Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia

3 people in discussion

Article Images

Three-revert rule violation on

Liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

18:39, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Original research to put a marcus aurelius quote to introduce the article. You need a source that says his quote encapsulates liberalism.")
19:56, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "not an undifferentiated philosophy")
23:36, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "putting in sourced statement that there is the classical and modern classifications")
[1] 04:48. 8 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of warning: here

—The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Obviously not reverts but all different edits. The Four Deuces is the one doing the reverts of four DIFFERENT changes. See my complaint against The Four Deuces below. Introman (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - Technically, four reverts in 24 hours. The 'undifferentiated philosophy' diff is one where Introman restores the Goodin and Pettit reference that others had previously removed. Undoing the action of another editor counts as a revert. This user was previously blocked 48h for edit warring on the same article. See next report for more commentary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Page: {{Liberalism|}}
User being reported: {{The Four Deuces}}

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [3]
2nd revert: [4]
3rd revert: [5]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
This guy deletes almost EVERYTHING I put into Wikipedia. Though the above is not 4 reverts, but 3, look at the nature of them. There were no reverts by me. Each one was a different edit, and I explained the edits in the edit summaries. I also put in well sourced sentences. But, reflexively he reverts them. He follows me around to various articles trying to revert EVERYTHING I do. He's even now going around trying to get templates that I created deleted. It's getting out of hand. I've violated the 3rr rule once before trying to deal with this guy, and apparently "edit warred" once (though I disagreed with the administrators' call on that one) but have wised up and don't intend to fall into that trap anymore. So now, I'm not reverting but doing something new with each edit, in order to try to contribute SOMETHING, but he STILL insists on reverting EVERYTHING, not matter how well sourced. I can't even get a sentence in! He guards against any changes from me. I don't know what to call his behavior, but it appears to be some kind stalking or harrassment. Please help. Thanks.
Introman (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - No action. Though this level of reverting is worrisome, only three reverts are reported here, and the Talk page seems to favor the position of The Four Deuces. See a related report just above. When he says "I'm not reverting but doing something new with each edit.." Introman does not seem to be taking in the message of WP:REVERT, which makes clear that anything that undoes the action of another editor is a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [6]

1st revert: [7]
2nd revert: [8]
3rd revert: [9]
4th revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

The user, as can be seen from his/her block log has been blocked for edit warring (and harassment) before [12].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Basically this involves Russavia trying to add in "alleged" and "dubious" based on a single unreliable source vs. multiple reliable sources included in the article.

Comments:

In view of a substantial history of 3RR blocks, I have blocked Russavia for 55 hours. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm double checking this, so here are the four reverts in sequence:

dubious; not dubious; dubious = revert; not dubious; dubious restored by Illythr (talk · contribs); not dubious by Poeticbent (talk · contribs); dubious by Illythr; not dubious by Jacurek (talk · contribs). sources replaced with scholarly sources by Illythr; added again by Jacurek; removed by Illythr (current revision)
disputed; not disputed disputed = revert; not disputed
alleged; not alleged; alleged = revert; not alleged; alleged = revert; not alleged.

While it is clear that Russavia did revert four times, the dubiety of the underlying sources is an ongoing concern. Not an excuse. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [14]

1st revert: [15]
2nd revert: [16]
3rd revert: [17]
4th revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor used to be an admin till they lost their tools and are well aware of the 3RR rule.

Comments:

Well, those 3rd and 4th "reverts" are obvious not reverts, but different edits entirely. Nice try though. -R. fiend (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh but they are any action that reverses the actions of other editors is a revert you have made 5 now. BigDunc 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also here editor appears to be gearing up for another edit war. BigDunc 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - 24 hours. Apparently four reverts by R.fiend on 8 September, against a pattern of other reverts by him on the same article since mid-August. (He keeps putting back the phrase 'The manifesto further stated..' after others remove it). I looked at Domer48's edits as well but his actions did not seem to quite reach the point of a block. All parties are invited to use the Talk page more and open a WP:Request for comments on any disputed items. To continue to revert while discussing doesn't work very well. Any admin may undo this block if the editor will agree to stop warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [diff]
2nd revert: [diff]
3rd revert: [diff]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Zsero#Berger, Talk:Chabad_messianism#Berger_quote

Comments: I tried to reason with him. We both made three reverts already. I feel this is getting out of hand, and we need some help.

What 4th revert? Debresser hasn't linked any reverts, because he knows perfectly well that there are only 3. The claim that Debresser is constantly re-inserting is patent nonsense, and the alleged source is being misrepresented. I have a very low opinion of the alleged source, but he's not stupid; he would not and in fact does not make such a claim. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am indeed not reporting a violation of the 3rr. I am just asking for help in resolving the conflict and edit war. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I gave my position at the talk page. So long as an absurd claim is being falsely put in the mouth of a source I will delete it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is precisely this uncompromising refusal to listen to reason and consensus of a majority which makes me consider Zsero a potential disruptive editor. I have been a side-party to a conflict between him and another editor once before, and recognise the same behavior here. That was also about this page, see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Poss_OR_on_Chabad_messianism. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Question for Debresser: Have you even seen the alleged source? Do you have any idea what it actually says? -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What "consensus of a majority" (which is itself a contradiction in terms)? It's just you. -- Zsero (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. I have not seen the source itself. 2. You forget the original author of the contentious paragraph. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Then how do you have the slightest clue what it says? Why do you insist in inserting something that you have just admitted you have no idea whether it's true??? 2. Two is not a consensus, and in any case that editor hasn't said anything at all. It's been just you, pretending to be a consensus, or a majority, or whatever. And now bringing the matter here. 3. I've reverted this three times, you've reverted it three times; what makes me "disruptive" and you not? -- Zsero (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. I do not know for a fact whether that source makes that statement. I do know the source to exist and the statement to be true. In which case good faith initially prompted me to believe the original editor of the contentious paragraph. Notice that you have shifted your opposition to this paragraph from "nonsense" to "should be in separate section" to "not in source". So are you to be trusted here? 2. You are right that two against one is not consensus, but it is better than one against two, isn't it? 3. Your attitude. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. You do not know the statement to be true. Not only is the statement untrue, it can't be true, because it's logically impossible. If you claim to know for a fact that there are (significant numbers of) people who hold some belief merely because it can't be proven to be heretical, then you are simply not telling the truth. I have not shifted my argument; the claim is patent nonsense, and therefore Berger (not being an idiot) could not have made it. The claim should not be anywhere in the article, and I have never suggested that it should be; I did note that the quote itself is genuine, and probably does belong in a paragraph about Berger's reaction, but no such paragraph exists. And I've challenged the sourcing since the beginning; Berger couldn't and didn't write any such thing, and you have no knowledge that he did. 2. No, it isn't. Not even a little bit better. 3. You're the one with an attitude, edit-warring to insert a paragraph that you have no basis for believing to be true. -- Zsero (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - Both parties warned. Each has made three reverts. If either one continues to revert the article without getting a Talk page consensus first, or opening formal dispute resolution, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Neither of us has received this warning on our talkpages. But as far as I am concerned this note is enough. Debresser (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

