Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 832: Line 832:


[[User:Falcon8765|Falcon8765]] ([[User talk:Falcon8765|talk]]) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Falcon8765|Falcon8765]] ([[User talk:Falcon8765|talk]]) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Marlin1975]] reported by [[User:Morphh]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Glenn Beck}}
* User: {{userlinks|Marlin1975}}


<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&oldid=307729198]

<!-- 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: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&oldid=307802258]
* 2nd revert: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&oldid=307803884]
* 3rd revert: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&oldid=307842914]
* 4th revert: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&oldid=307851593]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
* Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarlin1975&diff=307853861&oldid=307595580]

<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
* User has not attempted to resolve the dispute on the article talk, but many other editors including myself are engadged in discussing the proper content inclusion. User was directed to the talk page. Here is part of that discussion:[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Glenn_Beck#Proposed_.22Obama_is_a_racist.22_comment_addition]

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
* The user also [[WP:PA|personally attacked]] editors in the comments and violated [[WP:CIVIL]]

[[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>1:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small>

Revision as of 01:38, 14 August 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{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.

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


    User:Binksternet reported by User:66.207.170.157 (Result: semi)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user is aware of policy, has previously been blocked for 3rr/edit warring
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user has ignored attempts at consensus seeking on article talk page, choosing to edit war instead of discuss

    pretty obvious bright-line violation of 3rr here. 66.207.170.157 (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-08-03T18:00:06 Zzuuzz (talk | contribs | block) m (38,008 bytes) (Protected Unmanned aerial vehicle: open proxy sockpuppets joining the edit war ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Escapeeyes and Purrum reported by OlEnglish (Result: Stale)

    Just reporting a ridiculous edit war I came across. User:Chzz stepped in to try to clean the article up a little but the POV-pushing and edit warring continues.

    œ 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale King of ♠ 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tarc reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [7]



    The editor in question claimed that they have not violated 3RR because their four reverts were on two different sections of the article. I gave them the opportunity to revert their last revert but they refused, and stated "better luck next time," a comment that leads one to believe the editor feels this is some sort of game, or a battlefield.

    The editor in question reverts any new information added to this article, perhaps indicating a WP:OWN issue. The page is also under article probation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: On Tarc's 2nd revert ever, a friendly notice shudda been put on his talkpage informing him that the page's probation means no edit warring at all, not just "no 3RR." ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever? The editor understands policy and the probation, he's been here since 2005 and is no stranger to making reverts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, especially since he claims to be an expert on the 3RR on his talk page. Blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got to ask, none of the reverts are on the same piece of text. Each one is a bit of different text and even one is completely unrelated to the others, other then being on the same page? Does this truly fit the policy of 3RR? Was this an appropriate block? Brothejr (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the policy, please; this is plainly stated in the second sentence. -- tariqabjotu 10:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, then a reading of the rule also means that User:William S. Saturn's actions should be looked into to as there were clearly more then three times he could have stopped and discussed, but instead re-inserted his content. That would also fall under the definition of edit warring. Also, it should be noted that there was no consensus in the discussion to add that content and after the first revert, William should have stopped and discussed. Brothejr (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Tarc made one more revert like this one (02:09, 10 Aug 2009) in a period of 24 hours and 12 minutes after he was offered to self-revert but refused. While, there is no indication that William S. Saturn pursued more edit warring like Tarc. The block is to prevent disruptions, not to punish your opponent out of revenge.--Caspian blue 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc's reversions were valid, as they were removing pointy comments and invalid sources. Saturn's report here is bad-faith, simply an attempt to get Tarc out of the way so he can continue to post bad edits. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc seemed to be trying to 'police' the article against bad changes, but our standards don't allow for an editor to make a large numbers of reverts based only on his own opinion that he is preventing abuse. He could have taken these issues to BLPN, ANI or even WP:AE to get more eyes on the problem, if he thought his edits were correcting real policy violations. Removing pointy comments and invalid sources is not an exception under WP:3RR. Bugs, if you think that William S. Saturn and other editors who share his views are making improper edits, consider asking at WP:AN for an admin to track this article for violations of the Obama article probation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All water under the bridge now really, but it is kindof a shame that I never had an opportunity for self-defense here. Tariqabjotu, did you take into account the time lapse here? There was a 7-hour period of time between my last edit cited in this report and Saturn's filing here. Other edits, contribs to an AN discussion and such, and then I was logged out for the night. If blocks are to be preventative and not punitive, why was this issued so long after the fact, esp when I have been here for several years, 5k edits, and a zero block log? Tarc (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith? (result: semi)

