Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive103

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Unitanode reported by User:TreadingWater (Result: Closed without blocks for 3RR)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

I have never reported an editor for 3RR before, so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in this report; I'm trying, in good faith, to do this correctly. User Unitanode has blatantly disregarded Wikipedia rules and made clearly innappropriate edits. I will focus here, though, just on his violation of 3RR in this case. When he made his fourth edit within 24 hours, I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR, and asked him to please self-revert this fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert this edit, but he erased my 3RR warning from his talk page! I then pointed out on another page again that he was aware of 3RR because he had referenced his understanding of the 3RR rule yesterday, and I also then provided him with a new link describing the specifics of the 3RR rule to make absolutely sure he understood this rule, and again asked him to please self-revert. He has seen these warnings but refuses to self-revert. Because he has chosen to so blatantly disregard Wikipedia rules, I ask you to please give him a long enough block from editing so that he will be deterred in the future from disregarding Wikipedia rules. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the first "revert" a revert? This is clearly an edit war, in which both sides should back off and use the talk page more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The first revert is a revert because Unitanode came along and changed it from Jones to Boomer, after it had been Jones for a long time. You're right, that this is an edit war, and a difficult one because Unitanode is so unwilling to discuss on the talk pages. I've repeatedly tried to get him to approach this in a collaborative way, rather than edit warring.
He keeps showing an utter disregard for the rules; shouldn't he be deterred from doing this? Today, his behavior is even worse. He initiated a nonesense investigation today for sockpuppetry against me (I believe as retaliation against me for making this 3RR report yesterday). And now he uses that as an excuse for further disregarding the rules. He reverted the Generation Y page 5 times in the last few hours, claiming he can do that because he suspects that the editors he is reverting are sockpuppets (they aren’t). Isn't that a decision that administrators make? I strongly want to revert to what I feel is accurate info in these articles, but I’m respecting the rules and not reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. I feel like this is very unfair because I'm being punished for following Wikipedia rules and he is being rewarded for breaking the rules. Here are the 5 GenY reverts he made today: [8] [9] [10] [11][12]
Please block this editor in a way that will deter him form continuing this flaunting of Wikipedia rules.TreadingWater (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The sockpuppet investigation seems justified, although I'm not convinced that TreadingWater is really one of the socks, he may just be telling people off-Wiki what articles need to be watched. Unfortunately, although I agree with Unitanode as to the proper content of most of the articles in question, he has probably violated 3RR on Generation Y, and TreadingWater has not recently violated 3RR unless he and one of the other SPAs are considered to be the same (which does not require they technically being sock puppets; could be meat puppets). I may not close the AN3 report, but the sock puppet question seems legitimate to me, and I would reluctantly block Unitanode for Generation Y, if he had been warned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe I have been dealing with a large number of sock/meat puppets, as I reported on SPI, and have been addressing them as such, while waiting for the SPI to be addressed. But I'll stop until the question is settled, if it's a problem. Unitanode 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Please don't edit war, even for a "good reason"... instead just let it slide till the report is processed. Which it now is, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreadingWater. To all, in this case, I strongly recommend leniency for Unitanode.... just don't do it again. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will not make the final decision here; however, I will point out that the SPI report indicates that TreadingWater has been using multiple accounts on this and other articles to keep it in xir preferred version for some time. As important, Unitanode had agreed above to stop editing in this area until the SPI report was completed; thus any edit warring had already stopped. I note TreadingWater had also violated 3RR here. I would urge this to be closed without any blocks related to this. Risker (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Unitanode agrees to stop editing in the area for now; Treadinwater has other issues to deal with. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Twospoonfuls reported by User:Number36 (Result: 24h all round)[edit]

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

(Just some examples)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [18]

Talk:Eurymedon vase

User Twospoonfuls has been consistantly reverting the page Eurymedon vase‎, these changes have been made by a number of editors, and on the talk page clear arguments for catagory headings were put forward and agreed upon by everyone except Twospoonfuls who explicitly admited that he feels ownership of the page and disregards anybody who disagrees with him, and also feels he doesn't have to put forward an argument to support his position. His reverts were originally characterized by such edit summeries as "no thanks" etc, but he has been reverting all the recent changes as vandalism, despite having it pointed out quite clearly that good faith edits should not be described as such and pointed in the direction of the relevent guidelines. As well as the three revert rule also being pointed out to him. The original discussion on the talk page ended with Twospoonfuls declaring that he would treat any edits he did not agree with as vandalism, him saying that changes to the page were his decision as the major contributor to the page and unilaterally stating that the discussion was closed. Number36 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the bit of the template that said "evidence of trying to solve the dispute on the talk page"? Weeeeelllll... its not there just for fun, you know. 24h both parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaCarax reported by User:SoWhy (Result: 1 week)[edit]