On what authority do you claim to do this? The claim remains false and nonsensical; why should I leave it there just because one person who admits that he has no idea whether it's true or not insists on it remaining there? -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have not admitted anything of the kind, and Zsero has continued the edit war in defiance of the above warning with this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You admitted it right here in this thread: "I have not seen the source itself". Since you have not seen the source, you can't possibly know what it says, and therefore whether the claim you inserted three times is true. Since no argument whatsoever has been made for keeping that insertion, I have deleted it again, restoring the article to its status quo ante. I have "defied" the purported "warning", because it was not the result of any sort of consensus, but merely one editor's unilateral decision. -- Zsero (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

User being reported: 84.203.238.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

1st revert: [21]
2nd revert: [22]
3rd revert: [23]
4th revert: [24]
5th revert: [25]

Plus talk page edits:

1st revert: [26]
2nd revert: [27]

Note similar edits by IP editor User:84.203.238.19:

1st revert: [28]
2nd revert: [29]
3rd revert: [30]

To talk page:

1st revert: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I haven't warned the editor, as he feels I am the problem. This is a request for a non-involved editor to comment and advice. See vandalism warnings at [32] and [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See attempt on my talk page at [34]. MikeHobday (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Result - Jaques was blocked 24 hours by User:Admrboltz. If the IP editor continues to revert, further action can be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312669920
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312671485
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe&oldid=312673795 - This revert made AFTER I warned him/her that I am reporting the edit war.
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheoloJ#Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User I am reporting is not interested in the talk page. I did try ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

Comments:

I am reporting this user for edit warring. This editor has inserted material in the article that doesn't' belong in the article. After my first revert I started a discussion in the talk page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

The user I ma reporting has completely ignored the discussion and continues to simply revert. This editor has also placed patronising 'welcome to wikipedia' messages on my talk page - I deleted them so seethe history.

The user has also cited my good faith edits and reversions as being 'vandalism' which is complete nonsense of course as I've spelt out to this editor the reasons for my edits on the article talk page and on my own talk page.

I told the user on 22:34, 8 September 2009 that I had reported him/her. On 22:37, 8 September 2009 the user made a 3rd revert after I had warned him/her and has still not entered into any discussion on the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe#2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

JUST TO ADD: Even though the material should be removed from the article ( and article that should be up for deletion btw ) I shall not make any further edits to the article until this report has been resolved by an administrator. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, if you take a look at the page history and Vexorg's edits you can see he has a history of edit warring, in fact you can see he has been blocked 5 times for edit warring. He has continued to removed sourced material from the article, with 8 sources clearly stating a direct link between those 3 men convicted and Al-Qaeda, I posted the automated messages on Vexorg's user talk page in good faith after he continued to remove heavily sourced material. He responded with a borderline threating message saying "I won't ask you again. Please stop putting patronising templates templates onto my talk page". I have posted a request on Third Opinion while Vexorg took no such steps, preferring to simply edit war and then improperly report me. TheoloJ (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have been properly reported. You have put material on the article that had no involvement by Al-Qaeda. One or more of the perpetrators meeting al-Qaeda at some back in time does not mean al-Qaeda were involved in the plot in question. A link with Al-qaeda is NOT Al-Qaeda involvement in the plot! There were no sources say Al-Qaeda were involved in this plot. Only a link. The main article, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is where those links to Al-qaeda should be cited and sourced.

I removed your inappropriate additions to the article and promptly went to the talk page and started dialog about your edits. You continued to edit war without bothering to enter into any discussion in the talk page, which should have been your first port of call.

your claims of 'vandalism' and posting 'Welcome to Wikipedia' templates on my talk page ( when you can see I'm not a new editor ) were both inappropriate and frankly childish. In short you have made silly claims of vandalism, patronising templates on my talk page, ignored the dialog on the Article's talk page and failed to inform me you have asked for a third opinion. Vexorg (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The BBC is considered a reliable source, if you look here (This is one of the sources used on the page by the way), you can see it states "the bombers were "directed some way by elements of al-Qaeda based overseas"." As you pointed out in the article's talk page, I'm new to Wikipedia, so clearly I'm unfamiliar with the appropriate etiquette and protocols, so perhaps you could have tried opening with a less hostile opening than "Don't patronise me". TheoloJ (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your patronisation by putting 'Welcome to Wikipedia' templates on the talk page of an editor that has made over 2,300 edits is nothing to do with you being new and unfamiliar with any appropriate etiquette and protocols. You cannot use your 'newness' to wimipedia as an excuse for citing vandalism in your reverts either. Vexorg (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is the Welcome to Wikipedia template you palced upon my talk page .... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vexorg&oldid=312670364 - Note that it says ... "When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." - you'll note that I both left a reason for removal of the text AND I started a section in the talk page about the issue. You ignored the talk page and simply reverted citing 'vandalism'. - you also abused WP:TW by the looks of it. Basically YOU didn't follow the advice of the Welcome to Wikipedia template you patronised me with. Vexorg (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, would you mind not patronising me by putting words like "NOT", "AND", "YOU" into capitals? I am capable of reading and I don't need your help deciding what parts of the text are the important bits. Thanks. TheoloJ (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I didn't know or care how many edits you had made, I never looked at your userpage or contributions, it's not relevant either, you made unconstrutive edits, by removing sourced material and by your edit summary it appears you didn't even read it before removing it, your summary was "NO evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement. Being inspired by or even meeting someone from Al-qaeda is not an Al-qaeda involvement. Please see talk!!" - The information I added neither mentioned inspiration or any meetings, it did however mention the bombers being guided by militants in Pakistan. Since you seem to want to own the page and remove all the information from it, I could consider such edits as nothing more than vandalism. TheoloJ (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No violation Gentlemen, please note the sentence at the top of this page - "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." Luckily, I see you have already done this, but there is no reason for the two of you to continue your spat here. Also, looking at the page history, it seems both of you have reverted each other three times, meaning that there has been no violation of the three-revert rule as of yet. Please continue to use the article talk page instead of reverting each other, and when an uninvolved editor provides you with a third opinion, please respect his decision. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [35]

