 3RR, Most probably, this IP is associated with a registered user. Alefbe (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A malicious and unfounded complaint. He knew I was about to report him for incivility and sockpuppet investigation so he has conconted this cry for help. Remind me what is it called when a guilty person accuses an accuser of the same thing out of desperation? He seems to hope someone will believe him stating I am associated with a registered user without there being any proof in existance of this being the case. In short, User:Alefbe has been edit warring to the point of pure vandalism, ignoring and deleting messages on his talk page, ordering me to get an ID (the usual IP racism), being uncivil, and there is strong evidence to suspect him of using at least one sockpuppet. But rather than listen to his rant and listen to my rant, it is better to look at the evidence, see the edits of myself and User:Alefbe (in a chronological fashion) especially in relation to the article Nowruz. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Alefbet. Please semi-protect the article against IP vandalism. Also, please block user:94.192.38.247 for violating 3rr in Nowruz article, edit warring with various users, drastic edits without discussion.--St. Hubert (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly surprising you would agree with User:Alefbe as both of your edit histories seem to show alot of 'agreeing' and I have been suggesting you are likely a sock all afternoon. As for suggesting that I be blocked, sorry, if you think you can have the serious and constructive editors of wikipedia (IP or otherwise) blocked at your whim and say so, you will be disappointed. Please stop wasting peoples' time. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the IP reverted [284] Raayen's edit. Now he is edit warring with Raayen.--St. Hubert (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant countries and regions should be placed there, as per my edit revision. Someone removing them and stating "Every corner of the world need not to be here" doesn't constitute a sound rationale for removal. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong evidence that User:Raayen is a sock of User:Hubert [285]. Also see [286]. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "very arbitrary and idiosyncratic double hyphen" appears to be a result of the signature button above the edit window. Scrolling up through the past few reports, you'll see that quite a few people use it. --Onorem♠Dil 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of it. This is not the only link between them however, their edit histories contain identical reverting, convenient support for each other and editing the same articles on the same day, in a way in which it very improbable they are two different people. On a positive note, the edit warring has subsided. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protecting it will block me, who brought a request for page protection [287], this is unfair. I suggested fully protecting it to stop the edit warring. Semi protecting it won't stop the edit warring William. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Schwertleite reported by Dr.K. (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [288]



    • Diff of first 3RR warning: [293]
    • Diff of second 3RR warning: [294]
    • This user is a single purpose account (WP:SPA} and has been reverting and long-term edit warring since 16th March. He has been reverting other users as well. Refuses to engage in discussion on talk. Dr.K. logos 17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence of long-term edit warring: These reverts are from the 16th of March:

    Dr.K. logos 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much William. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=278591881"