This is not a 3RR report but a edit-warring report, thus no diffs. This user has been removing genres from In a Perfect World... despite being warned and blocked twice for violating 3RR. Since I blocked them the last two times, I'd appreciate if another admin here were to handle the continued edit-warring by this user from here (to provide a second set of eyes). Regards SoWhy 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Aitias // discussion 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Pakapshem reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: 1 week)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]

The user seems to be a newcomer (ca. 1 month) and part of a pro-Albanian team of the already 4 times blocked user User:Sarandioti. It seems quiet erroneous, but he insist on deleting the town's mayor (and main representative of the Greek minority in Albania) in the list of notable personalities. He also continues the same activity in the articles: Spyros Spyromilios (3rr), Lunxhëri‎ (3rr). Although I've tried to make an reasonable approach in his talk page [[25]], he continues the same activityAlexikoua (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that at this point, some sort of ARBMAC sanction such as revert limits might be in order in addition to a block. --Athenean (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kürfurst reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues.

1 [26] 2 [27] 3 [28] 4 [29]

Dapi89 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

These are from two different articles and do not violate 3RR at all... take note that there is an ongoing consensus forming process on the subject, and the reporting editor simply ignores it and behaves as he owns the article and behaves confrontationally on the talk page, see: [30] I have reverted to the version of Bzuk, who had suggested a discussion on the talk page. This editor ignores this complete, and continues to edit the disputed section to push through his POV. Take note of his edit comments.
This editor has an ongoing feud against my person which is going on now for about a month. I am trying to put up with it and not respond, I can provide dozens of diffs for this, but for simplicity, it is also evidenced on the editors talk page, see [31] [32].
The editor has been warned dozens of times, by me, several administrators, and all his blocks have been received because of personal attacks and incivility against my person. I ask the admins to intervene and stop this behaviour pattern of his. Kurfürst (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignore the nonsense, and look at his block log and edit history. I'm the seventh editor to log a complaint in as many weeks. He's trying to deflect attention form his 3RRR. He's also trying to use the support of Minorhistorian, who he has been in conflict with for two years - he won't like that. Dapi89 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
outside opinion from rʨanaɢ talk/contribs First of all, this report is malformed and some admins would ignore it just for that; in the future, Dapi, if you ever need to report someone here, please do so using the Click here to add a new report link and filling out the report properly.
Now, as for the edit far as I can tell, both of you are edit warring. Dapi, you seem to have inserted the material before a clear consensus was reached at the talk page; more editors have weighed in since then, but your first edit may have been premature. Kurfürst, you have a history of blocks for edit warring and you really should be following the "one-revert rule" to avoid further problems.
I'd like to hear what another admin has to say here, but personally my course of action would be to warn both of you for edit warring (consider this message your warning) and ask that neither of you edit the article directly for at least 48 hours, but stick to the talk page instead. Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit), but you should each stick to the talk page and let someone else determine consensus and do the actual editing for now. If either of you start revert warring again on this article during that time, I would consider blocking one or both of you (particularly you, Kurfürst, since now there are two editors who have reverted you). But again, I'll let another admin here make the final decision. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The consensus always has been "Decisive British Victory". Kurfurst has tried before to have this overturned, but failed. I have presented the sources from people like Richard Holmes, Richard Overy and John Terraine (who Kurfurst has accussed of lying on the talk page!)
I can't believe I can be considered for a block - I have made 2 reversions, both restoring masses of sourced material - while this guy has been removing material, all over the place. I'm just trying to do my best as an editor, while others are agenda driven. Dapi89 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...I forgot: Rjanag, the stuff about the report is duly noted. Dapi89 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit) - I disagree. Two editors in favour, at least two against (from those who are actively participating in the discussion), some made clear that the infobox is not a place for this. If you look at the history of the article, editor Bzuk suggested a discussion of the subject on the talk page. I have since respected that, and made no edits myself, while Dapi89 and EnigmaMcmxc ignored it, and both started to revert Bzuk and add their own versions again. I merely reverted their edit back to the established version (against my own suggested edit!) that was suggested by Bzuk (and which was there before the dispute over it started) until a consensus can be reached on the article in the talk page, which was again reverted. The consensus is that this should be discussed first, which these two editors ignore and try to force through their own POV with reverts. Personally, I have no problem of refraining from editing the article for 48 hours, or longer, if the consensus finding takes a longer period, but I strongly desist the way [[User:Dapi89|Dapi89] behaves on wikipedia. This whole ruckuss is no more than another chapter in his personal feud against my person, and a misuse of the ANI. Kurfürst (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst, you have done multiple reverts on both the articles linked from here. Regardless of what is going on at the talk page, this sort of reverting is inappropriate. This page is not a place to argue over content issues; you can do that at the article talk page. In any case, please refrain from editing either of the articles directly, for at least 48 hours (but, better yet, until the issues are resolved on the talk page and an outside editor decides what to do). If you revert again during that time, it will probably lead to a block; the argument has reached a point now where you are no longer at a point where you can decide what the consensus is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see my edits any more inappropriate than any other editor editing those articles, especially than those who ignored the consensus finding process and kept commenting their edits in a rather agitated manner. I suppose to rules apply to equally, and while its true and agreed that the argument has reached a point where a single editor can no longer decide what the consensus is, it applies to all editors involved equally. Otherwise, its just an encouragement for these editors to ignore the talk page and force their edits through reverts and false ANI reports. As noted, the editor making this report does not understand what the 3RR is and has a long history of edit warring, and personal grudge against me, for which he was blocked several times. But as noted, I have no problem with discussing the edits on the talk page first. Kurfürst (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Since i have been dragged into this i would like to have my say and not what people think my intentions may or may not have been; the article infobox had no inline citations a few days back. I added one from my own sources on this battle that defines the battles outcome in a single sentance and placed it in the article to enhance the article. Since then additional editors added in more sources further supporting this and then this little edit war broke out. Today, as can be seen on the talk page, i collated the stuff myself and others had added from both sides of the argument resulting in 1 source apparently supports a strategic stalemate, 5 sources supporting a decisive British victory, 1 source stating a plain British victory and 2 sources claiming it was not decisive. Since this was all the material that had been brought up it was pretty clear what the consensus was. Additional sources were then found by other users further enhancing the consensus then looking at the edit history this material was removed because "conclusion was not yet reached on talk page". I work in an office, i hate red tape and having to prolong things - i established consensus and edited the article accordlingly. I am not attempting to force my own POV on anyone - as can be seen with other articles such as Operation Epsom that i heavily worked on the outcome states one thing that is consenus while a section is devoted to the multiple points of view that contridict it - something i suggested should be implimented in this article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, the irony of it all. Four reverts by the editor Dapi89 who filed this report in the last 24 hours in the same article... See: [33] [34] [35] [36]