1st revert: [36]
2nd revert: [37]
3rd revert: [38]
4th revert: [39]
5th revert: [40]

Please also note that the user is vandalizing other's pages, seen here and here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
Nevermind, the user has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [42]
2nd revert: [43]
3rd revert: [44]
4th revert: [45]
5th revert: [46]
6th revert: [47]
7th revert: [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit warring, getting the same copyright violation and/or libelous material back to the article for almost ten times, without regard to my warnings.--Vitriden (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The three revert rule allows 3 reverts per any 24 hour period, but the user has only made one revert today, and the reverts given go back to September 2. Also, there has not been any attempt to resolve this issue on the Talk page, and the only warnings were general vandalism warnings given on the 3rd and 7th. I strongly suggest you try entering into a dialogue with this user first. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

While there hasn't been any violations of the three revert rule, there does seem to be some merit in what Vitriden has reported, specifically the copyright violations and the way the edits are inserted into the article. I'll put this page on my watch list and take any action necessary. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to report the behavior of user Tvor65[51] for edit warring at IBDP

and for WP:OUTING a website I run as Tvor65'sreason for undoing my edit when my website is NOT used as the source for the edit. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYReply

Declined I only see two reverts, not three (two of those diffs are to your own edits), and no attempt to discuss these things to reach a consensus. You also didn't give the user a proper 3RR warning, you just shouted at him. I would suggest using proper warnings and starting a discussion at the talk page, rather than to jump here and hope to immediately solve your problem with blocks. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear ANI - User Tvor65 has a long history of attacking my edits in the IBDP. Now he/she has brought in User HelloAnnyong whom I have another complaint against for stalking me in the Van Jones article, to complete the 3rd delete. Tvor65 is constantly lacks civility, has not contributed anything of substance to the articles, merely tries to start edit wars. His/her allegation that I am trying to insert information from my website is unfounded and without merit. ObserverNY (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYReply

Um, Tvor didn't contact me about that. I have a watchlist, and I watch the IBDP page, and I agreed with him/her. That's all. By the way, Observer, your last revert was your third in 24 hours. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

@ObserverNY: This is the noticeboard for edit warring, not for civility issues, conduct issues, or outing. If you want to report one of those, you can do it elsewhere. As for edit warring, now you yourself are warring, against 3 other users; you need to stay at the talk page or you will be blocked. And for someone who is complaining about incivility, this message is not exactly civil either. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do apologize for that, I was frustrated with being ganged up on once again and as you can see, I went and checked the user's page and welcomed the new editor. It doesn't matter. I won't be touching the IB articles any further. Thank you for your consideration. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYReply

Previous version reverted to: [56]

1st revert: [57]
2nd revert: [58]
3rd revert: [59]

Since two other editors disagree with him (User:Jmj713 and I) he was asked to bring it to the discussion page, which he ignored.

For the record, while these are in the last 24 hours, he's been edit warring since the 7th. So technically he hasn't broken the 3RR yet (I think).--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Warned As this user hasn't edited in over 12 hours, I've placed a warning on his talk page and placed this template on my watchlist - this should do for the time being, although obviously he's in a different timezone so this should be one for another admin to keep an eye on. Hopefully he'll engage in the discussion on the talk page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Page protected After I warned this user, he made another revert under another IP (check the template history - the same reversion with a similar edit summary as before). I don't think blocking will solve this so I'm semi-protecting this template for a week. If anyone feels this is too harsh / lenient, please feel free to amend this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [60]

1st revert: [61]
2nd revert: [62]
3rd revert: [63]
4th revert: [64]
5th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

This editor's behavior was brought to my attention by a notification at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I saw that the editor had already violated WP:3RR but hadn't been notified of this yet so I left a notice and reverted them. They ignored the notice and reverted again.

As you can see from the editor's history, it is a single-purpose account which has only acted to remove sourced information from the article. The editor has reverted the same information 25 times in the past week (nearly a dozen times in the past 48 hours). There was a request on their talk page days ago to not remove sourced info from the article, but it was ignored. In fact, this editor's entire edit history consists of reverting the same info on that article, and they've never made any attempt to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia. An indef block might be necessary but at least a short block might get the message that what they're doing isn't right. -- Atama頭 16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've left a notification that I've filed this report with a personal request to discuss things on the article talk page (rather than a template), but I don't have high hopes. -- Atama頭 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As this is their first block, 24 hours should suffice for now. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This user has had his blocked extended to a week for sockpuppetry. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [68]

1st revert: [69]
2nd revert: [70]
3rd revert: [71]
4th revert: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments:
Clearly is not going to learn in the absence of a block for assumptions of bad faith and blatant edit-warring. See also the edit summaries employed in [74]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

22:06, 7 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 312341445 by Eik Corell (talk)")
09:47, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
14:37, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
15:38, 8 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
18:17, 9 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")
18:53, 9 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv v")

Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments: This IP is doing nothing but edit warring on a handful of articles. It's unclear whether the editor is reverting material they originally added from other accounts, or is wikihounding User:Geoff B by picking arbitrary edits to revert-war over.

