Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Michaeledean reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1] Good faith placement of cleanup tag by apparently uninvolved editor.

  • 1st revert: [2] removal of tag by user with known WP:COI with the article in question.
  • 2nd revert: [3] another editor had restored the tag, he removes it again
  • 3rd revert: [4] and again
  • 4th revert: [5] and again. Warning issued after this revert, and a few minutes later:
  • 5th revert: [6] reverts again, clearly after being warned for violating WP:EDITWAR.

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] left before revert #5 above.
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 07:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by Scheinwerfermann (talk) (Result: 24h )[edit]

Honda Accord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:58, 31 July 2009 (edit summary: "Accord is english word")
  2. 00:10, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "vehcile isn't sold in Japan, and Accord is an English word")
  3. 03:08, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305556389 by Scheinwerfermann Reverted 1 edit by Scheinwerfermann identified as vandalism")
  4. 03:30, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305568411 by Sinneed (talk) no explantion given for keeping Japanese text, discussion is no longer active.")
  • Diffs of attempt to engage user in discussion and guide toward consensus-building: here, here, here.

Scheinwerfermann T·C03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This coming from the editor who assumes control and ownership of the headlamp article. (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
And I'd like to add I don't consider removing Japanese text from the Accord article to be vandalism even if a couple editors obsessed with consensus claim otherwise. None of those editors are involved in automotive articles and I believe in reality the are vandalizing the page by merely parroting off other similarly obsessed editors and running about defending each other. (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24h: Regardless of ownership issues, you mustn't edit war. Use talk pages to discuss issues, and if needed use the dispute resolution process. Nja247 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:drag-5 reported by User:jgp (Result: 31h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [8]

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: repeat offender: drag-5 has been previously blocked for 3RR on another fringe move request of his, and he's admitted elsewhere that he knows the rules and is continuing a constant pattern of disruption to fulfill a personal vendetta
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Read the content of the above diffs; what he's reverting is the closure of a talk page discussion several days old where near-unanimous consensus is against him.

drag-5 is reverting the closure of a move discussion where near-unanimous consensus is against him, and claiming "no consensus" even though only one other person is on his side. The move discussion is days old, and there was volumes of discussion before a formal move began, which consisted of everyone else presenting volumes of evidence against his fringe move. jgpTC 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja247 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:InternetMeme reported by User:Fvasconcellos (Result: 24h )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]
  • 1st revert: [14]
  • 2nd revert: [15]
  • 3rd revert: [16]
  • 4th revert: [17]

User has been reverting to his preferred version(s) for days, refuses to wait for a consensus to be reached, and has not responded to notes and warnings. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Ravensfire2002 (Result: 31h )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [18]
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none] There are several other users working to revert the IP's changes. It's minor (changing the name of a section of the talk page), but it's gotten pretty annoying.

Please look at the history [24] of the page for the sheer determination of this IP. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja247 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

David Rohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:38, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Doug Weller deleted what I had written in counter to the extremely biased interpretation of my research. Wikipedia cannot afford to be biased against truth.")
  2. 18:07, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "The changes are not unsourced, they are referenced. And I am entitled to counter the bias of this article.")
  3. 18:18, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Idiot! What isn't original research?")
  4. 18:23, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "These are consequence and is absolutely in line with the theory.")
  5. 22:04, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Deleted sentence because this reference does not in any way refer to the argument of the previous sentence. References need to be relevant"
  • Diff of warning: here

More pov edits in the last couple of minutes but I won't include them here. 2 other editors have warned this IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

24h; 3rr plus incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan reported by (result: semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [12:41, 20 July 2009 (talk) (4,028 bytes) (undo)]

  • 1st revert: [KeltieMartinFan (talk | contribs) (3,945 bytes) (Undid revision 303123748 by ]

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

KeltieMartinFan has engaged in unprofessional edit-warring for at least three days, firing hostile complaints across the Wikipedia landscape. Rather than a real interest in sourcing, and absolutely no interest in the facts, KeltieMartinFan repeatedly demonstrates some odd, anti-Wikipedia agenda about the biography entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

2009-07-20T13:49:54 Syrthiss (talk | contribs | block) m (3,945 bytes) (Protected Rebecca Quick: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: killing off the sockfest of ips ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)))) - does that help? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackoreo reported by Vicenarian (Said · Done) (Result: On hold)[edit]

Miss Universe 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Jackoreo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent and unrelenting edit warring despite reverts and deletions of content from numerous other editors, pleas to take it to the talk page in edit summaries and a warning on user's talk page.