    User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.



    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to have been problems here in the past too. Semi for a week to allow it to settle William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
    • There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" (according to Wikipedia policies) source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
    • User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
    • Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
    • Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.
    comment made by 190.27.96.251 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.24.207.43 reported by User:Notyourbroom (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [8]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]


    IP editor's only contributions have been to push Forbes' college rankings on university pages (not only including them, but placing them in the most prominent possible positions), and the editor has aggressively edit-warred on both Cornell University and Johns Hopkins University despite multiple editors requesting discussion. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Added note: After I posted the above report, the IP editor apparently tried to cover up the article talk page messages by deleting them. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gretchen888 reported by User:DAJF (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]


    8 August

    10 August

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

    --DAJF (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Penneth reported by User:Gpia7r (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [26]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]


    • The user has insisted that what they post is truth, without being able to provide a reliable source or citation. The addition and arguement (in the page discussion) seems to be based on personal emotions and views, rather than speaking NPOV. Gpia7r (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 1R in past 5 days. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UkFaith reported by User:Mitsube (Result: 24h)



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
    • Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]


    I initially removed a section of the article for reasons explained on the talk page. UkFaith then undid this change and did not address my concern that the section was unbalanced, or that one of the sources used seems to be user-edited. Rather than edit-war I added a great deal of well-sourced material to balance the section without removing any material. UkFaith then undid this three times, once after another editor restored it and once after I restored it. I am not sure why. His short explanation on talk page does not make sense. His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior recently. Furthermore when I put a uw-3rr1 template on his talk page he responded by calling me a "bully": [39]. Mitsube (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Mitsube began by deleting an entire section from the article without discussing any of it with anyone first. I believe this action falls within the scope of vandalism. I was able to successfully revert this and I posted my reasons on the talk page. Mitsube went on to say his reasons for deleting the section were that the references were untrustworthy. The references in fact included Giuseppe Tucci who was a world learder in his field of Buddhism history.
    After this Mitsube set about rewriting almost the entire section of the article, completely changing its view. I tried to revert this also, however I was unaware at that time of the 3RR rule and I did not know how to revert Mitsube's edits, which were split into three or four, as one revert. I there for broke the 3RR rule just trying to restore the page to its original wording. I posted my ressons on the talk page. Mistube then reverted my revert quoting vandalism as his reason. He knew full well of course that it was not vandalism and that I was unhappy about him making such a massive change to an article that had respectable references without any discussion. His reason of vandalism was not acceptable in my opinion and I again reverted the changes to restore the page to its original wording and again asked for a discussion on the talk page.
    At this point Mitsube contacted William M. Connolley who immediately blocked me for the 3RR rule without any discussion. I feel that William M. Connolley was too eager to block someone without understanding the situation.
    The very next day when I was able to edit again I returned to the article and 'worded' the section as it was originally worded without reverting and again asked for a discussion. Mitsube immediately contacted William M. Connolley again and told him I had reverted the article and William M. Connolley immediately blocked me again. He did not even bother to check if it was true.
    The upshot is that Mitsube has changed what was a well referenced article into his own personal opinion and if I try to challenge it in anyway I get blocked, unfairly and against Wikipedia policy in my opinion, by William M. Connolley who iseems to be supporting Mitsube's changes. I dont believe that William M. Connolley is an expert in the field of Buddhism history or that his knowledge out ranks that of Giuseppe Tucci and there for I dont believe he should be taking sides and supporting changes he is not qualified to judge.
    Anyway I dont see there would be any point in my continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia project at this point. I will of course forward my experiences where possible after which I will delete my account.
    The article as it stands is in a mess and has a number of omissions and mistakes and opinions. I have read more and more outside articles that say the same thing about Wikipedia and state that many other users feel they were bullied by abusive admin people in similar situations.
    For the record these reverts were the very first ever edits I have made to this article. I have only ever edited one other page in the entire time that I have been a wikipedia member. It is an out right lie by Mitsube to say "His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior". In my opinion Mitsube set out from the very beginning to discredit me rather than discussing the article because he did not have a sound foundation for his changes.
    I also note from Mitsube's talk page that he has been reported in the past for vandalism by other members.
    Its very discouraging and disappointing to see that behaviour such as Mitsube's is supported by the admin team. UkFaith (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to work out the problem on the talk page. In the past, I have been in a content dispute that involved Mitsube, and in my experience, he goes out of his way to resolve the problem and insure harmonious editing. I've been following your edits on the talk page, and you seem to be focusing on attacking editors rather than working with them to improve the article. The LAST POST EVER DELETING MY ACCOUNT NOW gambit is somewhat tired, and you might find things would turn out differently if you appealed to our intellect rather than our emotions. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mister Hospodar reported by User:RetroS1mone (Result: 30 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]
    • Second 3rr warning [53]
    • Thrid 3rr warning [54]
    • warning in edit summary [55]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