Blocked for the report below William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [75]
2nd revert: [76]
3rd revert: [77]
4th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:Other articles likewise involved: Heatseeker (video game), Shellshock 2: Blood Trails, Evil Dead: A Fistful of Boomstick, The Mummy Returns

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [81]
2nd revert: [82]
3rd revert: [83]
4th revert: [84]

This user has also made similar edits without acknowledgeing the talk page for discussion or consensus. See here, (vandalism:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Man_(film)&diff=312830130&oldid=312829117], [85], [86]. This user has done similar edits for pages regarding The Godfather films, the list of action films, and the List of adventure films. All of which have been brought up on their selective talk pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been warned by me and anothe r user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [88]
2nd revert: [89]
3rd revert: [90]
4th revert: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here and here several times.

Comments:
This IP has also been editing under the IPs 201.68.139.32 [93], 201.68.113.230 [94] and is 'evading a ban through this IP:200.158.243.232 User talk:200.158.243.232

Stale Looking at the page history, you're very lucky no-one picked this up yesterday otherwise the two of you would have been blocked (I counted 8 reverts apiece, and the IPs edits clearly weren't vandalism). However, judging by this message, it seems this one's over for now so I'll let this slide. Please, if anything like this kicks off again, do NOT simply revert blindly - ask for a third opinion instead. Bettia (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am falsely being accused in revert war and threathened with administrative action. In fact, I was trying hard to comply with the requests of the opponent. One my edit in this time period was addinng the reference to a deleted unreferenced text. My another edit was removing any words which may be considered as original research or WP:SYNTH. My last edit (actual revert) was fixing an obvious error: a person erroneously assumed that I the term in question was not used in the cited book.

I find this action of the opponenet as incivil intimidation and strongarming, and I would like thgis edtor was explained that his behavior is improper. - Altenmann >t 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

First of all, it's customary to put a note on the user's talk page before reporting their violations of policy. That's all I did; it was not an attempt to threaten or bully you. You violated the policies here, I spelled out the violation, and gave you a chance to correct your error. You chose instead to report me without a warning on my own talk page.

Second, you did blatantly violate the 3RR: you made four reverts in 24 hours. The fact that you added a reference to your revert, or that you believed you were correcting another user's error, does not make it less of a revert. It would be better to try to achieve consensus on the page rather than going against that consensus as you currently are. Below are your four reverts today. csloat (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion here [97]

Comments:

Comment Why are you reporting yourself? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It appears he is trying to report me for calling him on the edit warring rather than himself for edit warring. It's my perception he does not believe he violated 3RR but I'm not fully clear on that. csloat (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

And for me it is fully clear that this case is blatant abuse of WP:3RR:

-I make an edit
-Commodore Sloat reverses it
-I make a different edit
-Commodore Sloat reverses it
-I make a still different edit
-Commodore Sloat reverses it.

It happens that my edits has one term in common. So Commodore Sloat decides I am reversing his actions. And his actions is reverting whatever I write. Very nice wikilawyering, thank you. Since I am no longer in the mood of fighting self-righteous ones in whatever topics, I declared in the talk of the page in question that I am no longer going to edit that page. - Altenmann >t 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, looks like 4R to me William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: 18:32, 7 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:04, 9 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:58, 9 September 2009

Comments:
This user has consistently reverted my contributions to this page. Take note of the date formatting for the references for links for a good example in each revert listed above. Also note that there has been extensive discussion of some of these issues on my talk page as well as an admin he reached out to. I deliberately left the disputed images out of my future edits to the page while I was waiting for a response on the talk page. ~ Paul^T+/_C 22:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Declined Not a serious pattern at this time. Engage user on the talk pages to come to a consensus, or move on to dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note, the user in question has submitted an additional request below. I will make a response there. ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nemonoman. reported by jones.liam

12:28, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (54,272 bytes) (→Teachings)

12:44, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (52,919 bytes) (→Teachings)

12:43, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (53,045 bytes) (→Teachings)

01:57, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (49,203 bytes) (→Teachings: Restoring earlier versions. Uninflected quotes are not typically used in these sorts of summaries. Need to use secondary, not primary sources per WP:RS)

17:14, 9 September 2009 Nemonoman (talk | contribs) m (47,406 bytes) (→Teachings: (Re-)adding some information from recent edits by Jones.liam)

Yes I have many times discussed this issue with Nemonoman 9he wont reply just reverts) that Meher Baba repeatedly stated that He left NO teachingss so a main title called 'Teachings' is wrong on so many levels. I have given original quotes, secondary sources. He wont discuss. It is a problem. as editors we all have worked together on some issues, (see discussion) not as smooth as I would have liked, but some progress has been made re links, references, new material and the like. This 'Teachings' title problem is a sticking point with Nemonoman and is a very very similiar dispute to one a few years back (2006 archives 2 and 3) when he would not yield on the fact (now proven and changed) that the section on Townsend then was far far to big in an article on Meher Baba and made the article very unbalanced indeed. It was eventually removed with intervention by very vary part time wiki editors (Baba followers, whom yes I did know) who paid a price when Nemonoman tried to stop them with a sock puppet ruling. Townsend was eventually whittled down by consensus and common sense but I think this editor holds a grudge and is territorial. I am a researcher and 30 year + follower of Meher Baba. I know that "Universal Work" is what everyone in the Baba community (I know) call MB's work, NOT "Teachings" .

“I do not teach anything. I make the learned forget. I have come not to teach but to awaken." Meher Baba

Kalchuri, Bhau: "Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age. Meher Baba", Manifestation, Inc. 1986. p. 1487.

I enjoy Wikipedia but this sort of issue spoils it. This editor has an ownership issue with this webpage. Much else about the consensus process is working OK. But another complaint about Legacy may be avoided if this editor is prepared to resist new input.