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

  1. 23:00, 27 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 01:22, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  3. 12:21, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  4. 23:51, 28 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  5. 03:39, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  6. 10:09, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  7. 10:31, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  8. 12:28, 29 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  9. 00:26, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  10. 02:19, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  11. 08:33, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  12. 09:12, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  13. 09:24, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  14. 09:42, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  15. 11:21, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  16. 12:00, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  17. 12:02, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  18. 14:22, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  19. 22:16, 30 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  20. 00:50, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  21. 00:58, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305375461 by (talk)")
  22. 05:28, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  23. 23:39, 1 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  24. 02:37, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  25. 02:57, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 305566126 by (talk)")
  26. 05:47, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  27. 05:53, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  28. 23:22, 2 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  29. 11:41, 3 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

Vicenarian (Said · Done) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note – User has not reverted after the warning. Keeping this on hold to see if the behavior continues. King of ♠ 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you'll look at the diff of the warning above, I left the user a custom, non-template message (citing the edit warring policy and warning about the consequences) at 05:57, August 2, 2009, after which two additional reversions occurred. It was only upon filing this report that I left the standard template message. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:GoRight reported by Raul654 (Result: warning)[edit]

GoRight is a frequently disruptive user who has been to AN multiple times. He is currently edit warring on Fred Singer:

Also note that his edit immediately prior to #1 was this edit in which he restored an edit made by user:A Complete Fiasco, a Scibaby sock. The fact that A Complete Fiasco was a scibaby sockpuppet was explicitely noted in the edit history prior to GoRight's edit. GoRight has a history of meatpuppetry on Scibaby's behalf, and has been warned a number of times not to do so. When notified of his violation of the 3rr, his response was to wikilawyer.

I think a substantial block is in order. Raul654 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a few minutes to gather a few diffs and I shall make a response here. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I protected the page for a week, since more than just two people are involved in this. I don't know if any further action should be taken or not. J.delanoygabsadds 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about GoRight's disruption, including his ongoing flagrant violation of the meatpuppetry policy, than I am about disruption to the article. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Addressing the bits of this that are actually related to this noticeboard, if you closely examine the actual content involved in the diffs provided by Raul above, the content being asserted in #1 is the funding sources of UCS whereas in the last three the content being asserted is the activist nature of UCS. These are clearly not the same content. To the extent that these four edits all share a single word, liberal, I suppose that a wikilawyer could make an argument that I have technically violated WP:3RR here, although I clearly have not violated the spirit of it ... even partially.

Prior to my having been made aware of this report by User:William M. Connolley, I had already indicated on my talk page where the issue was being discussed by the parties involved that (a) if I had made an oversight I was more than willing to self-correct it, and (b) that I felt we needed to move on to an RfC to resolve this issue. Despite Raul's assertion above that I am trying to wikilawyer my way out of this, I specifically denied having the need (and therefore the desire) to do so.

I regret that I need to needlessly disrupt this board with discussion unrelated to WP:3RR violations but Raul's inclusion of unfounded sock puppet accusations merits a response. To the extent that the prior history between Raul and myself is relevant to your decisions, please see this and the on-going discussions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop.

Specifically regarding this the history clearly shows that my intention was to support the position being argued by User:John G. Miles when he was being confronted by what I perceived at the time to be a WP:TAGTEAM. To my knowledge this user is not a sock puppet of Scibaby. If he were I am quite certain that Raul would have blocked him well before I made that revert, or at the very least by now.

So, I leave it in the hands of the impartial observers here to decide whether my actions above warrant a block, especially given that I have no further intention of reverting and will be pursuing an RfC as the next step. --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] (copy from GoRights talk page)
You went above 3RR (btw. weren't you promising to only do 1RR at some point?) - here are the 4 reverts: #1 clearly marked as revert, #2 partial revert to a scibaby edit (rewritten somewhat), #3 revert and marked as such and finally #4 revert marked as such. That comes to 4 reverts within ~22 hours by my calculations. (nb. you had another edit - but that wasn't a revert - but introduction of text that was reverted by others) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who created this complaint, but instead i notified GoRight on his talk that he had (probably inadvertently) broken 3RR. I now find that he is trying to lawyer his way out of it, instead of just accepting it, so therefore my comments here. What really ires me here, is that GoRight (and Abd on GR's talk) aren't just accepting that it was a mistake, and that its simply a content dispute, but instead are insulting everyone else by calling it "tag teaming". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) My outside opinion: protecting the page, as J. delanoy did, was definitely the right decision here. All parties are reverting one or another like crazy, and while it may be true that there are more editors against GoRight's additions than for them, this stuff still needs to be dealt with at the talkpage rather than through edit warring. Furthermore, if it is true that GoRight has agreed not to continue this edit war (as he claims), I see no need for a 3rr block just yet; yes, GoRight has a long block history so we should be strict, but at the moment I don't see how a block will improve the situation.
As for the report itself...both the first and fourth "reverts" listed are not actually reverts. The first is, as far as I can tell, the first time GoRight inserted that particular text into the article (although he may have edit warred previously over other bits of text; if that has happened, the report needs to give clear diffs for it), and the fourth one is not a new revert, it's a copyedit that came right after GoRight's previous edit (which was a revert). That leaves 2 reverts here (3 counting the one that restored A Complete Fiasco's edit from before), not 4, so 3RR doesn't apply and the general edit warring problem has been dealt with for now through page protection. If GoRight's overall behavior is a problem, it should be dealt with somewhere other than this report (although personally I don't see a clear reason for blocking, sanctioning, or whatever; while Raul is an experienced and trusted user, he also appears to have at least a little bit of history with GoRight, so these allegations would have to be looked into more closely). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that my revert diffs were in error. Please refer to the 4 diffs Kim listed above. Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, after looking more closely, I guess it's four reverts when everything is included: restoring A Complete Fiasco, [25], then three times restoring his 'liberal' edit: [26][27][28]. (note, though, that the first of these was not a machine revert: it actually inserted different sources and different text than what GoRight had inserted before, so who knows, maybe we can call it half a revert.) Those reverts were against four different editors, at least, so a block would be appropriate. (Not currently necessary since the page is protected, but if J. delanoy thinks it's ok then the page could be unprotected and GoRight blocked if he shows any signs of starting this again.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, if User:Kut or Bait Fish is a sockpuppet of GoRight, that's one more revert in there. (Kut or Bait Fish is obviously a sockpuppet of someone, at least—note his first couple of edits jumping into ongoing disputes and using alphabet soup, and hitting the same articles as GoRight and Fiasco: Kut or Bait fish-A Complete Fiasco; Kut or Bait Fish-GoRight.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Kut is a sockpuppet of banned user Scibaby. Scibaby and GoRight are not the same person, although GoRight has on multiple prior occasions meatpuppetted on Scibaby's behalf, and has been warned not to do it again. His edits here are a flagarant violation of the prohibition on meatpuppetry. Raul654 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I saw at least three users on both sides (no one else came close to 3RR, afaik), so I decide that protecting the page would be most appropriate. If you do not think that the edit war would continue without GoRight, by all means unprotect the article if you wish. J.delanoygabsadds 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm seriously not seeing how this revert ("In the 1990s Singer worked together with a number of industries whose interests matched his views on controversial issues, notably on global warming and on the effects of tobacco smoke and ozone on human health.") has any relationship whatsoever to the other three edits ("which has been referred to in the media as an activist group generally regarded as liberal") provided by KDP from a completely different section of the page. For the purposes of WP:3RR how is that revert even relevant here? It is from a completely separate section and shares no content whatsoever with the other three. Please help me understand how you are counting this as being a revert of the same or even partial content related to the other three reverts? I'm not arguing here, I simply want to understand the details of how you are counting things so that I can avoid misunderstandings in the future. --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't say that all the reverts have to be reverts of the same thing for the rule to apply. The rule is just that you shouldn't make 3 reverts to a single article, no matter what those reverts are. Reverting one bit of text three times, or reverting three bits of text one time each; it's all the same.
As an aside, for someone who claims to be uninterested in WikiLawyering, your comments such as this are just that; nitpicking over whether you 'met' or 'exceeded' 3RR, and whether or not your reverts are 'related', is hair-splitting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
"nitpicking over whether you 'met' or 'exceeded' 3RR" - To the extent that 3RR establishes a bright line, taking note of whether one has crossed that line, or not, should not be viewed as "nitpicking".
"whether or not your reverts are 'related', is hair-splitting" - OK, I have just reviewed the current text of WP:3RR. It reads differently now than I remember it. It now states "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period ...". I don't recall the bolded part but perhaps it just did not stand out at the time I last reviewed the policy. I had previously thought that "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" was interpreted to mean of the same content or portions thereof which is why I thought I was not in violation (i.e. since there was no content overlap in the case of KDP's first edit.
If the rule is being interpreted as "any reversion of any thing any where on the same page without respect to the content involved" then I can understand KDP's complaint and it was, indeed, inadvertent on my part based on a misunderstanding of how things were being interpreted. So is this how reverts are now being counted? If so I shall endeavor to be more careful in the future. I honestly have no desire to violate the policy as it will obviously get me blocked if I do. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update Per the messages above and J.delanoy's permission, I suggest unprotecting the article; GoRight's edits seem to be one user against the consensus of multiple users, so the reverting by other users there, though not great, was at least understandable. I'm hoping that GoRight understands now not to edit war at this or other articles, and that if there is a consensus against his additions (as evidenced by multiple editors objecting to them) he should suggest changes at the talkpage rather than editing the article.
As a condition of the unblocking, I would want GoRight's assurance that he will not continue edit warring at this or related articles. What that means, GoRight, is that for the immediate future you will not make controversial edits without discussing them first on the talk page—being BOLD is ok, but anything that could be construed as a revert (even ones like your edit today where you withdrew the stuff about UCS's funding and replaced it with stuff about their liberal activities—while technically different information, it still is at least restoring a similar train of thought). If you do make a controversial, revert-like edit, you will be temporarily blocked (since you have technically violated 3RR already today, you technically could have been blocked already; personally, though, I don't see the use in any blocking if you don't start reverting again).
If you understand this and agree not to continue edit warring, GoRight, please respond here and I will unprotect the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

During a previous AN discussion, GoRight promised restrain himself to a 1rr. [29] It was a lie designed to put that thread to rest. I don't see why he won't do it again now. Raul654 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just so that certain other highly placed administrators don't attempt to use "immediate future" against me by interpreting it as effectively "indefinitely" since it is ill-specified, could we please state an actual time limit on this? If I had actually been blocked today what would the duration have been? "immediate future" to be interpreted as that same effective timeframe? 2X that timeframe? Is that OK? (And I am not trying to wikilawyer here nor do I intend to be disruptive, I just want things to be clearly defined for obvious reasons.) I am otherwise OK with and shall honor your stated constraints. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
@Raul: That post was nearly a year ago, and besides, if GoRight does turn out to be 'lying' this time it will be easy enough to block him the moment he does another revert; I know many people are watching this.
@GoRight: it means for the duration of the current dispute over these wording that you were edit warring over; since you have already reverted more than 3 times over that stuff, you can't really do anything other than start a discussion at the talkpage, and if you perform another revert at this article while such discussion is going on then you would be edit warring and could be blocked accordingly. Whenever that discussion is over (say, for example, a week from today) then you probably won't be blocked for a single revert anywhere, but your history of edit warring still means that you would need to be cautious in reverting and that admins would be willing to block you pretty quickly if you started edit warring; remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, and editors can be (and have been) blocked before they hit it.
As for time frame, 24-31 hours is typical for a 3RR block and is what I would have given you if I were blocking right now. Some people might make a block for you longer since you have been blocked in the past; it depends on the circumstances. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now unprotected the page, with the understanding that GoRight should not continue edit warring there, and should suggest controversial edits at the talkpage before making them. I don't know anything about other behavior issues or history between GoRight and Raul, or about the ongoing ArbCom case, but I think what has been done so far is all the action that is necessary for this article. If there are general behavioral issues or ongoing problems that need to be dealt with, they should be dealt with at a noticeboard other than this one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the appropriate noticeboard for reporting meatpuppetry? Raul654 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably ANI, I wouldn't know; certainly not here, though.
Like I said above, I am not familiar with the history behind this editor and the various ANI threads/ArbCom cases that have happened or are happening, so I don't presume to know all the background. (Personally, my first impression is that GoRight has been here for over a year and a half and seems to be a real editor; he may be a POV-pusher or have a history of conflicts, but that doesn't automatically mean he's a meatpuppet—but again, I'm not in a position to judge this.) Anyway, I'm only here to resolve the edit warring at the article that was reported, not to make rulings about meatpuppetry. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you're confusing a sockpuppet (an alternative account) with a meatpuppet (someone who edits on behalf of another user). Meatpuppetry on behalf of a banned user (in this case, GoRight reverting to Scibaby's edit) is prohibited. Regardless, thank you -- I'll take this up elsewhere. I didn't realize that meatpuppetry wasn't considered here. Raul654 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not confusing them, just saying that I see no damning evidence that GoRight is acting as a meatpuppet. (WP:MEAT defines a meatpuppet basically as a banned editor's RL buddies who show up on Wikipedia to support him; just happening to agree with a banned editor, on the other hand, does not automatically mean you are working for him. It may be a POV-pushing problem or a behavioral problem, but I don't know if it's meatpuppetry.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Ban , and specifically "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted. WP:SOCK defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. " In short, restoring edits from banned users is generally not permissible, and repeatedly doing so is grounds for a block. Raul654 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:SPI covers meatpuppetry as well as socking. Black Kite 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've kicked this thread over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Rracecarr (Result: 48h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: edits are all deletions, which are reversions by definition.

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours King of ♠ 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Information-Line reported by User:Jeroen (Result: 48h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 20:03, 1 August 2009 (but please take a look to earlier revisions, it's much more complicated)

  • This user reverts religion statistics that have a valid neutral source (Indian census 2001). He increases the amount of Sikhs from 16,1% to 56,1%, although the census of 2001 clearly is saying 16,1%. He didn't provide any source for his reverts. When you look to his user page and talk page it's clear that he is pro-Sikhs/pro-Punjabi. To be clear: I'm completely neutral in this issue, I just follow the census source, someone else did put there.
  • This user is already warned for similar cases. Please check his talk page (please be aware of the fact he deletes things on his talk page, like this).
  • No I didn't solve it on the talk page, because that is not needed. The source is 100% valid and this user tries to push his POV very clearly. I told the user about his POV in the edit summary, but the only thing he does is accusing me of POV in the edit summary.

This is vandalism, not 3RR, but I've blocked him for it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:bonewah (Result: talk)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: diff

The edits in question here arent really malicious, just of low quality, in my opinion. Material being added is of dubious note and redundant with other things on the page. I have not tried to communicate with this user as the bulk of his edit history[39] has been to vandalize this page example example 2. The IP's talk page is filled with warnings [40] so I didnt bother with one more. Leave me a note on my talk page if you feel I should try and work this out with the IP or if this is too trivial for attention. Thanks in advance Bonewah (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you or anyone else has tried to talk to this person, other than putting templated warnings on his page. Please at least try and engage them, then come back if that fails William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Piotrus (Result: No vio )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [41]

While diff #5 can be, with good faith, considered an attempt to compromise (even if it is removing part of the same paragraph that was completely removed in the preceding 4 edits), the first four diffs are reverts, with controversial spelling change and the same para being repeatedly removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I only see three reverts, the other edits in the 24 hour period were not reverts. I believe it'd be courteous to warn/notify the user about 3RR. Nja247 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Future MD 217 reported by -- Banjeboi (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
  • 1st revert: [diff]
  • 2nd revert: [diff]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

The page history seems pretty clear; user keeps adding some non-notable blog content against consensus as seen by multiple editors reverting them and even explaining why; they have been warned on their talkpage. I can spell out diffs if really needed. They previously edited there as, or that IP made the identical edits prior to the account doing so. -- Banjeboi 06:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Add (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as well. -- Banjeboi 08:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. SPI case opened on the two IPs. -- Banjeboi 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the WP:3RR rule[edit]

A user using the IPs Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ has violated the WP:3RR rules on the Java (programming language)‎ article, even after numerous warning from various other editors (see User_talk: He was previously (some days ago) warned for WP:POV, nonconstructive editing, and WP:OUTING (see his previous nonconstructive behavior). He has also recently (today) edited my user page, which I consider as vandalism, judging by his recent behavior on articles. Please note that I have not engage myself in edit war, various editors have returned the article to its original version after his many reverts.

Some of his reverts are (3rd August):

Hervegirod (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cr*p report, but 3RR so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgrittani reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 31h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [47]


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [54]

Editor has repeatedly replaced a good image with one that he took of himself with Anne Hathaway (actress). Besides the fact that it is uncroppable to remove the fan, the image is an extremely unflattering image, taken with the camera extremely close to Hathaway's face, causing her features to be distorted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-08-04T18:30:55 Jauerback (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mgrittani (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KevinOKeeffe reported by Chuthya (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

Natural born citizen of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KevinOKeeffe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 09:53, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */ The Arthur & Obama cases remain in contention; they are not settled facts of history as yet.")
  2. 14:06, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "*Revert* I noticed you only removed the reference to Obama, not to Arthur. Yet they are equally in question. Let's strike for a NPOV, shall we?")
  3. 19:54, 3 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "The word "apparently" acknowledges that it is widely believed they were born in Vermont & Hawaii, while taking into account that such beliefs represent a POV, hence not weasel wording.")
  4. 00:02, 4 August 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "If you can find a source that proves these persons were born in Vermont & Hawaii, then cite it. This section exists precisely because there exists a controversy about where they were born, after all.")

Your proof that the first rv is a rv doesn't work for me (otherwise, nice report, thank you) but edit warring / POV pushing is clear enough: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnosisquest reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: warned)[edit]

For more than two months, Gnosisquest has been adding fringe POV text to Aisha. It's basically the same edit in a number of different forms, but there is a clear consensus on the article that the text does not warrant inclusion. Multiple editors (including myself) have tried to explain to Gnosisquest why the text shouldn't be added, but they keep adding it anyway. Gnosis is, in my opinion, an SPI who's really just here to keep pushing a POV on Aisha.

Reverts: The following six diffs are basically the inclusion of the same text over and over.

These three are the inclusion of different text, but it's more of the same POV.


At this point, I (and the other editors) aren't really sure what to do, hence this post. After two months, it's getting to be a bit much. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I consider myself "semi-involved" as I've been aware of this slow motion edit war for several weeks, but only recently bacame directly involved. I performed an informal analysis (in my head, not using tools) of Gnosisquest's Contrib History and found this: since registering the account just over 4 months ago, he/she has made just under 300 edits, and 90% - 95% have related directly to the topic of Aisha's age. I found only two edits to articles unrelated to Aisha, which gives a very strong impression that this is an SPA account. As evidenced by the diffs above, Gnosisquest has repeatedly attempted to insert FRINGE material from questionable sources, against a strong and continued consensus that the material is not appropriate. In light of this pattern of tenditous editing, admin intervention seems appropriate. Doc Tropics 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The source which I intend to add is peer reviewed --Gnosisquest (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Gnosisquest is a definite single purpose account. He/she started editing the Aisha article on April 1, 2009, and has made virtually no edits outside of tendentiously editing in material about Aisha's age. The only lapses in his long pattern of edit warring were during the period when the page was protected due to his edit warring. Otherwise, it's been nothing but a series of reverts to preferred versions and slight alterations in tactics peppered with bouts of discussion on the talk page in which he ignores what everyone else has to say.--Cúchullain t/c 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Page protection ?I was new that time,I admit I made a mistake.I do not ignore what you have to say, I have been using different sources.I usually discuss on the talk page before performing edits .I do not ignore what others have got to say.--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[refactored own comment as out of place]--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Your belief does not change facts.I wrote a comment on the talk page of the article where you failed to respond (for 5 days)spellberg colinturner doubt the age mentioned Adil Salahi clearly states that she was older there are many scholars who support my viewpoint (in foreign languages) this is not a fringe theory --Gnosisquest (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
At the top of this page, it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page." As such, this is not the place for discussion like this. Take it back to Talk:Aisha. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. There is literally months worth of discussion at the talk page, and the consensus is quite clear.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The reason for which the material was reverted by helloannoying was that he considered it as a synthesized statement.This was corrected soon afterwards after talking on his userpage.I asked those who reverted my edits to comment on the talk page of the article (they did not do so for about a week or so (I had to edit the article since no one objected to it and did not provide any valid arguments )I'm trying my best to be a good wikipedian .The reason for my edits was because other editors choose to remain mum on this issue ,did not give any valid reason for reverting my edits . As for the edits 7,8,9 provided by helloannyong. I was trying to add what Colin turner exactly writes of the bedouins of that time, not the biased view .None of m y edits are present on the page All the edits on the page are the result of discussions on the talk page with people of different views. --Gnosisquest (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Our policy does not recognize any right to endlessly reinsert material that is rejected by consensus. I think we are close enough to WP:Disruptive editing for an admin to issue a warning against any repeat of this behavior. Gnosisquest could still pursue WP:Dispute resolution if he thinks he can get the consensus changed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ED I wont revert edits on that page unless it is apt to do so .--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of the promise above, I've given Gq a final warning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:MishMich reported by Avi (talk) (Result: Self Reversion occurred; report withdrawn)[edit]

Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MishMich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • 1st revert - is not a revert, it is my editing my previous edit reduce text and adjust format of an image that was agreed as preferable on the talk page.
  • 2nd revert - is not a revert, it is my placing quotation marks around text, following discussion on talk page that the text for the EL had to be a quote from the link's home page.
  • 3rd revert - this is my 1st revert - of Avi revert of the editing made since his revert 26 hours previously
  • 4th revert - this is my 2nd revert - of Avi 2nd reverting of my editing

All other changes to this page were either insertion of new material, or alteration to material in a way that accommodated comments made by other editors on the talk page.

This is an incorrect WP:3RR warning, as I rarely revert, and have not done so more than twice in a day on an article since I learned the WP:3RR rule. I would counter this false accusation with a counter-claim that Avi has breached this himself by engaging in three reverts in a 27 hour period (which transgresses the 3RR rule in principle if not within 24 hours exactly), and it was his reverts and premature warning that are edit warring, not my edits.

I came to this article in response to an RfC, and the techniques used to prevent insertion of material contrary to a certain POV intrigued me. My edits commenced after the first of Avi's reverts listed above, so I do not take this personally, although it seems from his pattern of editing that he (although not alone in this) has WP:OWN issues with this article, and this involves using policies and guidelines to restrict other editors ability to make positive contributions to this article - contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia, and limiting the potential for improving the article (especially when limiting editing in a way that excludes material relevant to the topic of the article). This erronious accusation highlights this, and seems an inappropriate response to a fairly experienced editor who is new to this article, and who has spent five years engaged in doctoral research into issues which include non-consensual genital surgery of infants. Mish (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Version of MishMich's reverts as reported by Coppertwig:

Plus yesterday reverting against 3 other editors to increase the number of external links in the article.

I've struck out Avi's list of reverts since my list is essentially the same thing in what I think is a better format (diff links rather than history links). Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My preceding comments were compiled while the above was inserted, and so I have left them intact to show that the original accusation was unfounded - these pages take a long time to load, so it takes some time for me to review the links. I will now attend to the revised accusation, and hope that nobody decides to change that before I have finished.

  • 1st revert is inaccurate. I was told on the talk page that because the editors had limited ELs to five-a-side, if I wanted to insert another EL (in this case to the only UK-specific pro group) I would have to replace one of the existing links. Through discussion on the talk page, it seemed that the entry that dealt with the effects of male circumcision on female sexual pleasure was of dubious relevance to the core subject of the article, so as explained on the talk page, I did this. I later found a balancing EL for a UK group promoting circumcision, and so I added back the link on female sexuality I had removed, and added the counter-balancing link to a UK pro-circumcision org as well. Both links (for and against) were medically sound.
  • 2nd revert is inaccurate. In discussion on the talk page, I was informed that this was inappropriate because of guidelines about medical evidence - I had inserted it in the medical section. I am still unclear why details of a circumcision that has appeared in hundreds of books and papers in peer-reviewed journals (including medical, psychology, sexology, sexuality and feminist texts) should be seen as 'anecdotal'. However, in response to the discussion, I created a new section 'Circumcision in the media and academic discourse', to avoid the way this legitimate material was being prevented. This is the most well-known case involving a botched circumcision, with the story of David Reimer and the events surrounding the loss of his penis featuring in one book about him, two UK BBC documentaries, documentaries in the UK, as well as being used by Milton Diamond in his critique of the work of John Money.
  • 3rd revert - this is the first revert of the revert by Avi which incorporated all the edits made over the previous 24 hours, including those modified as a result of discussion on the talk page.
  • 4th revert - this is the second revert of the second revert by Avi which incorporated all the edits made over the previous 24 hours.

Again, there are two reverts here - both in response to the reverts of a serial reverter who appears to use reverts to block material he does not like going into the article, and accuses editors who resist this of edit-warring inaccurately. Mish (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I second this editors actions, they seem to be on the level and in good faith. This is premature and obvious attempt to drive Mish away from Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article edit history, one can see Mish attempting to make wholesale changes, changes that have been disputed on the talk page. Continued disregard for multiple requests to discuss the matter on the talk page by making wholesale changes to what was at least a semi-stable version of the article is classic edit warring. In general, and especially on controversial articles, massive changes should NOT be made without a full discussion on talk. While there are those who may applaud the edit warring, it is edit warring nonetheless. -- Avi (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
He has not made massive changes, merely a series of small changes, mainly involving organization, format, and structure. Remember it takes two to tango so if he's edit warring so are you. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect, Gary, Mish's reversions of Me, Jake, and C-twig indicates from whence the edit warring comes. Regardless, we shall leave that up to the closing admin to decide. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've only reverted your reverts. To show my own good-faith, I have reverted my last revert so that you can constructively discuss these changes on the talk page - TBH, there are other articles I am more interested in, but this one does seem to have some problems, as there is no place to include relevant material the way it has been structured, and there seems to be a tendency to bully out editors who seek to make changes - as your premature warning and accusations illustrate. Mish (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Self reversion occurred, report withdrawn, discussion will continue on talk. Avi (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MishMich. I withdraw my part of the report too. Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jkjhkjdhfkjdsfy reported by - Barek (talkcontribs) - (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Christopher Columbus High School (Miami, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jkjhkjdhfkjdsfy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:27, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306073845 by (talk)")
  2. 22:36, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306096892 by (talk)")
  3. 22:44, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306098475 by (talk)")
  4. 22:49, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "These alumni come directly from the school magazine, alumni, ect., who is changing this?")
  5. 23:06, 4 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 306102194 by Barek (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The user was blocked 24 hours by C.Fred (talk · contribs) for edit warring & violation of the three-revert rule. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: warned)[edit]

  • 4th revert: 16:46, 4 August 2009 – just to note, second part of the sentence is sourced to a Krugman's own blog and its appropriateness as a source was never disputed; it was included a month ago after discussion at talk in which Lawrencekhoo participated
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Lawrencekhoo is an established user. Also, a month and a half ago he broke 3RR on the same article but since he was engaged in a discussion at talk page I just warned him [55] and gave him a chance to self-revert (which he didn't do).
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] one of our discussions

-- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR vio, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake I guess. Sorry. Lemme go look at the page history. I have been doing some heavy editing on that article, as far as I know, according to consensus. I didn't think about 3RR. BTW, isn't there a 3RR exception for removing undue negative material from a BLP? Anyway, I won't touch that article for a while. LK (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the last revert I did, the person I reverted left this message on my talk page in response:
Oops I hadn't meant to add the bits about Krugman encouraging the housing bubble back in. I think I may have been working on an older version of the article in one of my edits. Sorry about that. I see you've taken it back out. [57]
Anyway, sorry about forgetting 3RR. LK (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr3003nights reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 3 weeks)[edit]

I think that from article's history is obvious that Mr3003nights is edit waring against several editors. He insists that sentence "the overcoming of wage labor became "in Lincoln's hands...the rallying point for the Northern cause in the civil war" should be included in the article. [58] Because that is the same edit that User tried to introduce several times [59], and because they almost only edit Wage slavery, I believe that Mr3003nights and are the same user. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already blocked for edit waring on this article several times, and this is becoming disruptive even though there is no 3RR violation. -- Vision Thing -- 08:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the same person. Clearly disruptive, and repetitively so. Three weeks. -- tariqabjotu 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KeltieMartinFan reported by (result: semi)[edit]