Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia


3 people in discussion

Article Images

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

notice all reverts are minor edits, as are 99% of Ghettoblaster's edits. Scientus (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No technical vio, and you haven't even bothered to try to discuss this on the talk page. Also you can't spell your own name :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]
  • 3rd revert: [8]
  • 4th revert: [9]
  • 5th revert: [10]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Diffs of edit warring warnings: 1, 2

Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution per User talk:TravisTX#Why?.

  • On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmaster and every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
  • On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; see this thread and specifically this response)
  • On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained a pretty clear OK from PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
  • About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
  • Two hours later, TravisTX began to revert Tennis expert per the general lack of support for TE's format at WT:SPI, but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
  • Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing

Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of {{IPsock}} (see this ANI discussion). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

24h. Hopefully TE will see sense, promise to stop, and get unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [12]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

I really didn't want to take this drama this far, but as a new editor, I just found his behaviour extremely unacceptable. This user is totally dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impossible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. He is completely abusing his administrator rights. Any positive edits made to this article is immediately removed by this user, even if they are properly sourced, and many new users have become victims of his tactics to block any user who is apparently a meatpuppet according to him (and his socks). I find this totally unacceptable and there must be an end to this nightmare drama as soon as possible. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meandmylefthand is an alternate account of the indefinitely banned User:Ziggymaster, and all the reverts listed are instances where I was reverting edits from a banned user. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've indef'd M as an obvious sock, though I didn't know whose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can this be thrown out? There are all kinds of problems with the report. First of all, the "diff of 3rr warning" isn't a diff, it's a link, and to a 'warning' that was given just a few minutes ago and I haven't reverted since it. Secondly, most of the 17 reverts he listed are not even edit war reverts; for example, #16 is rolling back vandalism, #15 is restoring content that was deleted without explanation, #17 is reverting an entirely different problem and not related to the content dispute that's going on right now (and, besides, it was a week ago). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It has been thrown out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Recent discussions concerning similar behavior:

Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.

In David Oei, an article he created, he is once again edit-warring over poorly sourced information that has been discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5#David_Oei.27s_former_wine_shop.

This time around the information was tagged as failing verification 23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material 18:33, 14 May 2009 . Within two hours 22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again 04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.

I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts of WP:DR he will follow and respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I support this: situation really needs attention. Badagnani has been asked more than once to go to WP:DR over these edit warring issues, and has completely ignored a user RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Comments. Wikipedia:Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? You already told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life [in the context of a Wikipedia article] unless a citation can be found.
    It seems to be verifiable that he owned it: [31], [32]. Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...
  • It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist?
    Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things like this. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Responded to Quiddity's accusations, instruction, etc here, repeating what has already been discussed here and here. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
1) Re: Instruction: You quoted WP:BATTLE to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?
2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (wikihounded) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.
I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read over WP:TRUCE, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.
3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?
From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...
-- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact is not in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you. [33] is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arcángel (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PiTBUL882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

  1. 04:55, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:59, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
  3. 05:18, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
  4. 15:29, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Previous version reverted to: (multiple reverts)

Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments on WP:RS/N for National Enquirer and TMZ.com. Other editors have removed such material citing BLP concerns. This has now gone on for several days, but only last day is cited.

  • 1st revert: [34] 23:59 17 May and following. comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "
  • 2nd revert: [35] 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "
  • 3rd revert: [36] 01:08 18 May "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"
  • 4th revert: [37] 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"
  • 5th revert: [38] 08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))" (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39] prior warning at [40] by another user for same article

It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors. [41] is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warning Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Editors can follow the TMZ/Copperfield controversy here and here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered. ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post? Collect (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:
TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) a SPA who runs a Copperfield fansite and is in contact with Copperfield diff
Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfield diff
Collect. All that needs to be said about him is here at his own glorious RFC. No sensible consensus possible with him editing the page (not a PA, a fact).   ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)? Ed -- please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott, Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [42]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]


IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suppose there must be a reason why you think your reverts are exempt from 3RR but I don't know what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source per WP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The problem is, who gets to decide that is what you were doing. You? Please see [49] and in future be more cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Previous version reverted to: [50]


I don't see a technical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war between User:Psw1359 and User:J123Jordan concerning the article Distributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, so it is a disaster area but no-one has even warned Psw about this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [52]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [53]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [59]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dorothy Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amerindianarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

  1. 04:09, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:25, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
  3. 05:16, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

—Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)UyvsdReply

No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)UyvsdiReply

Please see this (and with this as background).

I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will have gone into WP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted to WP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order , I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.

Any advice help would be of interest. [66] [67] Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I left a 3RR warning for User:QuotationMan. He has been trying to remove a large section from Libertas.eu with no support from the Talk page. Another editor is suggesting a WP:COI, and the repeated removals do hint at some motive other than plain article improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Page protected — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

  1. 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
  2. 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
  3. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo).   user:j    (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you notify him of the 3rr? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.
I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [68]

In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR? Ikip (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Result - Semiprotected by User:Philippe. Looks like regular vandalism. Blocking the range is not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

  • 21:52, 18 May 2009 [79]
  • 20:34, 18 May 2009 [80]
  • 10:03, 18 May 2009 [81]
  • 09:40, 18 May 2009 [82]
history of repeated edit wars on this project page in the past two weeks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

23:47, 16 May 2009 3RR warning: [83]

For:
07:36, 15 May 2009 [84]
21:16, 15 May 2009 [85]
21:28, 15 May 2009 [86]
21:56, 16 May 2009 [87]
23:09, 16 May 2009 [88]
23:40, 16 May 2009 [89]

07:12, 7 May 2009 3RR warning: [90]

For:
05:20, 7 May 2009 [91]
07:01, 7 May 2009 [92]
07:13, 7 May 2009 [93]

14:56, 5 May 2009 3RR warning: [94]

For:
14:52, 5 May 2009 [95]
12:44, 5 May 2009 [96]
09:36, 5 May 2009 [97]
Unrelated section deleted: 14:51, 5 May 2009 [98]
Deleted other editors comments on WT:ARS:
09:07, 5 May 2009 [99]
19:37, 6 May 2009 [100]

As per the instructions above:

If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

Ikip (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  •   Blocked – for a period of 9 days Also, Ikip (talk · contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Clarification - although the edit summaries look odd on the face of it, the contents of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ were being discussed (kind of) at WT:ARS, the project talk page. pablohablo. 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [101]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [108]

In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [109]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [115]

Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No technical vio, and no recent evidence for attempting to solve this dispute on talk. Please see WP:DR. Moreover, this [116] looks like a good edit to me, and removing it a bad one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [117]


I warned the user last night prior to his 4th edit with the following.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. Editor Johnbull has gone out of his way to help Wousfan by re-writing Wousfans POV diatribe against Gladstone in as near a NPOV form as he can, see here[123]. It appears Wousfan does not accept WP:NPOV in any way shape or form and is highly abusive in his summary replies to Johnbull. In addition there is also a 5th revert here[124] which although technically outside the 24 hour period is still germane to it. - Galloglass 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Previous version reverted to: [125]
  • 1st revert: [126] 12:24 20 May "This view doesn't deserve anywhere near such prominence"
  • 2nd revert: [127] 12:54 20 May


Each revert specifically removing over 4K of material currently in an RfC in Talk:Fascism

  • Diff of editwar warning: [128]

This user has 10 entries in block log [129], has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable. [130] and [131] show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC. Collect (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

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.

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.