--Jones.liam (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

An anon (67.80.201.54) is repeatedly changing Rome to Bradley Nowell in the current members section in the Sublime article. Sublime has reunited with a new singer and they're doing a live show next month, see the reunion section for more details. Alex (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1st revert: [98]
2nd revert: [99]
3rd revert: [100]
4th revert: [101]
5th revert: [102]
6th revert: [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Comments:

No violation -- there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

13:17, 9 September 2009

Previous version reverted to: [14:42, 9 September 2009 ]

1st revert: [diff]
2nd revert: [diff]
3rd revert: [diff]
4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Comments:

After this revert two weeks of work and discussion were removed in one fell swoop.

It is a huge revert done to time with a protection

Much good new copy and verifiable data undone without discussion.

see discussion page as I have commented there

--Jones.liam (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No violation Yet another malformed, silly report. No links or diffs were provided, and if you look at Dazedbythebell's contribs you see he hasn't even edited the page in hours, and has been staying at the discussion page. Jones.liam, you will be blocked the next time you file a bad report like this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The user is starting an edit war again.

Another user made a change to a section of the article:

15:50, 15 June 2009

Biophys then proceeded to revert the change (that is what he said in the summary). However this was just a pretext. He reverted not only the change but the whole article to a version he likes (but fails to prove/discuss):

23:46, 15 June 2009

I noticed it and reverted his sneaky changes, but he and User:Bobanni (who might be Biophys' sock) keep on reverting. They are resuming an edit war from over a year ago.

I made numerous attempts to discuss the issues (you can see on the talk page [105], [106], [107]), but Biophys fails to carry on a discussion and just reverts. Trying to talk to him only proved a waste of time.

-YMB29 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only revert warring I see here is coming from you, sprinkled with a good dose of bad faith. Please stop such behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

How so, explain? You don't see the edit he made on the 15th of June? You don't see what went on on the talk page?

I think you should stay out of this. Your objectivity is very questionable here becuase of your association with Biophys. For example, he supported you in this arbitration... -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reporter blocked for 24h for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That was fast! I could not even respond. YMB29 was already blocked twice for edit warring in this article, see here and he was the only one who reverted this article 3 times during 24 hours. Yesterday, he came again and suddenly reverted a stable version of the article [108] that existed for several months. He did so without any explanation except the aggressive edit summary which targets a user instead of addressing any content. He made only 501 edits in WP and a significant part of them are reverts [109]. As about me, I debated a lot with YMB29, for example here,here,here. I can talk more.Biophys (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I only got blocked before because I did not realize about 3RR. You make more reverts but you are careful to avoid more than 3 in 24 hours. Plus you have Bobanni to help you.

You reverted the stable version (all changes since the 3rd of Nov. of last year) on the 15th of June and tried to hide it. Anyone can see on the discussion page (if they actually look) that you failed to respond and continued to revert. -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uh, William, where's the 3RR violation here? Where is there even three reverts here? Given that I've seen you let slide much more egregious violations of the letter and spirit of the 3RR restriction why were you so fast to block here?radek (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait, my most sincere apologies - I did not read the text carefully enough. radek (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I still want this resolved. I got blocked for reporting an edit war? I guess I should have continued edit warring with Biophys... Again, all the changes that were made from 3 Nov. 2008 to 15 June 2009 were reverted by Biophys. Look here you can see that the versions are exactly the same! So is anyone going to do something about it or just continue to not care. Is there an honest admin here, or do I have to report admin abuse? Looks like the admins' decisions were influenced by Piotrus' initial comment, who of course supports Biophys, based on their history. -YMB29 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [110] (art blog sourcing); [111] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)

1st revert: [112] (art blog sourcing)
2nd revert: [113] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)
3rd revert: [114] (subject-sourced account of 3d party wedding)
4th revert: ~~[115]~~ [116] (art blog sourcing, link corrected)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117] Swancookie previously blocked for edit warring on same article, no additional warnings required, especially since there are four reverts in two hours today

Example of link to attempt to resolve dispute on article: [118] This is a current flare-up in a long-running dispute over poorly sourced promotional claims in a walled garden of BLP articles regarding various minor-league LA based cult figures affiliated with a social networking site which encourages users to promote each other on Wikipedia

Comments:

Reverts 1 and 4 should be seen as clear vandalism. Briefly, a blog hosted on the site of an art magazine claimed that Jessicka was listed as an artist's "muse" in a gallery listing for the artist's show. The blog clearly fails the tests required for inclusion as a source in a BLP. Even more important, the listing itself can be viewed online (a reference User:Swancookie is careful to avoid), and does not mention Jessicka, as a "muse" or otherwise. [119] (In fact, Jessicka even goes entirely unmentioned on the artist's own website [120], indicating just how dubious this promotional claim really is.)

Reverts 2 and 3 restore incorrect links to Jessicka's self-published description of Marilyn Manson's wedding [121]. The text involved goes beyond what's in the source; it's a self-published source involving 3d parties, raising BLP issues, particularly given the exaggeration of the claim. In the larger dispute, accounts of who-went-to-whose wedding reports have been a particular sore point, and the consensus has developed that such accounts are trivia, not appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles. (Note, for example, that similar material has been removed, apparetly, without objection, from the Dita Von Teese article.[122]

There is no good-faith content dispute here; User:Swancookie simply reappears periodically to reinsert previously deleted material, attacks the motives of those who disagree about the editing (most frequently attacking me), and trolling around hoping to get support by asking for "third" opinions (more like 33rd by now) while refusing to discuss policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

[123] isn't obviously a revert. The 4th revert you've marked is a link not a diff and it is old. Can't see why 1, 4 are vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed link for fourth revert.

The edit which you say "isn't obviously a revert" adds this text to the article:

"Jessicka was one of the 60 guests who attended Marilyn Manson's wedding to burlesque performer Dita Von Teese on December 3, 2005, in a non-denominational ceremony at Gottfried Helnwein's castle in County Tipperary, Ireland."

The previously removed version [124] of the parallel text read:

"While in Europe, Jessicka attended long-time friend Manson's wedding to burlesque performer Dita Von Teese on December 3, 2005, in a non-denominational ceremony at Gottfried Helnwein's castle in County Tipperary, Ireland"

The texts are pretty much the same (although the sourcing is different, but in neither case BLP-compliant).

