Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC)

Page: Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luciano di Martino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is an older version by another editor that is now being reverted to [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

The editor named Luciano di Martino is reverting back to an older version by an editor named Davide41 after the latter got into a case of edit warring that ended up at ANI. [5] Davide41 has promised not to edit the page anymore, but against consesus and without discussing the matter on the talk page Luciano do Martini is now making the exact same edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As mentioned above, this issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page. Most of the talk page and the archive are about this issue. [7]

Comments:

The history of the page shows an attempt at consensus was made [8] --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response I am a man of strong academic attitude who respects prof David's (University of Rome) academic background and experience. After reading the article talk page content I unconditionally supported prof. David's contribution to the credibility of this article.

I did not enter into any discussion here for an obvious lack of mutual respect (visible on the article talkpage) necessary to carry out any civilized discussion. A student of a provincial university (Zagreb) throws primitive disqualifications of the prof. David's (University of Rome) academic background this way:

Philosopher12 (talk) This user is from Croatia. This user is a student of history and philosophy at FFZG.

Dear Davide, professor of history in Rome, who apparently does not know history.
OK, so you are a vandal that will be banned in a no time. I don't have to say anything else. It's sad I've spent time on you. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Respect. Thirty five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok "professor", i don't know history, you do. Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"professor" I'm offended.
This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

At the end a few questions to User:AnnekeBart

• how someone can claim a consensus over article content if out of five two are against of it?
• how it is possible that only one person (me) is involved in the edit war for each war must have at least two participants?
• how it is possible that User:AnnekeBart who does not have any background in the Italian medieval history knows what are second and tertiary references supporting the article context?

As a university professor of medieval history I support decisions of the universities and colleges across the Globe to disqualify Wikipedia as a valid academic resource as long as I see the nonsense pointed at above.

My professional and academic based response to the quality of this article content is appended to the article talkpage.[9]--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 72 hours for nationalist edit warring. He is insisting that this artist is Italian rather than Croatian, and in his pursuit of the cause, he has removed modern scholarly sources that specifically look into this matter. Does the case for his side become stronger if he deletes the evidence for the other side? I've also warned him under the WP:ARBMAC decision. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books)

User:AmiAyalon1969 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page: Homs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmiAyalon1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

Comments:

This edit is actually subject to a one-revert rule under WP:ARBPIA. The editor (a suspected sock) is edit-warring over several different articles, and is already the subject of discussions at ANI and AE. Despite this, s/he is continuing to edit war, in breach even of 3RR, over many articles. RolandR (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor has also breached 3RR at Racism in the Palestinian territories[16][17][18][19] and at Judaization of Jerusalem[20][21][22][23], to both of which 1RR applies. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Indefinitely blocked for abuse of multiple accounts by User:Timotheus Canens, per a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.19.191.48 and User:79.35.189.102 reported by User:David in DC (Result: no violation)

Page: List of living supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
86.19.191.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
79.35.189.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]
• 6th revert: [30]
• 7th revert: [31]

Edit warring/3RR warnings:
User talk:86.19.191.48
User_talk:79.35.189.102

Discussion attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians#Flag_icon_issue
Comments:
I'd kinda hoped the talk page discussion would head off the kind of edit warring we see now. Apparantly, it just led the warriors underground to IP addresses.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
This case lies in the background of the current dispute.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Flags_-_Policy_discussion
Please note especially the collapsed particpation of a topic-banned editor.

An admin explains to the topic-banned editor why his participation in the discussion above was inappropriate.

I believe, but cannot prove, the edit warriors are associated with the group identified in this discussion, and that the second set of reverts was most likely set off by the discussion.

Diff 5 through 8 are evidence of increasing (and slightly scary) hostility. David in DC (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Consecutive edits are not separate reverts, so each of them have only reverted once. If you feel there's a bigger issue in the works, please drop a note on ANI (or SPI if you feel these are all the same editor), but I don't see edit warring. I'll leave 86.19 a waring on the goofy personal attacks. Kuru (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fat&Happy User:Loonymonkey User:Mystylplx User:Johnuniq reported by User:Sempi (Result: stale)

Page: Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

Fat&Happy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loonymonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mystylplx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]

Check history for many others, these are just the most recent. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

History: [41]

Comments:

Note, these blanket deletions of any and all references to Vattel and the Law of Nations by a handful of censors on this article is historical. This is not merely an "edit war," but appears to be a focused direction on their part, regardless of discussion, regardless of contributor, and regardless of sources. No matter what editor posts a Law of Nations source, nor what references they cite, this team of censors has been managing to delete it without providing any references or sources themselves justifying such deletions. They do participate in discussions, but it's nearly all irrelevant, non sourced, and appear to be for show.