    RetroS1mone talk 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of thirty hours -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:C.Kent87 reported by User:TownDown (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [57]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    --TownDownHow's going? 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The same has been done by User:TownDown. We are in the middle of negotiations, but he will not comment. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't, I did not revert you three times. Negotiations? or blanking the page?. --TownDownHow's going? 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the notice at the top of WP:AN3: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." The examples provided are not in violation of that, and C.Kent87 (talk · contribs) has no blocks on record or any poor interactions with others. See Kent's original ANI filing; this AN3 report smells a bit of bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 01:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you can explain why you did a personnal attack to me here, did you say four individual reverts?, or three individual editions [62] [63] [64] and 1 reverted [65]?. --TownDownHow's going? 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were blocked in June for disruptive editing. That is not a personal attack by any means, but can be considered a factual statement considering the stack of warnings and notices you've received since your account has gone live. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To say that "I am a disruptive user" is not a personal attack?. --TownDownHow's going? 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Ghosts&empties (Result: No vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [66]
    • Most recent revision (same) [67]


    • Diff of edit warring : [68]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
    02:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    
    No violation 1 revert in the last 5 days does not constitute edit warring. King of ♠ 04:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevin5593 reported by User:Masem (Result: 36 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [70]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] (User acknowledged by removing the warning subsequently: [77]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
      • Editors of page have agreed on talk page to keep the "differences from book" section reasonably short and sourced before. User has inserted and reverted removals without discussion. User has been explained that sources are needed per this warning, and one of the early reverts [78] pointed to the section where this was established. (note that I've come into this after the 4th revert, after the user was well warned about this).

    --MASEM (t) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martintg reported by User:PasswordUsername (Result: No Vio )


    • Previous version reverted to: User has undone four changes by others over a 24-hour-period on a highly controversial article just back from AFD–where he had been lobbying for keep repeatedly–instead of working on consensus.


    • 1st revert: [79] - reversion of numerous edits made by User:Anarchangel
    • 2nd revert: [80] - removing synthesis tag
    • 3rd revert: [81] - reinserting material from dubiously-worded article as reference following a removal by a different editor ([82])
    • 4th revert: [83] - removing "US-backed" in favor of "Chinese-backed" (even as reference inserted shows that both regimes were supportive of Pol Pot)


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Martintg is aware of the 3RR rule. He's also been blocked for this previously: [84]

    Others have warned Martintg of edit-warring after the AFD nomination–notably Igny, on the talk page of Communist genocide, the article in question: see diff --

    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85] [86]

    PasswordUsername (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first was a good faithed reversion due to the fact that the AfD was ongoing, and it would have confused and some what disrupted the deletion discussion.
    • Others have reverted Igny's insertion of the "SYNTH" tag, which is disruptive if no explanation of the issue is given on the Talk page, see [87]
    • Deleting sourced text is frowned upon, and others have reinserted the text [88]
    • And finally the last not a revert at all but aligning the text (see also [89]) to what the source actually says:

    "At the time of the invasion, the United States was concerned with improving relations with China, which was the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the Soviet Union to be more amenable to U.S. interests. Moreover, the United States, along with other states in the region, found it difficult to accept without protest the invasion of one state by another, fearing that a dangerous precedent could be set. Incredible as it may seem, when controversy arose over which delegation to seat in the fall 1979 United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York—the ousted Pol Pot regime or the Vietnamese backed regime then in control of the country—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China argued strongly in favor of the Pol Pot regime. The dispute had to be resolved by committee, in which the United States bowed to Chinese and ASEAN interests and voted to seat the Pol Pot regime. The United Stated did, at least, go on to claim that the issue of seating a delegation was purely technical and legal, and that its support of seating the Pol Pot regime did not imply approval of that regime's policies.", i.e. China is the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, and the US action did not imply approval of the regime's policies.

    Given that many disagree with the outcome of the AfD debate, the article should really be temporarily protected. --Martintg (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation 4 separate edits to the page in 24 hours do not an editwar make I recommend the nominator spend some time bhere to understand what is actionable so we don't waste time with another spurious report in future. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) comment struck given comment on my talk, I can understand PWUN being confused on how 4RR works. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask not to delete synth tag without consensus established at talk [90], Martintg reverts [91]; Anarchangel edits [92], Martintg reverts [93]; Russavia takes out [94], Martintg reverts [95]; I insert info based on added material of US support of Pol Pot as Cambodian representative at the United Nations [96], Martintg undoes this, adds his own take [97]. This is not edit warring? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Escultur17 reported by User:Jakob.scholbach (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: -- I don't undertstand what I'm supposed to provided here. The following is a list of 5 edits by the reported user that insert the same material again and again. All of these edits have been undone by other editors (including myself 2 times, Magidin 2 times, an anonymous IP once).


    • The material added amounts to what another contributor (not myself) called "statements of an obvious crank". The edits of Escultur17 have been reverted multiple times, by multiple contributors.

    Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. Next time a report to WP:AIV may have been more appropriate in similar cases. Nja247 09:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nableezy reported by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: reverting different things each time, but the edit summary, generated by the "undo" function clearly indicates a revert, each time.


    • 1st revert: [103] edit summary reads "Undid revision 307241003 by Fipplet (talk).."
    • 2nd revert: [104] edit summary reads 'Undid revision 307398091 by Hertz1888..."
    • 3rd revert: [105] same as previous one, edit summary reads 'Undid revision 307405173 by Hertz1888..."
    • 4th revert: [106] edit summary reads "Revert to revision 307423650 dated 2009-08-11 19:57:00 by Hertz1888 using popups"


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not participated in the edit war at all. There is discussion about this topic on the Talk page: [108]

    LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Check with the users involved to see if they felt I was edit warring or attempting to resolve a dispute (look at the page history of the article and see how many of my edits are actually reverted). Funny how the one trying to get to the middle has "disinterested observers" taking potshots at them. As for using 3rr as a "weapon" that report came after 6 reverts and was withdrawn amicably (see User_talk:Ori) when the user agreed to not continually revert and continue discussion on the talk page. nableezy - 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that the IP address being used is in a sock puppet investigation here. nableezy - 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've asked the users involved if they feel you were edit warring or attempting to resolve a dispute. If they don't think you were edit warring, I'll withdraw this report. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Er... that's an odd approach. In any event, I've protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wattlebird reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [109]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several editors have approached this editor about his edits on the page, which involve changing a prose section into a table. Dayewalker (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fipplet reported by User:George (Result: Protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: 21:21, 10 August 2009 - there were various reverts made to different things, but this is the closest to a single version being supported by the user.



    User has been warned several times before about violating 3RR, as evident on their talk page.

    Please review the history of the article's talk page. There have been three or four discussions going on simultaneously. This user was involved in those discussions, but violated 3RR anyways.

    The biggest violation here, in my opinion, is that the user used an IP address sock puppet to circumvent 3RR detection (as shown in this sock puppet investigation result). The article has been protected due to edit warring, so there's no immediate need there. However, the user has been previously blocked (for 4 days) for using sock puppets. I'm not completely sure if I should report the 3RR violation using sock puppets here, but this seemed like the appropriate place. ← George [talk] 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tallicfan20 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [116]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    Also warned today about edit warring on Avi Shlaim. RolandR 14:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well on the Palestinian Refugee page, my reason for reverting is that while yes, I know there was "sourced material," it false portrayed Morris, given that I gave a direct quote of him recently, while the page sourced someone else of course interpreting Benny Morris(as opposed to a 14 year old reference we cannot see), and also claiming there to be a consensus when there really is none today. not to mention, there already is a page about the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus so why turn the general page which talks about Palestinian refugees info that should be on another page, by virtue of the fact it exists? I was merely trying to fight systematic bias, and irrelevent info and I say that for the fact we have a page about "causes of the 1948 palestinian refugees," so why give one of numerous interpretations when a page for that exists?

    On Avi Shlaim, its on the talk page. It is not right that the previous editors would use very overtly biased pages like Democracy Now and the Nation to source a grand "fact" about Shlaim when more NPOV sources say what I have said. Violating NPOV is against this site, and it seems some seem hell bent on violating NPOV.Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Doesn't matter mate, edit warring is disruptive and is not tolerated. You should have used the talk pages to seek consensus, or if that failed used dispute resolution, or even requested page protection. Nja247 15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo online reported by 86.22.187.144 (Result: Semi)

    A certain editor, JimboOnline is constant removing links from the Rushden & Diamonds wiki page. The link in question is one to the only fan's messageboard in existance. It is not profit and a useful link for fans of Rushden & Diamonds FC and others to contact other fans to find out news not available on the club site. It is completely in the same manner of as links on other pages such as MK Dons, Scunthorpe United FC, Fulham, Chelsea, Manchester United (of particular note, Red Cafe) where these are tolerated. The site in question is endorsed by the club, although sepatate and as such is a significant resource link for Rushden & Diamonds FC. The wiki page is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushden_%26_Diamonds_F.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.187.144 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the link on the forum as per WP:EL. This editor seems to have a clear conflict of interest as per this post on the forum and shows a total disregard of the guidelines set in place and a forum user admits it's a good advertising source as the forum doesn't appear on Google, so it'd also fail on WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Jimbo[online] 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As already outlined. If this link is to be removed, then other links of its manner must also be removed from the articles outlined above. The context on the forum is as a guide to fans rather than outright advertisement. If wiki contacted Rushden & Diamonds FC, they would confirm this as relevent information for the wikipedia article upon them, in the same manner as RedCafe on the Manchester United wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDJack (talkcontribs) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Semiprotected. Two different IPs have been warring to add a link to a fansite. The IP who submitted this report has already gone over 3RR. There are criteria for adding links to fansites. Please find out what they are, and discuss on the article's talk page whether the criteria are met. Trying to force your link into the article by edit warring will not win any friends here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint about admin actions regarding a move debate (Result: No action)

    Please Help. I being attacked by this administrator Dougweller unfairly. A while ago a couple of editors and myself tried to change the title of this article Syrian occupation of Lebanon unsuccessfully even though there was an 8-6 vote in favor of moving it. And the message of Mr. Weller and other editors was that the status quo cannot be changed until there is a consensus; so myself and other editors relented and left the title alone. And then came a number of like-minded editors who decided to change the status quo of the article by deleting sources that point to a "presence". I went and changed back the edits to the original version and then it ketp on being changed by the other editors. Dougweller threatened to block me, but said nothing to the other editors who kept changing the status quo without discussing it first. Please help, this is not right. Dougweller talks about consesus only when it suits him and then preaches something else when it doesn't suit him.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of this comment is Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon#Requested move 2. This was a move discussion that was closed by admin User:Y on 9 August as No Consensus. The proposal had been to move Syrian occupation of Lebanon to Syrian military presence in Lebanon. The !vote had a slighly numerical majority in favor of doing the move. In the following section of the article talk page Dougweller added his own comment in support of Y's decision. George Al-Shami is posting here to complain about Dougweller's action. My sense is that the complaint does not belong on this noticeboard, since there is no allegation of 3RR violation or edit warring. Maybe George could contact User:Y to ask if there is a procedure for appealing his decision? EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't close a move discussion. This is a response to my warning George Al-Shami that he'd broken 3RR. His response on my talk page was to say he was going to report me for theatening him - and to revert a fourth time. I've got every right to block him now as my only involvement was to point out on the talk page there was no consensus - he and another editor were asking around for an Admin that hadn't been involved that might overturn Y's closure, so I responded. George Al-Shami, by the way, had already moved the article in defiance of Y's closure as no consensus. But I'm such a nice guy, I'll report him instead. :-) Dougweller (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No action, since this is not a well-formed edit-warring complaint. See Dougweller's new report below concerning the same events. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated hacking attack on this Wikipedia article? Result:Semiprotected

    Please help here! I will repeat below the note I have just written on the Discussion page for the Melbourne International Film Festival article. It should be self-explanatory, but if you would like any further information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "There have now been three deletions over the past three days of the same short, referenced account I added to this article on the screening of Rebiya Kadeer's film The 10 Conditions of Love at the recent Melbourne International Film Festival.
    Interestingly, all three deletions have been done from anonymous I.P. addresses which have no record of ever having been used to contribute in any other way to the Wikipedia, and none of them gave any reasons or justifications for their deletions. Also of interest is that all three I.P.s are registered with the same internet provider company in the U.S., one from New York, and two from Washington, D.C. The last deletion was done after I specifically requested that referenced material not be deleted.
    I am now going to reinsert the section again and report the incidents to the WP administrators. If it is deleted once more without prior discussion I will send all the details - not only to to the WP administrators - but also to the people who are investigating the previous hacking of the Festival website and the journalists who covered that story. Please stop this blatant vandalising!" John Hill (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Comment – Who are you attempting to report for edit warring? King of ♠ 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)-[reply]

    User:George Al-Shami reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:31 h )

    • 2nd revert 19:10, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "tickle you're not explaining why these references are being removed")
    • 3rd revert 20:43, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "they do not have to support the content of the article, what you are doing is against Wikipedia's rules, my goodness. You cannot remove properly cited sources that contradict Zionist scholars")
    • 4th revert 00:43, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "you are the one that is changing the status quo, so you take it to the talk page and please discuss it before canging the status quo, you can't play it by your rules")
    Opps, I didn't see that you had already reported this... should I just delete my filing below? ← George [talk] 04:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it's come to this. I'd like to request assistance in resolving the edit war plaguing this article, one way or the other. Ingoman (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please give a little more information about the dispute, and what exactly you want resolved? Cool3 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy enough to just resolve the edit war to a stable article version with NPOV. Ingoman (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    helping user file report...

    Reporting User:99.225.160.205

    diffs:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=307774562&oldid=307774003
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307774712
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307778010

    User warned:

    User refused to engage in dialogue. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    (Note: I was in the process of writing up a report, not noticing that one had already been started until I went to contact Ingoman. I decided to just attack this here to avoid confustion. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]



    Edit-warring with Ingoman (talk · contribs) who hasn't been warned until just now. Editors Hairhorn (talk · contribs) and Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) stepped in to help. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vercetticarl reported by User:LjL (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [123]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not given, user was repeatedly warned and blocked
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

    I am assuming that User:Vercetticarl and User talk:190.53.244.15 are the same user because of statement to that effect by administrator refusing unblock. --LjL (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Cool3 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Systemizer reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h)

    Timewave zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Systemizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 1st revert 20:47, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "Read the first sentence. Holistic theories are irrational and subjective by definition, which exempts them from such objections")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing and 3RR on this article before, and should be quite clear that he is editing against consensus. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    72h, edit warring and incvility William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thikkamasala reported by User:Drmies (Result: )


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



    This is an ongoing matter. While I have some doubts about the notability of this subject, I have tried to edit the article to where it became an encyclopedic article--which included the removal of fluff and peacocks, trivial information, unreliable sources, etc., but also the addition of some valid references (and making the tracklist for the album look clean...). The creator continues to revert many of these edits, insisting on for instance reinserting that the subject's brother is an accountant and that the subject is a Zoroastrian (the latter could possibly be relevant, but adding that Freddie Mercury was one too is simply namedropping).

    To cut a long story short: user has been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations twice by User:EdJohnston ([137] and [138]), and while they have stated they will abide by the rules they show no awareness of the Wikipedia guidelines (the usual alphabet soup of WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, and especially WP:OWN--see their edit summaries) and no inclination to follow them. The latest: an SPA butchering the article in a manner reminiscent of some of Thikkamasala's earlier edits.

    EdJohnston suggested I come here, since I don't really know what to do. Two blocks seem not to have helped. Your advice is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Are you aware that the last (presumably objectionable) revert, is the version you've just reverted Editor004 back to? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Am I supposed to just revert and revert Thikkamasala, and possibly fall foul of 3RR? Look at the history and see how often I've reverted Thikkamasala--it's not unlike flogging a dead horse and that isn't pleasurable. BTW, Editor004, I strongly suspect, is simply a sock. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    GHcool reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)

    Kafr Saba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First 24-hour period:

    • 1st edit: 21:54 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.
    • 1st revert: 22:22 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence; misleading edit summary.
    • 2nd revert: 23:47 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.
    • 3rd revert: 17:38 August 11, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.

    Second 24-hour period:

    • 4th revert: 17:16 August 13, inserts a comma between "Palestinian" and "Arab" in the first sentence, so that it no longer reads "Palestinian-Arab."
    • 7th revert: 20:14 August 13, adds the "dubious" tag after "Palestinian-Arab."

    Comments

    GHcool wants to remove from the first sentence of Kafr Saba that it was a Palestinian-Arab village because, he says, the residents did not see themselves as "Palestinian" for much of their history.

    He and LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a new account and fairly obvious sockpuppet (though I'm not saying it's a GHcool sock) have been reverting against four editors. Based on the diffs above, I believe GHcool is trying to game 3RR. Although his final edit with the "dubious" tag does not revert to a previous version, the effect of the edit is to undermine that the village was "Palestinian-Arab." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h, edit warring. Would have been better to warn him of this report. It isn't obvious that LotRQ is an obvious sock; I think you want RFCU or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.251.166.99 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [139]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]


    Falcon8765 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marlin1975 reported by User:Morphh (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [146]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]
    • User has not attempted to resolve the dispute on the article talk, but many other editors including myself are engadged in discussing the proper content inclusion. User was directed to the talk page. Here is part of that discussion:[152]

    Morphh (talk) 1:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)