The case for the other two reverts being vandalism is fairly straightforward. First, the editor is adding a previously deleted blog-sourced claim to a BLP, after being repeatedly told by multiple editors that such blog sources can't be used in BLPs. Second, the claim the blog is cited for has already been proved incorrect, and Swancookie knows it's been proven incorrect. It relates to the "listing" of an art exhibit by an art gallery; that listing is online and can easily be viewed, as linked above. [[125] Despite this link being child's play to identify, editor Swancookie substitutes a general link to the gallery site, to make it appear as though there is a second, reliable source for the claim.

This is more complex vandalism than the norm, but I don 't think there's any question that seizing on an incorrect assertion in an unreliable source and incorrectly citing the relevant reliable source to disguise the error is unacceptable editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no definitive previous version since the article has been worked on during this time period. I only added reverts where the edit summary indicates the user used the undo button per the 3RR report helper tool. I'm fairly certain there are more reverts in there.

1st revert: [126]
2nd revert: [127]
3rd revert: [128]
4th revert: [129]
5th revert: [130]
6th revert: [131]
7th revert: [132]
8th revert: [133]
9th revert: [134]
10th revert: [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

I have not been involved in whatever dispute is going on. I just saw an egregious violation and reported it.

Comments:

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reverts of BLP violations do not count against the 3RR. Unsourced accusations calling a living person "Nazi obsessed" should be deleted on sight. Forum links used to disparage a living person should be deleted on sight. Unsourced accusations of a living persons username at a forum having Nazi overtones should be deleted on sight. This report is without merit and should be ignored. nableezy - 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those are not the reasons given in most of the edit summaries. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Look at the edits, Sean was removing BLP violations such as citing defamatory information to a blog or an unsourced "Marc Garlasco - Is HRW's Anti-Israel Investigator A Nazi-Obsessed Collector" (bold in original) and other clear-cut BLP vios. Those do not count against the 3RR. But you are right that Sean should make clear in his edit summaries he is claiming a BLP exception to the 3RR. Ill go remind him of that. nableezy - 20:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocked the IP for 24h for 3RR. SH is on thin ice. Curious as to NMMNG's role in this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm astonished and saddened that SH is on thin ice. I'm sure he'll figure it out just fine.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ice ? It's 36C here. Comments noted though. Some eyes on the article from BLP/N would probably help along with closer admin monitoring of the article and other HRW related articles on the basis of the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1st revert: 09:34, 9 September 2009, removing, "nine terror attacks between March 2-5", originally in article between June 2008-August 2009[137], removed repeatedly --sans explanation -- by IP (sample 1, 2, 3), reinserted in 02:55 by Jaakobou.[138]
- Comment: IP requested Tiamut edit-war for them and has made no attempt at discussion on the article talk page.[139]
2nd revert: 16:02, 9 September 2009, revert Jalapenos do exist.[140]
3rd revert: 19:59, 9 September 2009, large edit - sample re-insertions without discussion: (a) "According to" in aftermath, (b) "unequivocal victory", as well as (c) controversial ' Cheryl Rubenberg ' source. Corrections and concerns were made by Jaakobou.[141]
4th revert: 17:02, 10 September 2009, large "undo all of Jaakobou's (edit)" revert - sample issues: (a) "According to", (b) "unequivocal victory" (used 2 times in the same paragraph), (c) removal of "Israeli success" (Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered.), (d) reinsertion of controversial Cheryl Rubenberg source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142], [143] - She's also been blocked for edit-warring before and edit warred recently on Battle of Jenin, a sub-article of Operation Defensive Shield (warned by Black Kite).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits

Comments:
Tiamut is not a new user, and a combative approach supplemented by 4 reverts to the work of others in approx. 30 hours are not okay, especially when just recently she violated 3RR on a sub-article of the same article (see above note). Tiamut has been recently warned to avoid adversarial behavior by 3 separate admins.

[144] - I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) static link
[145] - Edit Warring - I looked at the report about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and though I declined to block based on that report, it is clear that you may need to seek a less adversarial way of editing on controversial articles. I understand that it takes two to edit-war, but it would be better not to allow yourself to be sucked into blindly reverting. Thanks, Black Kite 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
[146] - Decorum - I noticed a post that you had made, and I hoped that you would think about striking parts of it to help preserve the civil atmosphere and decorum of Wikipedia. Phrases like "So please take your supposedly "warm regards" Jaakobou, and stuff them" and this don't really help, although I do understand that you and Jaakobou have a history. I really want to echo Black Kite's words here; it would be great if you could continue the excellent work you are doing on Wikipedia without edit warring as much; try to voluntarily restrict yourself to 1RR and discuss calmly on the talk page (giving yourself at least 10 minutes between each reply) before undoing an edit. NW (Talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

2009-09-10T21:14:03 Skomorokh (talk | contribs | block) m (28,708 bytes) (Protected Operation Defensive Shield: Full protection: dispute. using TW ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [147]
2nd revert: [148]
3rd revert: [149]
4th revert: []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
User talk:Paweł5586 keeps removing citation and ref improve tags from article see here User talk:Paweł5586#Palikrowy massacre for earlier this month when User:Paweł5586 was asked not to remove tags etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Three-revert rule violation on Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.138.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:

09:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
07:58, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
08:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
13:15, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:27, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:35, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:45, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:48, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:51, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:54, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
14:07, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
14:23, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
14:25, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
14:28, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
14:31, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:

02:11, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
02:17, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
00:33, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
20:54, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
01:25, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "input poems")
14:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "seven trees")
15:16, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:08, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
13:24, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:29, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:36, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:47, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:50, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:53, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:55, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.

More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.