In summary, this article is about the "natural born citizen" clause of the US Constitution. Yet, the Law of Nations source, which has a direct "natural born citizen" reference, and which is also referenced as being used by the authors of the US Constitution is being repeatedly deleted as even a mere possible source of "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution.

In short, this handful of people are gaming Wikipedia rules in order to censor knowledge, which would seem to be the antithesis of Wikipedia. I'm probably just the first one that really decided to do something about it.

Review this recent comment between two of the conspirators, "You were reported at WP:AIV (permalink), but the report was assessed as "content dispute" and removed. Let's proceed calmly, but it is clear that something will have to happen to remove the disruption from Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution." Johnuniq to Mystylplx [42]

• Comment The reporter, User:Sempi has violated 3rr, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts, And the reporter is on notice of the 3rr rule, warning from before the first revert on a related incident. I was not going to report them because they had stopped, but in light of bringing this to the venue, it seems necessary to raise it. I would also mention there was a fruitless attempt to have one of the editors being reported here blocked at AIV. Monty₈₄₅ 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see a couple of 3RR problems here, but it appears to be stale at this point. There's no such thing as "group edit warring"; it usually just means consensus is against you. I'm sure this article is a conspiracy theory magnet, but I would encourage regular edits not to get drawn into edit wars with new users. Kuru (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If by stale, you mean they appear to have stopped at the moment, then yes. However, the main point of filing this is because of the history of deletions going back months, involving the deletion of contributions from multiple people on the exact same specific content. I was expecting an admin would at least review the history to see what was really going on, and for how long, rather than only drawing a conclusion based merely upon the most recent week. Maybe I should have made that more clear. This was not an "edit war with new users," but an edit war against any users that sourced the Law of Nations.

As for not following the standard template, I thought it better to consolidate since all four are doing the exact same thing, in the exact same article, and appear to be working as a team to game the rules, i.e. one would make a deletion, then another the exact same deletion later, and so on. My thought was also that multiple reports would have been even less likely to result in anyone taking the time to research what was really going on between these users; this report already appears to have been ignored or overlooked as is. Would multiple reports have further complicated things? Nevertheless, I'm glad they at least appear to have stopped doing it for the time being. Maybe, in a way, reporting it did work!

I was wondering if a single user using multiple proxies and accounts could create the illusion of consensus on articles or use dummy accounts to cause mischief? Not that I suspect that in this case, but the question arose. Is that possible?

I see User:Mystylplx has now been blocked for a history of edit warring. [43] Is this permanent? IP based? Sorry for the questions. I hope someone has a few seconds to answer. Sempi (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• IP Editors are not able to issue blocks. User:Mystylplx has never been blocked. Check the block log. I find the timing of this very ususual... Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. So it was just someone faking it. What about someone using proxies? Couldn't they pretend to create consensus? Sempi (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP-anon was accusing Mystylplx of being a sockpuppet of a long-ago-blocked user (Griot). I advised the IP-anon (on the IP address's talk page) that in order for such an accusation to be properly investigated and acted upon, it needed to be posted at WP:SPI — something which has so far not happened.

While it is most certainly possible for a single user to create an illusion of consensus through "sockpuppetry" or "meatpuppetry", this is not usually the explanation for a situation like this one. When a bunch of editors agree (more or less) on one position, and a single editor vehemently and intransigently disagrees with that position, it is very unlikely to be sockpuppetry, or a collusion to game the rules, and much more likely to be a bona-fide consensus which the lone holdout is refusing to accept.

Although WP:3RR does include an exemption for repeated reversion of obvious vandalism, most people are going to view this case, not as vandalism, but as a content dispute that has turned into an edit war. And editors who repeatedly and determinedly go back to their preferred version of the article, accusing those who disagree with them of bad faith and rulebreaking, are at risk of getting blocked for 3RR or edit-warring (and are unlikely to find any sympathy by trying to claim the exemption for reverting obvious vandalism).

I would urge Sempi and the other editors involved in this dispute to back off from the article itself and try to resolve their disagreements through sincere discussion and consensus-building (not haranguing) on the talk page — including bringing other, thus-far uninvolved editors into the discussion in order to get fresh perspectives on the issues. Otherwise, you're likely to just end up eventually getting yourself topic-banned or long-term blocked, and that would deprive the rest of us of whatever constructive contributions you might otherwise have been able to make here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the history? This bias against the Law of Nations as a source had been going on long before I got involved. That proves your assumption that this is an edit war between myself, and these four wrong. This has been an edit war between these four and anyone that used the Law of Nations source, yourself included. Sempi (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that there has simply been, for some time, a bona-fide consensus that The Law of Nations is not in fact a very good source for what the framers of the Constitution meant by "natural-born citizen"? Some seemingly valid points have been raised in that regard — such as whether an English translation of the book, actually containing the phrase "natural-born citizens", did or didn't exist prior to the writing of the Constitution. And the suggestion that the Constitution's phrase "Offenses against the Law of Nations" is obviously, necessarily a specific and literal reference to Emerich de Vattel's book is something over which I believe reasonable people can reasonably differ without our needing to posit a conspiracy to suppress the truth. I'm not trying to debate the content dispute here — that ought to happen on the article's talk page, not on the edit warring noticeboard — I'm simply trying to show that this may legitimately be a plain old, garden-variety content dispute, and that it's appropriate to assume good faith on the part of those involved. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

But the history shows that is wrong too, because this group allowed multiple different sources to be added as possible, most of them without any source showing they were even used by the framers at all. They were trying to hold the Law of Nations sources to much higher standards than all others, even when the Law of Nations sources can specifically be sourced to being used by the framers before authoring the Constitution. Censorship of one specific relevant source and approval of most others, even those without any sourced relevance, is not valid consensus, unless bias is valid. Sempi (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm pretty nominally involved in this (I stumbled on this discussion randomly and noticed my name). Looking at the history, I've reverted this editor exactly once in the last week, which is enough to include me in the "conspiracy" apparently. The article in question is not one I'm all that involved in, I just pay attention to it because it does draw a lot of these fervent types that will fight hard to push their obscure theories into what would otherwise be a dry American civics page. Honestly, I'm surprised this much time is being wasted on this, both in this thread and on the article's talk page. This is a classic case of WP:FILIBUSTER by one editor. There really isn't that much to discuss in terms of content at this point, that's all been discussed, it's just a matter of behavior now. I would invite any outside editors who are unsure of the situation to read through as much of this thread and the talk page as they can tolerate and to look at the edit history to really get an idea of whether or not there is a "conspiracy to censor knowledge" or if it's just one person attempting to disrupt the project. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2011(UTC)

Here to downplay your involvement. Why? I thought this case was closed. Why would you be worried? From your history in not only the revisions but discussions, you are obviously more involved. You just don't want anyone to look. Sempi (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I may be being blind here, but I just don't see an ulterior conspiracy. The current text of the article does mention Vattel's The Law of Nations (saying it was cited in the Wong Kim Ark dissent). What people are evidently not willing to do is to see Vattel's work cited prominently as the Framers' self-evident, preeminent, definitive authority on the philosophical nature of citizenship — a position which everyone else currently appears to be dismissing as giving undue weight to a poorly attested fringe theory. There is, in my view, simply no need to posit the workings of a pervasive nefarious cabal. If (as appears to be the case) you are flatly unwilling to accept this, then I fear this issue is inevitably going to lead to some sort of forcible intervention — either because you will bring it up on a suitable administrative noticeboard (as I suggested last night on your talk page), or because some other editor will finally get so fed up with the situation that he/she will choose to report your ongoing conduct. There are, to be sure, some informal and non-binding avenues for dispute resolution relating to content dispute and/or editor conduct, but I'm sadly skeptical of whether these will accomplish anything in the face of solidly entrenched positions such as appear to be in place here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (talk) (Result: declined)

Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 07:09, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undo nonsense changes")
2. 07:47, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428040706 by Moonraker2 (talk) try reading the paragraph")
3. 08:23, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "There is nothing wrong with this section")
4. 10:00, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 428051698 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) for the last time WILL YOU PLEASE STOP THIS?")
5. 10:56, 8 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Parrot of Doom. (TW)")

—PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

PoD is an experienced editor, who has been reported here twice since 21 March for breached of 3RR to the page Guy Fawkes Night:

• 22 March Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive153#Parrot_of_Doom_reported_by_Philip_Baird_Shearer_.28Result:_No_action_taken.29
• 28 March 2011 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive154#User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS .28Result: protected.29

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

See the talk page and most recent archives. However most of these reverts were to bold edits (not changes the text placed on the by another editor in the last 24 hours). In only one case was the edit to revert a the same previous edit in the last 24 hours but that edit was made by a different editor partially reverting an edit by POD.

Comments:

It appears that the last edit by PoD was using Twinkle, and the comment indicates that Twinkle was used in an inappropriate way: Reversing a good faith edit and calling it vandalism. --PBS (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• See User_talk:Iridescent#User:Philip_Baird_Shearer. Parrot of Doom 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• PBS's edits were in violation of WP:POINT and were an active attempt to disrupt an ongoing FAC because he feels the discussion isn't going his way. Now, PoD may or may not have edit-warred - but I don't feel he should be blocked, because it's quite obvious that PBS was not acting in good faith. I would also be reluctant to protect the article, because it's currently at FAC. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• I believe PoD should be admonished not to violate the letter or spirit of 3RR at any time, but I'm not comfortable with PoD being blocked here, because the behavior on the other side was in no way less problematic, and because he's in the middle of a FAC that requires his attention. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• PoD has merely reacted to constant gaming of the system by an editor who is determined to trivialise a good article. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am not commenting on the 3RR possibility as I don't intend to involve myself directly in the article history (I prefer to stay uninvolved in content matters until the direction of the FAC is clear and I can weigh reviewer commentary about the text without prejudice), but it is abundantly clear that PBS is disrupting the FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Fawkes Night/archive1, making demands without providing yet a single source on the FAC to back his assertions or concerns. The appearance is that he will do anything he can to cause the FAC to be archived and to make it difficult for reviewers to enter legitimate commentary or for nominators to address concerns. If any blocks are in order here, I hope they will apply to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I hope the closing admin will not choose to block PoD for this. He's been trying to write a featured article under trying circumstances for several weeks. Philip Baird Shearer has, it appears, been trying to disrupt the process at every turn, including engaging in drawn-out talk-page discussion about one minor point after another; then after they've been addressed, unarchiving weeks later and continuing to demand answers (example). If the issues he's raising would improve the content, or if he were offering high-quality sources, or helping to improve the writing, that'd be one thing. But the suggestions of his that I've seen would have caused deterioration. It's extremely difficult to work with this going on, and this is far from an isolated example of Philip behaving this way. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined I do not think that this situation calls for a block of any party at present. I am loathe to protect an article while it is at FAC, both because it interferes with development and because there should be sufficient experienced attention on the article to prevent disagreements from becoming edit wars. The proposed Request for comment looks like the best next step here. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MosMusy reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: declined)

Page: 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MosMusy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments: I have worked very hard, as have other users, to bring about a compromise here. I have presented WP:RS to support my position and encouraged the other user to do so. Instead the other user has repeatedly declared that he is the "winner" of the argument and has instituted his controversial edits twice after being explicitly warned he did not have consensus to do so. I've filed a request for mediation because I'd like the ultimate issue we're debating to be settled, but I don't think edit warring is an appropriate recourse for this user and I don't seem to be getting across.

-Kudzu1 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see no violation. There were more than 24 hours between the reverts. What I do see is that Kudzu1 has developed an attitude that he OWNS the page lately. TL565 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined MosMusy has not edited the article since the 3RR warning, and has stated a willingness to seek compromise. I am sufficiently concerned by their talkpage posts, though, that I am notifying of WP:ARBAA2. I would advise Kudzu1 to be more circumspect in reverting, but I do not think that their edits over the past week indicate an inappropriate degree of article ownership. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rafy reported by User:77.44.210.15 (Result: no vio / stale)

Page: Syriac Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

User:Rafy wants to force certain edits and he does not want to reach a consensus formula through the discussion page.77.44.210.15 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment please read the definition of the 3RR before accusing me.

I provided references in the article and raised some issues about your edits in the talk page. You might want to discuss the reasons for your reverts in the talk page first before including them in the article.--Rafy talk 16:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't see a direct 3rr violation due to the timing, it is getting into edit war territory. I would strongly urge you both to pursue additional Wikipedia:Dispute resolution steps rather then continuing to revert each other. Maybe requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion would help. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not a 3rr violation, but it is obvious edit warring from his part. User:Rafy tried repeatedly to force his edits and refused my attempt to reach a compromise with him.77.44.210.15 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• No violation There have anyway been no edits to the article for a day and a half, making this report stale now. WikiProject Christianity may be of use in generating additional input to resolve the underlying dispute if the recently presented references do not suffice. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is a problem of CONDUCT. User:Rafy does not want to compromise, and I don't think any dispute resolution project can help when a user is not willing to compromise. Your decision is a green light for the edit war to continue.77.44.210.15 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Icerat reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: 24 h)

Page: Amway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Icerat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]

The user (Icerat, aka User:Insider201283) has repeatedly reverted the removal of an old WP:OR tag. I first removed the tag yesterday based on the fact that it was added in 2009[62] (by Icerat/Insider201283) at which time the content in question (one sentence in the Politics and Culture section of Amway) was discussed on the article Talk page by several editors who disagreed with Icerat's assessment and were of the opinion that there was no OR. I came across that Talk page thread[63] for the first time yesterday when I was following up on a COI/editing conflict complaint regarding this user's contributions on another related Amway page Amway Australia. After not having made any input on this issue since 2009, Icerat immediately reverted my removal of the tag on the basis that a link cited with a sentence he objected to was dead.[64] Icerat also removed the entire sentence itself[65] despite the fact that he had already reverted the removal of the OR tag. I replied that a dead link was not valid basis for removal of the content (the relevant text from the source in question had been quoted on the talk page[66]) and that instead, a 'dead link' tag should be added. I again removed the OR tag. The editor was clearly intent on keeping the OR tag in place even when the alleged offending content was removed from the article. The goal seems to be to denigrate the entire section of content in (Amway:Politics and Culture). Despite repeated warnings, the presentation of additional supporting references,[67][68] and input from another editor on the noticeboard indicating that the content in question is not OR,[69] Icerat violated 3RR today.[70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71][72][73][74]

Comments:
This was simply ridiculous edit warring and verging on harassment on the part of Rhode Island Red. We are talking here about a tag, not article content. He removed an old tag, which triggered a watch for me, I reviewed the problem and in my opinion it still existed, so I added a new tag, with current dating. He challenged this and kept removing the tag, despite ongoing discussion. I raised the issue on the OR\Noticeboard to get additional viewpoints. He continued to remove the tag despite this active discussion and my concerns. Indeed, including the original case, he removed the OR tag four times within 24 hrs [75][76][77][78]. I've no idea what he's referring to about me wishing the tag included after the alleged offending material was removed. RIR replaced this info in his first revert and I believe it remained until it was rewritten. In any case, tags are in place to try and encourage other editors to contribute to an article and any discussion, removing them in spite of another editors concerns, and ongoing discussion, is simple disruption. Even more bizarrely, the issue the tag was about has now been resolved on the OR noticeboard and the section in dispute rewritten, and the tag removed, by myself. In other words, there's no problem. --Icerat (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

NB: The issue has not been resolved. I'm merely letting your latest edit stand until the admins have had a chance to review the evidence of 3RR violation; that doesn't mean I agree with your edit or that anything has been resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the issue not resolved? You found a source. I've since found another source. Both have been added to the article and the text improved to reflect them, and the tag your so stressed about has been removed. If you've got a problem with the actual text there now there's no reason not to continue discussion in talk while your pursue this petty 3RR vendetta. --Icerat (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You raised this issue in 2009 on the article talk page. Two editors replied at that time and both diagreed with you. You did nothing about the 'issue' in the 2 years that elapsed. Yesterday you posted a comment on the OR noticeboard, and again, the editor who replied disgareed with you. And lastly, I disagree with you. When you continue to insist on denigrating a whole section of content based on the fact that you alone don't like it; ignore the unanimous comments of other editors; display WP:OWN and ignore WP policy; and engage in unjust edit warring, then the principal problem clearly lies with with your conduct. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're embarrassing yourself, particularly given the content in dispute, and the tag itself, were removed by myself some time ago - indeed, before you registered this 3RR claim [79]]. The OR dispute was resolved because additional sources were found that (a) actually existed and (b) did not require original research. It's still POV-pushing and doesn't belong in this particular article, but that's a dispute for elsewhere. --Icerat (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) The tag is still there.

(2) After violating 3RR, Icerat made additional edits to the content in question, and not only did this user revert the deletion of the OR tag again, they added a second tag (POV).[80] This conduct is clearly over the top. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I removed the OR tag when fixing the text and adding the POV tag. I certainly intended to. I've now removed it. --Icerat (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to belabor this any further, since the evidence already speaks for itself, but I couldn’t help noticing a lot of significant refactoring of Icerat’s comments on this 3RR.[81][82][83][84][85][86] It’s just my opinion, but it seems like tinkering with excuses until they fit better (jamming a square peg into a round hole?). Much like the user's comment above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now re-editing something for clarity is a crime? Good grief. In any case, I've re-added the OR tag as the overall issue has not been solved. Having to deal with your multiple personal attacks in various forums is making it difficult to focus. The overall issue now is one of WP:SYNTH (see Talk:Amway#Politics_and_Culture_POV_pushing), which is a part of WP:OR but not explicit in the tag. I'd removed the OR tag then re-added it on this basis before submitting the edit, and then gotten distracted with having to deal with this petty 3RR case. --Icerat (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No comment on the CoI and OR board discussions. Rhode Island Red, regardless of the rightness of the matter, edit warring over a tag is often silly, especially when exhorting other users to stop edit warring. Please consider that consensus takes time. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand you POV and sincerely appreciate your input. If you scan through the Talk page[87] and noticeboard replies,[88] every editor (5 in total now) has commented that there is not an OR issue with the source/content in question. What we have here is one editor insistent on ignoring that quasi-consensus and doing what please them regardless. Anyhow, thanks for your attention in thsi matter. Hopefully it will cool things down a bit on the project page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:QuintupleTwist reported by User:Mathsci (Result: indef as sock)

Page: Race (classification of humans) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [89],[90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95] [96]

Comments:
This user's editing has already caused concern. Here he is edit warring to make fundamental changes to the lede of an article covered by arbitration sanctions WP:ARBR&I. I independently have started an SPI/CU Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev; and there is a parallel discussion on WP:AE#Volunteer Marek in which his name has come up. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: A checkuser has confirmed that the he is the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed based on that SPI. Kuru (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:78.105.18.126 reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: 24 hours)

Page: House of Numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.105.18.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]
• 5th revert: [102]
• 6th revert: [103]
• 7th revert: [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Comments:
User has been warned several times and encouraged to discuss proposed changes on the talk page, but user will not engage. This appears to be a single-purpose account for edit warring at this article and Christine Maggiore. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Had already blocked for 3RR in the request below. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:78.105.18.126 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Christine Maggiore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.105.18.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:10, 3 May 2011

• 1st revert: 02:44, 9 May 2011
• 2nd revert: 13:07, 9 May 2011
• 3rd revert: 14:06, 9 May 2011
• 4th revert: 14:35, 9 May 2011
• 5th revert: 06:35, 9 May 2011
• 6th revert: 07:22, 9 May 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:25, 26 April 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not engaged on talk page despite requests at User talk:78.105.18.126.

Comments:
Apparently fixed IP, edit-warring across a range of articles related to AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 15:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Oops, same editor reported immediately above. Please consider these two reports together. MastCell ^Talk 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Two more reverts (I think). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clearly the same editor as previous days, has been warned about 3R before. Kuru (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.186.32.97 reported by ΔT _{^{The only constant}} (Result: )

Page: Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.186.32.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 23:20, 8 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427071334 by Δ (talk)")
2. 11:10, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428173865 by Δ (talk)")
3. 15:13, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428241541 by Δ (talk) many of these are in fact PD, the others may also be PD, am awaiting clarification from BI")
4. 15:36, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428260649 by Δ (talk)")
5. 15:37, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "Kindly cease removing public domain images, as clearly explained on your talk page. Many thanks.")

Repeated violations of our non-free content poliocy —ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The images were in place on the article for 3 years, and were removed by the user above claiming it was 'overuse' of non-free fair use content. I restored them, and when I looked more closely found that many images were quite clearly in public domain under Indonesian law, so I tagged them correctly, which User:Δ reverted on sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Check your facts, PD-gov for Indonesia does not apply. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am well in possession of the facts, I have spent several years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Indonesian currency, and I can assure you that the images I tagged were issued by the central government and are public domain under Indonesian law.

Now given that the images were in the article for three years and free or nonfree are not a copyright violation, but only in your view 'overuse', I consider that you are the cause of the edit war in that you continued to revert aggressively, certainly well in excess of 3RR when we were still ACTIVELY discussing the status of these images. You are yourself violating 3RR, which says 'Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.' (Boldface at source.) Since it is far from 'unquestionable', I suggest you are being rather forward in your nomination of me here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive been thought this multiple times. enforcing NFCC is exempt from 3RR. either provide clear proof of your claims from a reliable third party or shut up. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive asked for proof and Ive look for proof of your claims and I cannot find it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is very clear, you may only exceed 3RR when it is 'unquestionably a violation' of WP:NFCC. Whether or not possibly nonfree banknote images issued by 'Bank Indonesia' are 'overused' is a matter of interpretation and is certainly not an 'unquestionable violation' of the guidelines at WP:NFCC

That's the first problem with your behaviour.

The second is that if you actually went to the trouble of trying understand what it is you are battling over, rather than just acting robot-like on the output of some 'overusage' report, you would get much further. If you look through the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banknotes_of_the_Indonesian_rupiah&oldid=428263093 (the one with images in, before you removed them) you will see that there are 'Government Notes', such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesia_1954_1r_o.jpg which are clearly issued by 'Republik Indonesia', and there are 'Bank Notes', such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesia_1957_5r_o.jpg which states 'Bank Indonesia'. Just in case it wasn't clear enough the Government Notes are signed 'Menteri Keuangan' (Treasury Minister) - i.e. government official; whereas those 'Bank Indonesia' notes are signed 'Gubernur' and 'Direktur' (i.e. bank officials)

It is also explained in the article that the low denomination notes could not legally be issued by the Bank as according to the 1914 Currency Act, which is why they were issued by the government.

So as already requested, you need to go back and restore those correctly applied public domain tags, and please in future try to understand a little more, and battle a little less. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Again you failed to prove anything. I asked for reliable third party sources stating that the money is PD. Just because its signed by someone does not meant that it is published by the government. Without a doubt there is some governmental involvement with the post 2002 images, and prior to 2002 there is no proof of public domain either. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting here that Betacommand, or Δ as he now seems to prefer to be known, has only recently been released from a two-year restriction barring him from any action relating to non-free content "policing", imposed in consequence of his previous bull-headed behaviour. I find his assertion that "enforcing NFCC is exempt from 3RR" especially disturbing. This shows a signal failure to understand policy in this area, which as the anon correctly cites firmly forbids such action except when there is unquestionably a violation.
Without taking a view on Indonesian copyright law, on which the anon may well be right, it should be noted that showing what the current bills of a country look like is absolutely the spine of the topic for an article on the banknotes of that country. Such depictions have been absolutely standard on such articles for at least as I've been on Wikipedia, and on most reasonable interpretations I would have thought would plainly pass NFCC #8. If these images were nominated for WP:FFD, I have not the slightest doubt that they would be kept.
If Beta wants to question that status quo, the right way to bring up the issue would be through a well-advertised RFC. Edit-warring is not acceptable, and if Beta doesn't know that -- or doesn't want to know that -- then that seems to me a matter of the highest severity, and perhaps time that his ongoing probation should be reviewed. Jheald (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would also make the edit request that the images be restored to the page by an appropriate neutral admin, so that they can be seen and examined in situ while discussion progresses, as for example they would be pending an FFD; rather than remaining off the page, because that makes them liable to be deleted by an automated process regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case.

As I wrote above, it is standard practice for articles on "Banknotes of Country X" to show the banknotes. In the case of US dollar denominations I am sure we would expect nothing else, and Indonesian denominations should be no different. If somebody wants to raise the question of this wiki-wide, the way to do that is through an RFC. But edit-warring, as Beta has done, on a particular page against a long-standing customary use cannot be acceptable. Jheald (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NFC requires removal, you cannot leave such violations in place. There are very few remaining currency articles with large amounts of non-free content in them. this issue has already decided. Until there is consensus for inclusion they cannot be re-added. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS US and other cases use FREE images, I really dont care whether you use 1 or 1,000 free images, my focus is on the over usage of non-free content. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jheald, your disdain for our NFC is known, This issue has already been determined, see [User_talk:Δ/20110501#New_Zealand_dollar_images]] for an other example. There is no reason for the amount of NFC in currency related articles. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You tell me that "the issue has already been decided" and you point me to a discussion at WikiProject Numismatics. But all I see there is a personal view being pushed by Hammersoft (possibly the one other editor who could challenge yourself for uncompromising zeal in this area) -- and achieving no traction or consensus whatsoever.

Interpretation of policy should be guided by (i) consensus, if necessary following an RfC, and (ii) long-standing practice. It is not something that is there that just you and Hammersoft can declare. This also has been something that led to your past restrictions. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that any consensus has ever been reached. What I see is a determination to demolish first, ask questions later, even in the face of doubts as to what the copyright status of these images are in the first place. If the issue has been 'decided' it is only by repeated application of the kind of heavy-handed tactics that Betacommand has employed here (perhaps with one or two like-minded bulldozer editors working alongside), in order to successfully excise these encyclopedic images from other pages.

Such tactics, while frequently successful on Wikipedia do not really demonstrate anything with respect to 'consensus' or 'law', merely the relative levels of obstinacy and persistence of the warring parties. I have witnessed it in the past - a single user, perhaps two, can trample over the objections of multiple other users, going through each in turn saying 'das ist verboten unter Wikipedianlaw', and when asked to prove it simply repeats 'DAS IST VERBOTEN!!!!', perhaps linking to a previous discussion where that same user has said to another person 'DAS IST VERBOTEN'.

Usually these tactics are successful, as typically the content producers are distinct from the wikilaywers, so the latter is able to successfully trample over the former, getting a smug sense of satisfaction at the end as another page falls under 'compliance', caring not that the resulting page is thoroughly debased and less useful as an encyclopedic reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.32.97 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Δ, I think you should adjust your approach at bit. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these images fail NFCC, is there a huge need to remove them immediately from the article, given that they've been there for a long time already? If someone disagrees, discuss with them, get someone else familiar with image use policy to comment, whatever. If they keep restoring it, ask for protection. Making like half a dozen reverts then reporting them for edit warring is not the best way of handling this kind of thing. Yes, NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. That does not mean making half a dozen reverts is a good idea. At all. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions for 86.186.32.97 to follow, to try to prevent a repeat of this war - basically if he can show that {{PD-IDGov}} covers these notes then he is free to add that template to the images.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I tagged many of the images, which were clearly issued by the Indonesian government, as {{PD-IDGov}}. I don't see any reason to doubt this given that the notes say 'Republic of Indonesia, Minister of Finance', however Δ is rather tendentious in dealing with this matter, and has insisted on links to all copyright laws since 1912 and various other things, which I have now provided on his talk page.

It was rather time-consuming to tag the images, and I didn't particularly appreciate Betacommand's 'shoot first, ask questions later' style of dealing with any doubts he might have had about it, which has resulted in this rather tiresome discussion here.

New Zealand dollar

Additionally, six reverts by Δ (talk · contribs) at New Zealand dollar between 21:17, 2 May 2011 and 23:56, 2 May 2011 by him trying to strong-arm his and Hammersoft's personal new view of policy. This is not tolerable, and not the sort of behaviour that the limited exception to WP:3RR for uncontroversial NFC policy enforcement was put there to permit. Jheald (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• (uninvolved opinion) While I have known Delta for years, and we have certainly butted heads in the past, generally over his inability to communicate civily with others, in this case the relevent bit is WP:BURDEN. Regardless of what it is, the burden of for including anything in an article lies with the person who wishes to see it in. Whether this is a controversial statement which needs a valid source, or a picture which needs a valid fair-use statement (or appropriate copyright tag) the onus is on the person who wants to put it in an article. The arguement that it has been there for a long time is a red herring; lots of stuff gets left in articles for varying lengths of time and there's no statute of limitations on inappropriate material. The fact remains that (for very good reasons) the burden lies with the side that wishes to include something to clearly establish why they are justified in including it. In this case, insofar as the use of these images, and their copyright status is in dispute, the images should be left out of the articles until the issue is resolved. Resolved in this case would be to produce reliable sources which indicate that the images are (as claimed) in the public domain or are otherwise compatable with Wikipedia licenses. If they are (as is being claimed here) then producing documentation thereof should be trivial, however it still needs to be produced before they are added back to the article. That Delta's interaction style is offputting is irrelevent to the issue at hand; Wikipedia policy is clear; the person who wishes to add or return a disputed item needs to provide the evidence and establish consensus, not the person removing it. While I am not going to resolve this ANEW notice one way or the other, I as an admin am inclined to let this one slide without any blocks on either side, with the expectation that the images are left out of the relevent articles, discussions will occur where documentation to their status is provided to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy, and we all go back to being nice, civil people. --Jayron32 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Khazar (Result: declined)

Page: Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

WP 1RR violation (see below)

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]

According to the talk page notice, this article "is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are: All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." PlotSpoiler made two reverts in succession apparently without consulting other editors, and then added some suggestions on the motives of my own edit. He's also made personal attacks against other editors involved in this article that an admin persuaded him to remove.[109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Editor removed notice from her/his talk page.[111]

As a note, this has no bearing on 3RR, and is allowed as per WP:REMOVED. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

• Declined Consecutive reverts are counted as a single edit when considering WP:3RR and 1RR. Please request page protection if discussion does not resolve these issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: Stale)

Page: New Zealand dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Ranks in Gerakan Pramuka Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and many, many others
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert [113]
• 2nd revert [114]
• 3rd revert [115]
• 4th revert [116]
• 5th revert [117]
• 6th revert [118]
• 7th revert [119]
• 8th revert [120]

• 1st revert: [121]
• 2nd revert: [122]
• 3rd revert: [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124], reverted without comment minutes later [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126], deleted moments later [127] (justified as a "move", but without even a pointer to the new place left)

Comments:
Δ, previously known as Betacommand, was recently released from a two-year restriction barring him from any action relating to non-free content "policing" -- this series of edits makes it quite clear that he's back to his old ways. While this behaviour would be tolerable if he were actually enforcing clear-cut policy, his interpretation of WP:OVERUSE is quite extreme and, in the specific case of fair use images of banknotes in currency pages, strongly disputed by the community, as per the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Currency notes. (For Indonesian rupiah, he has repeatedly removed the images despite considerable evidence that they are in fact PD!) And to top it off, he uses highly misleading edit summaries, eg. describing clearly sourced and attributed fair use images as "copyvio", and regularly threatens users who revert his changes with being blocked. This is not tolerable, and us tolerating it harms Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience on Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, is that he ripped the article apart by removing all of the images (without notifying any relevant parties - Indonesia Wikiproject, numismatics, etc.), then reverted no less than six times, in clear violation of 3RR based only on his personal interpretation of 'overuse'. His behaviour towards others - slapping me with warning templates, reverting first discussing later, is in clear contrast to what he tolerates himself, as shown by his removal of warning and discussions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stale All reverts here given are >24 hours old. Other methods of dispute resolution are open, but AN3 is not the place to go for this. NW (Talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Koreanworld1 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: protected)

Page: Koreans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koreanworld1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:
The user was a sockpuppet exempted a block by an uninvolved admin. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Koreanworld1

• Page protected I have welcomed the new user and directed them to discuss this at the talk page. Please come back if undiscussed changes continue. Phoenix7777, please remember to notify the other user when making a report such as this. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: semi)

Page: Puerto Rican people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.194.239.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing vandalism of articles relating to Puerto Rican themes such as Puerto Rican people and Puerto Ricans in the United States. Vandal was blocked for two weeks but has resumed vandalizing articles and putting non-referenced items. Apparent sock puppet of both blocked users User:Afrodr and User:DDatGuy1. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected both. The census numbers were changed from the cited source, but it is possible that the user was looking at different numbers somewhere else. XLR8TION, please be careful when describing another editor's contributions as vandalism, as that term is usually reserved for changes that are obviously not intended to improve the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)