[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc], I see your point, but please take note that it may be a lenghtier process, and consensus is made by a discussion, not declared. Yes, I work in an office too, I know the feeling, but wiki ain't running anywhere. ;) So I suggest lets work out our sources on the talk page first before making any edits to the article. Kurfürst (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why you both got warnings.
You have both agreed to stop editing these articles (and have not edited them since that) and both appear to understand that further edit warring will lead to blocks. I don't see a need for anything else to be discussed here. No need beating a dead horse, let's move on and get some work done. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous User: User: User: reported by User:Oicumayberight (Result: )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [37]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

I'm reporting this early because the user is reverting talk page comments that are not vandalism. I believe the person is gaming the system with anonymous IPs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but talk page comments should only be removed if they are vandalism. The user should respond to the comments if they don't agree with them rather than just delete them. I believe the user is reverting any reference to previous sections to hide their own involvement in previous discussions and hide any link from the real user name to the bold edits and disruption under the now multiple anonymous IPs. They all seem to be from Dublin Ireland, which seems to coincide with the home of an angry user in previous discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talkcontribs) 23:10, 29 June and 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I left this project. This user thinks they can do what ever they want on a talk page but cries foul every time someone archives a page. The user is once again attempting to refactor a section of discussion page after the originator disagreed with them several times. And of course the user resorted to attacks against the former me and has not WP:AGF. (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Farsight001 reported by User: (Result: Declined)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [44]

For more information - see [49] -- (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Stale report: this page was protected yesterday because of the edit warring, and Farsight and the others involved have done no reverts since then. The IP filing this report has, however, reverted as soon as the block expired. Blocking the IP for 48 hours (if IP reverts again after block expires, it'll be extended to a week), and the page will be re-protected if other IP addresses start to revert. Deal with these issues on the talk page, guys, not the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Orsahnses reported by Vicenarian (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Vicenarian (T · C) 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I've just looked through this user's history, and it's troubling. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clearly edit warring— four or five different editors have reverted him, he's had a chance to go to the talk page and has not. Blocked 24h. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - it seems Huggle automatically adds reports here to the top. I'll note it over at WP:HG. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Tedder (Result: 1 week)[edit]

After revert #6, the user did use the article talk page, but it certainly wasn't done in any better faith than the edit summaries above, which included some fairly weak personal attacks. As the IP continues to edit war rather than discuss, I'm requesting a block. tedder (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1 week. 3RR + incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:Gogo123 (Result: )[edit]

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

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

Benjiboi is making multiple Edits sometimes 9 per day, changing or reverting any single person's comments on Cheyenne Jackson wiki page. The user will not allow any changes to the article that he does not approve of.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo123 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 30 June 2009

  • You have not provided proper diffs of Benjiboi's reverts, and I see no 3rr warning on his talk page. No action will be taken here if you do not fill out the report properly.
  • Anyway, at this point no one should be editing the article, you should both be discussing the content issues at the article's talk page. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Elockid (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:

  • 1st revert: 1st
  • 2nd revert: 2nd
  • 3rd revert: 3rd
  • 4th revert: 4th
  • 5th revert: 5th

I discussed issue on the talk page. User is unwilling to discuss in talk page

Note: I suspect the anon user to be a sockpuppet of User:Orsahnses who is currently banned for continuous reversions without discussing in the talk page. This is evident by the unwillingness of the user to discuss the issue on the talk page and that the constant reversions are on the same article. Elockid (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked for personal attacks, and I have semi-protected the article. The duck test suggests that this is Orsahnses, and if the sockpuppet investigation there shows them to be linked then Orsahnses' block will be lengthened. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Geoff B (Result: self-rv)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [50]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

97.xx removed a reliable source from two articles. Geoff B (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by WebHamster (Result: Warned)[edit]

Citizendium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:26, 29 June 2009 (edit summary: "Larry Sanger stopped contributing")
  2. 11:43, 30 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 299416350 by Cybercobra (talk) Well, we don't need a reliable source here. Besides, this is the official forum")
  3. 22:03, 30 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 299495464 by WebHamster (talk) it's not used as a source")
  4. 23:44, 30 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 299593329 by WebHamster (talk) don't understand what's wrong. This is from the "official" forum")
  • Diff of warning: here

WebHamster 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned TakuyaMurata warned and asked to start a discussion on the talk page. Will keep an eye on the article; if there are further reverts without discussion, it will lead to a block. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men, up to about 7RR now so it's looking like warning wasn't heeded. Though the article's talk page inherited the warning from his/her talk page. :( --WebHamster 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the user has not reverted since he was warned. Check contribs: I warned at 00:58, he started a section on the talk page around 01:08 or so, and has not edited the article since. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I realise that blocks aren't punitive, but sheesh, 7RR against 3 editors? Sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. --WebHamster 06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where you're getting 7, I count 4, and I don't see reverts on other articles either. (And, for the record, the first diff you listed isn't a revert, it's the first time he added the content). There's no reason to block him if he's not doing damage, and therefore no reason to block unless he starts warring again. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I had miscounted, it should have been 6 including the first one and an intermediate edit after reverting. But even so 4 is still more than 3, at least round here it is anyway. But as I said yes I do realise that blocks aren't punitive, but his behaviour was taking the piss whichever way you look at it. --WebHamster 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Moby-Dick3000 (Result: semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [56]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Please block this user. He has reverted my edits several times without any discussion on the article's talk page. I warned him three times about the WP three-revert rule but he continued reverting. I also offered to compromise with him on the article's talk page but he ignored me.

Since this is an anonymous user, I think it would be wise to block the above IP address along with similar ones that show the same pattern of editing. This would prevent the same person from using multiple IP addresses to edit the same article. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. I decided to semi the page instead William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention in this matter, William. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thumperward reported by User:Unknownzd (Result: Declined, no violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:

Actually he is not reverting all the content, but just reverting the part which is listing all SOCKS server software and only shows the link of the info of Sun Java System Web Proxy Server. Please note that he has stated out he is an employee of Sun Microsystem on his userpage, he also just calls that is "de-spam" stated which I think its totally nonsense as the useful links are removed too.

By the way I don't think he will look on the discussion page at all coz he has deleted all the links without any dicussion. So thats why I haven't tried to contact him. By the way he has reverted / edited the articles four times in 4 hours just for the fancy looking without any functional changes, and removed all the links that he doesn't want (i.e. all the SOCKS server software links that are not related to Sun Microsystem). I haven't tried to revert what he has done coz I don't want to start another war while I don't have any power to do so, coz he has reverted / deleted all the links which were at least on the page for 4 to 5 months already without any reasonable reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownzd (talkcontribs)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined No edit warring here. I only see one set of edits from Thumperward (and it doesn't look like a revert to me), and there is no reverting in between them, so there's no edit war. Try discussing these issues with him or at the talk page rather than just coming here right away (there is no discussion at the talk page or at his talk page).
  • For general clarification... first of all, read WP:Edit war, or just the top of this page, to understand what edit warring is. Read WP:REVERT to understand why his edits were not four reverts (four edits in a row with nothing in between is considered one revert, not four, even if it is a revert). Finally, if you ever report someone here again, please fill out the report properly (provide diffs, etc.), as explained in the instructions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Ban me (Result: OK)[edit]

Already quite some time ago I came along the article formerly know as Persecution by Christians. I've partly cleaned it up, but be now the hassle has become to much for me. Recently, I got picked at by some Christian editors for the work I've done in relation to this topic see here and now I'm getting picked at by apparently atheist editors. My work for Wikipedia must have some value, one editor commented that he views me as "one of WP's finest editors in the areas of religion and recent history",diff but I am always caught in the line of fire and it hurts. I think I've broken 3rr this time, so you would have a reason to ban me for some time.

I've come here to write encyclopaedic articles, not to play some stupid games. I don't care who DreamGuy is or what standing he has at Wikipedia, but if he can take a verbatim quote from an academic textbook to be "blatant POV violation" diff, then obviously I can't discuss the topic with him. Hey, I am getting the message. I would like to quit Wikipedia so that you can continue your stupid POV-battles and produce encyclopaedic junk like most articles from Template:Religious persecution, but I care too much about what I understand to be the truth, academically speaking. If you want to have articles on religious persecution and related issues, these should be on the level of the academic debate. By our standard of wp:reliable sources you can't object to the sentences: "Nowadays, 'persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith' and Christians of all denominationss embrace religious toleration and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.(ref: Coffey 2000: 206.) until you bring forward another reliable source that disagrees.Zara1709 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what the game is here, but you have 4R so I've blocked you for 24h. If you want to be banned rather than blocked you'll have to work a bit harder William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl (Result: blocked 1 week)[edit]

On Office Open XML:

(Behavior continues, with multiple reverts already today.)

This is the user's 4th offense, at least, judging by multiple warnings on User Talk:HAl, over the course of multiple years, always on the same pages. The repeated offenses seem to have gone unnoticed by admins because the user has repeatedly blanked his Talk page to remove complaints.

Due to the repeated, ongoing, and long-term nature of the offense, I am blocking for 1 week.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

producer (result: 48h)[edit]

Cr*p report, the worse I've seen this week, well done. But 48h all round anyway, the Balkans need a rest William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mariomassone reported by User:DoctorHarris21 (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [74]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

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

I have listed numerous sources that show the Decker Dog as a nickname for Dingo. Mariomassone continues to just delete my edits even when I properly source them. This is not his first offense of edit warring, as evidenced by his personal talk page. He also finds it necessary to throw out personal insults on occasion. DoctorHarris21 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

24h. Detailed rationale on your talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevinbrogers reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [81]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

User:Kevinbrogers has continued to insert speculation on future episodes based on sources that fail WP:RS. Reverted by myself and User:Jonh90. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that his last revert was at 18:34, that he was warned about 3RR at 18:40, and that he hasn't reverted since then- is it possible he didn't know about the rule? I see that several people are now discussing the sourcing problem on his talk page; I'd hate to block him if he's already stopped on his own. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well now we have an IP making that edit: [88]. -WarthogDemon 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Che829 (Result: stale?)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Tendentious and disruptive editor Special:Contributions/ possible sockpuppet for accounts including Special:Contributions/Tngah, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/

I could block you both, since you've both broken 3RR. But you seem to have got bored, so I won't. Note that this is a content dispute (which is why you brought it here, not WP:AIV) so "rvv" is an inappropriate and indeed incivil edit summary William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ObserverNY reported by User:La mome (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • 1st revert: [96]
  • 2nd revert: [97]
  • 3rd revert: [98]
  • 4th revert: [99]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [100]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

ObserverNY has been asked several times to stop moving a part of the article to the beginning, where all others agreed it should be at the end. -- La mome (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours as User:ObserverNY's edits have shown to be against consensus. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:LivefreeordieNH reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 48h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [102]

This user has demonstrated a clear right-wing bias, and has objected to the addition of properly sourced material that puts a Republican in a bad light. He has repeatedly reverted the addition of an incident which is ongoing, involving police investigation, which I properly sourced, by claiming "it is slander by the Democrat Party".

Additionally, I suspect this revert and this revert, which came after I warned of a possible edit warring notice, could be sockpuppetry.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [107]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

and in the edit summary of this revert. Obviously the next revert was not done with this user name, but there are a couple accounts, identified only by IP addresses, which suspiciously have only been editing this particular page. As I suspect that this user may be trying to remove this information while avoiding WP:3RR by doing it while not logged in, I decided to report it. If I am wrong, and it was somebody else, I am prepared to accept my mistake. Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - 48 hours for LivefreeordieNH. This is their second block for edit-warring. Article has been semiprotected since IPs have joined in the revert war. This is not a comment on whether the 'Controversy' section should remain in the article. Please discuss that question sensibly on the talk page, and abide by whatever consensus is reached there. Editors who continue to add or remove the Controversy section without getting consensus first may be speedily blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MataNui44 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: 1 week)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [109]
  • Comment: User reverted to his preferred version after a 24-hour block for the same thing. No edits were made between block period and most recent revert, though he did wait several days before starting back up. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that The Rouge Penguin is being very stubborn and childish in not getting his way, and is also harassing me and he himself has violated this 3RR rule. MataNui44 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I self-reverted on the fourth. As for childish, see the discussion. You refuse to participate, and have been opposed by more than just me. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And I told you that you were the one who needed to take it to the talk page. [PA removed - WMC] MataNui44 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fhue reported by User:NRen2k5 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [119]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [127]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128] (page in question is an ANI archive, so attempted to resolve matter on user’s talkpage.)

Any attempt at communication with this editor quickly degrades into personal attacks, comment refactoring and deletion. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and told not to edit archived pages. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [129]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

See the above edit war on the same page. I suspect this IP address could be a sockpuppet. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2009-07-02T04:42:54 TeaDrinker (talk | contribs | block) blocked (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Persistent section blanking, disruptive editing) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Arab Cowboy reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:Query)[edit]

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

The guy is most likely soc puppeting right now on the talkpage:

"This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead. Nefer Tweety (talk)"

He uses the exactly same language as Arab Cowboy bringing up the "15:48, 2 July 2009" that no one supports or have ever cared about except Arab Cowboy and talking about "Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead" - this is the exactly same talk as from Arab Cowboy.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've had a 3O mediator, HelloAnnyong, who has been either collaborating with accuser above, Supreme Deliciousness, or has really been unable to understand the evidence submitted on the Talk page of the article. Annyong jumps to conclusions all the time in support of SD without examining the actual sources and then flip-flops when he "later finds out" that SD had been misquoting, to put it politely, the sources and editing much more than agreed on the Talk page. Annyong's collaboration with SD and/or negligence in examining the evidence and edits, as well as flip-flopping, has only exacerbated the situation and increased the edit warring on this article. I now have to contain the messy situation created by both SD and Annyong. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting the sources? It happened one time, and I removed it and never talked about that source again. This is coming from a man who he himself changed the whole article without any source or without any kind of agreement at all at the talk page, while I re-established the original article, brought in new info everything sourced. Enough, this is about 3rr not about the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The evidence will show that all SD says above is untrue. I have provided reliable sources to support ALL my arguments. Annyong stated that he made a concession and agreed to placing nationality in the lead, then he flip-flopped. Annyong acknowledged that SD's quotation of the source, which he had endorsed, was in error. Annyong also acknowledged that SD's edit that he had also initially endorsed was not in agreement with the Discussion on the Talk page and he reverted it again to one of his earlier edits. This last edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009, created by Annyong, is the version that I endorsed, not my own. So agreement had been established. Further reverts by SD will invite more eidt warring; he's engaged in these kinds of wars with numerous other users on other articles. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Arab Cowboy is edit-warring and has exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. However, since no link to a warning has been provided, I am inclined to warn rather than block unless there is evidence to show Arab Cowboy was aware of the 3-revert-rule prior to his 4th revert. CIreland (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CIreland, It's a shame that you side with the aggressors on a technicality. Please review the Talk page of the refrenced article and click the links that I provided in my response above before you issue a warnings without understanding the background. Also, please see counter complaint in New Section below. There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period. Please see the history page of the article. --