The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Page: Belgae This anon seems to be a fan of fringe theories surrounding historical Germanic peoples and has been warned and temporarily banned for vandalism on more than one occasion before. Now (s)he is at work again reverting corrections made to Belgae. Sometimes makes two changes at once, perhaps in the vain hope that it can't be reverted that way. It's not technically 3RR violation, but it looks like a bit of gaming the game by a repeat offender is going on. Paul S (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(cur) (prev) 13:13, 11 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,808 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:10, 11 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,798 bytes) (Undid revision 313065332 by Paul S (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:27, 10 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312883942 by 66.130.4.20 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 00:21, 10 September 2009 66.130.4.20 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312865422 by TEB728 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:26, 9 September 2009 TEB728 (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312847463 by 76.65.240.91 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:46, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312840918 by Paul S (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:09, 9 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) (12,644 bytes) (Undid revision 312803743 by 76.65.240.91 (talk) fringe theory. Also no "Roman Britain" before Claudian invasion) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 20:08, 9 September 2009 Paul S (talk | contribs) m (12,734 bytes) (Undid revision 312804144 by 76.65.240.91 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:23, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:20, 9 September 2009 76.65.240.91 (talk) (12,734 bytes) (undo)

note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]The page was deleted without any chance for discussion, together with the history page. Unless an administrator can resurrect it, its content is lost.

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.

1st revert: [diff]
2nd revert: [diff]
3rd revert: [diff]
4th revert: [diff]

The complaint has nothing to do with WP:3RR, but with immediate deletion of content and other unbecoming conduct.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]I suspect that the password of this experienced user (administrator?) may have been hacked (see OPTIONAL below). Warning the hacker that we may be on to the crime may not be a good idea.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]The article was deleted, not simply blanked, making the talk page an orphan. By this means, "Hesperian" prevented me from trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page.

Comments:

The subject category page had significant introductory text, as well as several links. The subject editor (administrator?), or perhaps someone who had hacked his account deleted the category less than one minute after deleting the last page ("Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium") linking it, using as an excuse "[[Wikipedia:CSD#C1|C1]: Empty category" which requires that the category be empty for four days. Although I know no way to provide diffs for the deleted pages (no history page) unless an administrator resurrects them, the following lines have come from my watchlist page

(Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Subgenera" (C1: Empty category: subcategories upmerged during nomenclatural fixes)
(Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium" (C2: Speedy renaming: now Category:Epidendrum subg. Amphiglotium)

The other links were removed by the same user only shortly before:

(Deletion log); 02:06 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Hormidium" (C1: Empty category: accompanying text copied to article Epidendrum subg. Hormidium with attribution)
(Deletion log); 02:01 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Spathium" (a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum subg. Spathium)
A similar page:"Category:Epidendrum Amphiglottium" (I may have misspelled it as Amphiglotium) which I was not yet watching, but whose subcategories were also removed by "Hesperian":
(Deletion log); 03:00 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium Schistochila" (C2: Speedy renaming: a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum sect. Schistochila; accompanying text moved to Epidendrum sect. Schistochila with attribution)
Another linking category (to the best of my memory) which I was not yet watching, concerning section Polycladia. Because it was deleted, I have no diff.

An additional link was removed from the article Encyclia, which I was not yet watching. The line from the history was:

01:47, 10 September 2009 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (10,137 bytes) (not a subgenus) (undo)

The diffs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312621953&oldid=311052765 (before) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclia&diff=312928532&oldid=312621953 (after)

If possible, return the deleted material. (This was not page blanking, but deletion, making the content unrecoverable by the usual means, and carrying the threat of sanctions for re-creating it because of the assumption that at least four days of due process had been carried out during the minute of 03:07, September 10, 2009).
Remove any record in the returned articles of their deletion. They have not been deleted using Wikipedia due process.
Block the "Hesperian" account until the rightful owner can re-take control of it. It seems incredible that an experienced user (administrator?) would behave in this manner. Alternatively, if Hesperian has indeed been behaving in this reprehensible manner, try to educate Hesperian that summarily deleting pages for no other justification than a false claim about the passage of time is not acceptable, and that ignorantly reverting pages with bombastic ignorant claims of ignorant reversions is not conducive to the goals of Wikipedia.

"Hesperian"'s view, as best I understand it "Hesperian" did deposit a belittling comment on my talk page, (after I tried to fix some of the damage) complaining that I was not following the most recent style guide published by an organization external to Wikipedia:

Hi,

You don't understand nomenclature yet. That's okay, you'll learn. Meanwhile, please restrain yourself from reverting the people who do.

Racemosi may well be a section of subgenus Spathium, but in accordance with Article 21.1 of the International Convention on Botanical Nomenclature, "The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.) is used to denote the rank." That means that section names takes the form "Genus sect. Section", and the subgenus doesn't get a mention. Those are the rules. I didn't write them.

If "Hesperian" was acting in good faith, we must conclude that "Hesperian" believes that this quotation from "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" not only outlaws certain content (saying that a subsection is a subsection of a section instead of a genus, or that a section is a section of a subgenus instead of a genus) , but also justifies page deletions that violate Wikipedia policy. "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" is powerful, indeed!
Jay L09 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comment - I left a note on Hesperian's talk suggesting some ways this might be resolved. I suggest we should wait for him to respond before making any decision on this report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Comment From what I can tell Hesperian has responded appropriately to a situation where incorrect information on Wiki needed to be replaced with correct info - something we deal with all the time - and he has indeed outlined his rationale for making such changes per a reliable source (although the person who has brought it here has not accepted it). Per WP:BURO this does not require a standing committee or a drawn-out process to achieve. Additionally, what is it doing at AN3? There is no suggestion at all that he has edit warred (let alone broken the 3-revert rule!) and the only things offered by the initiator of this claim are unsupported bad faith allegations against Hesperian (along with suggestions his account has been hijacked and demands that he be blocked!). Disputes like this, if they lead to poor quality content surviving rather than being dealt with appropriately, decrease our efficacy amongst those who are aware of the true details. Orderinchaos 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No vio. can't quite see why this is here. Did you mean WP:ANI? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What actually happened here is I speedily renamed a cluster of categories that followed neither botanical nomenclature nor our conventions nor common sense. The text of these categories contained articles with taxoboxes, so I copied that text into their own articles before deleting the replaced categories. Then I cleaned up the nomenclature of all the articles contained in the categories. I took great care that all the information posted was retained. There was a case, and it would have saved a lot of time, for me to simply declare the category tree unsalvageable, and upmerge to Category:Epidendrum. But I didn't. I spent two hours carefully copying and correcting information. In the process a single block of text slipped through: I failed to find a home for the text on Category:Epidendrum Subgenera. That is half the cause of this complaint. Jay then undid several of my fixes, reintroducing the incorrect nomenclature; and I restored them, leaving the above message on his user talk page. That is the other half of the cause of this complaint. Hesperian 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): [150], [151], [152]: [History page

User in question has been adding challenged material to Byzantine Empire, a Featured Article. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond. He has been warned multiple times that he is edit warring, but asserts that he didn't "start it" and is thus in the right.[153] Reverting him again will obviously not help things but he refuses to discuss on the talk page, so Im at a loss as sto what to do.

—Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: ASOTMKX's modifications
Proper version (community-sourced:) [154]

1st revert: [155]
2nd revert: [156]
3rd revert: [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments: Multiple members of the community have tried to mitigate ASOTMKX's efforts to insert this improper information.

Dustin Howett (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1st revert: [160]
2nd revert: [161]
3rd revert: [162]
4th revert: [163]
5th revert: [164]

Diff of 1st edit war warning: [165] Diff of 2nd edit war warning: [166]

I request help with the above situation involving multiple deletions and reversions of properly sourced and footnoted NPOV text by an anonymous IP user. The anonymous IP user has engaged in multiple deletions of the same text over the past two weeks, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and has already been warned twice. Please help us in resolving this matter; it is becoming a huge waste of constructive editors' time and efforts. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1 week. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd appears to apply William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sort of new at this edit warring resolution thing . . . does that mean that the anonymous IP user is blocked for "1 week," or is that shorthand for something else? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

User being reported:' Athenean (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1st revert: [167]
2nd revert: [168]

User has ARBMAC restriction of one revert per week in areas of diptute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenean#ARBMAC_restrictions

Both reverts made by him in both articles fall under this restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Area_of_conflict

Thank you. --I Pakapshem (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

1/7RR is per article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Page: British Isles
User being reported: 83.44.182.107

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: [169]
2nd revert: [170]
3rd revert: [171]
4th revert: [172]

The use of "Ireland" to refer to the geographic island earlier in the lead paragraph should preclude the use of the same word to describe the political entity later in the paragraph, which can correctly be referred to as the "Republic of Ireland" - as the Wiki article does. While the use simply of the word "Ireland" to describe the political entity is not wrong in this context it is confusing, and the use of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is similarly not wrong, but less confusing, and is on par with the descriptive title "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which precedes it in the same sentence - why not use it?

The editor has been asked to discuss the edit, but to no avail. A warning has been placed in his discussion page.

2009-09-11T21:03:12 Black Kite (talk | contribs | block) blocked 83.44.182.107 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Block evasion: also WP:3RR violation on British Isles) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit Warring violation on

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

Revision as of 20:16, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
Revisions as of 21:03, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
Revision as of 16:09, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"
Revisions as of 18:03, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"

The above is the tip of a very large iceberg. As background, on September 8 I questioned this editor's revisions to citation form (without even reverting him; see [173]). He immediately began to edit vigorously (almost exclusively) articles I had edited recently, with special emphasis on the one I had created (The Shells), and those I later created.

Often his edits were simply revisions to format that were of no substantive effect. But more recently he has begun to delete properly sourced portions of the article (see above).

He has also begun deleting any mention of this particular band (whose article I created) in other articles -- even when sourced (see [174] and [175].

Efforts to communicate both in edit summaries and on his talk page, requesting that he desist disruptive edits and instead leave the page as-is, have been to no avail.

I have left him the appropriate notice as directed on this page.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should be pointed out that I reported VMAsNYC above. (Correctly I might add... it seems that {{AN3|novioexplain}} applies here.) I have tried other avenues to engage in a discussion with him, including other dispute resolution actions such as involving third parties and asking about policy. In each case he has been defiant-even butting heads with other editors that come to the same conclusions I have. The accusations of "wikistalking" that are littered throughout their contributions border on personal attacks as my edits have been to uphold existing policy almost exclusively. I have consistently gotten the feeling that User:VMAsNYC is a single purpose account as the vast majority of their edits have been about The Shells; either directly to related articles (The Shells, WeThreeRecords, Written Roads, Jessi Rae Waltz, Carrie Welling, Melanie Klaja, Best Breakout New York City Artist Award) or linking to such articles in order to drive traffic to them [176][177][178][179] (this is just a small subset). They have made other edits, but in terms of the actual volume of content anything of substance has been exclusively about this band and promoting their VMA appearance (or, incidentally, debating WP policy). Regardless of the outcome of this request, I would like some time to put together a solid WP:AN/I report about this as I have a strong suspicion (but no proof without someone actually coming in and doing a check user) that VMAsNYC is either somehow employed by a media PR firm for The Shells or has some other WP:COI with this article (such as writing one of the reviews, either the Seventeen one or the blog that doesn't pass WP:RS). ~ Paul^T+/_C 00:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&oldid=312688823

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313137246
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313104839
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312905851
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312677274

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADak&diff=313297067&oldid=241059218

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFisting&diff=313137913&oldid=312287308

Comments:

This edit war has continued for the last month. User:Dak is alone in the discussion believing a certin image should be included in the article. Three other editors (including myself) has explicitly asked that the image not be included. Reasons have been stated repeatedly by both sides. HalJor (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Previous version reverted to: [180]

1st revert: [181]
2nd revert: [182]
3rd revert: [183]
4th revert: [184]
5th revert: [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Comments:
Neutralhomer is adding a WHOIS template to the talk page of an IP. This IP is a static IP and is known to be used by Izzedine (talk · contribs). This is a repeat of an episode in August that ended up in blocks and admin apologies to the IP for the repeated placement of the same template. See talk page discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply