Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive104

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Bkonrad reported by Spshu (talk) (Result: No vio)[edit]

Tuscola Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt was made on the the reverter's talk page

Spshu (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On top of this, he has attack me personal, one of which was for posting the 3RR notice. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised by Spshu's actions in this regard, at least partly because I had appreciated his work on unincorporated communities in the Thumb area of Michigan. Yes, I made three reverts (not more). And discussion was ongoing, although it appeared that neither of us was making any headway in convincing the other. As such, I was disappointed that after a break in the discussion he returns and slaps a 3RR warning on my talk page when the last revert was nearly 13 hours earlier and the warning about edit warring could equally well have been applied to him. I thought that was a rather rude and needlessly antagonistic gesture, prompting my sarcastic observation [1] on my talk page. I apologize if that caused offense. I mean, it's not like either of us are complete newbies. If he were seriously contemplating reporting me for 3RR violation, a simple note would have been more appropriate and less confrontational. In such an impasse, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions. olderwiser 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Result - No violation. Neither party has gone past three reverts in a 24-hour period. I am concerned that neither side is using the talk page. If the issue is brought here again due to further warring, anyone who continues to revert who hasn't explained their reasoning on the Talk page is vulnerable to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I add the dates and time above for his reverts they were all on same day. don't closes this on a technicality, we did discuss it on his talk page and all he did is hand waving any arguments away. I even used the same arguments he used and he saw right though them but he can see through his own use of them. Spshu (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You only list three reverts above. It takes four reverts within 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. The fact that you discussed this on his user talk page is not sufficient. Admins will generally look at the article talk to judge the good faith of the participants. A recent addition to the WP:3RR policy says, "discuss the matter on the article talk page." EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) I'll let others decide the technicalities. But your dismissal of my reasoning as "hand waving" while at the same time completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting that reasoning in your responses (as well as your directive to "stop junking up" the article with postal service details) perhaps indicates a lack of maturity in how you are approaching this. olderwiser 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The only reason he didn't go to 4 is that I understand the edit warring rule as it states: "However edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule." The 3RR is only a benchmark. So I should have edited again to force him into a clear breach? But in do so I can be consider in breach of the rule too. So to techinical meet the rules I should have move the discussion to the Tuscula Township article instead of leaving it on his talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Had I taken the bait, it likely would have resulted in both of us being blocked. The proper thing to do would be to continue discussion, and if appropriate, follow the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. As I said above, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions. I'm going to move the exchanges from my talk page to that of the article's talk page, as that is a more appropriate venue for such discussion. olderwiser 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson reported by User:Debresser (Result: No vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [2] (the last version before the edit warring started, reflecting consensus since 8 October 2007)


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


  • Diff of edit warring warning: [6]
  1. User has been blocked before for engaging in edit war, when he actually violated the 3RR rule. See User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block.
  2. I would like preventive action to be taken, before we get trouble with a real edit war or the 3RR rule. I propose a warning to User:William Allen Simpson to refrain from making edits while consensus is being build. Notice that both on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_6#July_6 and on this article consensus seems to be against him, as witnessed by the fact that another editor apart from me also has reverted him here. Protection of the page seems to be unjustified, since the problem is caused by this one editor only. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

n.b. User notified, see [7]. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - No vio. Removing unsourced controversial items from a BLP article is an exception under the WP:3RR policy. Now I see at Talk:Wieland Speck#LGBT that someone has found a book reference to show that this director is gay, so the controversy should be over. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the source has been added, I hope this issue is now finished. But EdJohnston is mistaken, because User:William Allen Simpson did not remove unsourced information. The unsourced information was left in the article, just the connected category was removed. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: No action)[edit]

Please refer to talk page sections 12-19. Two editors: Mish and myself have attempted to stop Destinero's violations of copyrighted material and his unwarranted deletions without discussion. This has failed. This article is personally of little interest to me and I have removed it from my watch list as apparently has Mish...and Destinero's edits continue...Tobit2 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Destinero is rather new and had not received a 3RR warning. I have now taken care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Result - No action. Destinero has not continued to revert since this report was filed, and anyway he is a new editor and was not warned. If he continues to ignore the opinions of other editors, report here again and link to this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've justified my edits under the Wikipedia policies in edit summaries. Please clarify, why is needed an opinion of editors with little interest in these topics and with whom I should discuss it when both engaged editors leaved these articles. That is irracional. The Wikipedia policies are clear in this issue. --Destinero (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:78.137.141.254 reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 31h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [8]
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

The anon refuse to belive Filipovic has signed with the Ultimate Fighting Championship over Dream despite multiple sourced to the contrary. See also UFC 103. --aktsu (t / c) 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add, he has not actually reverted after the warning and discussion started on his talkpage. --aktsu (t / c) 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Now he has though, and he's also over 3RR at UFC 103. --aktsu (t / c) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 31h by Law (talk · contribs). --aktsu (t / c) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click) reported by User:Chidel (Initial result: No Violation) (Result after update: )[edit]

Chidel (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No violation of the three-revert rule has occured here. J.delanoygabsadds 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding! Fyunck clearly has been edit warring. Did you look at the diffs? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
User:J.delanoy believes that this page may be used only to report violations of the three-revert rule. Is that true? I thought this page could be used to report edit warring also. If this page is not the appropriate venue, what is? Thanks. Chidel (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be surprising if Chidel was new to Wikipedia - 16 days on and already here and a number of less than normal pages for newbies - no this is an editor with some history, and possibly an interest in picking at old bones of contention.--VS talk 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

His edit warring is continuing:

Edit warring still continuing:

User:Ksyrie reported by User:Rjanag (Result: warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [15] (10 Jul)


  • 1st revert: [16] (10 Jul)
  • 2nd revert: [17] (11 Jul)
  • 3rd revert: [18] (11 Jul)


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

Ksyrie has carefully avoided 3RR for several days, but since July 6 he has been slowly edit-warring, first with the addition of "terrorist" categories to the Urumqi riots article, and then with "pogroms" categories, starting on July 10. (See his edits [20][21][22], EW warning [23], and relevant talkpage discussion for the July 6 stuff—notice that the linked discussion actually begins with my post, n ot the one above it that was added 2 days later.) Coming in today and making 2 unexplained reverts, and never having posted on the talk page, after having been warned twice about not doing so, indicates clear intention to edit war even if it doesn't break 3RR; I am asking that the user either be temporarily blocked, or permission be given to block him next time he reverts. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now. Given last warning. Needs block if he repeats William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he does generally seem to "stop" for a day or two and then comes back and starts again. Just for clarification... does this warning you gave him mean that if he starts again I should just drop you a line and let you take care of it? (I assume that's better than me doing the blocking myself.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Goldfinger 93 reported by User:Rami R (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [24]


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Rami R 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — Aitias // discussion 17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [31]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]. This is not much of an attempt to discuss a dispute resolution as the user just simply ignored warning message and continued to revert and add the info. At least three other users, including two admins, did revert this user's attempts to add WP:OR to the page. Also, the vandalism warning was after this blatant vandalism [43] that the the user quickly reverted to reinsert the same disputed information. Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2009-07-12T23:10:54 King of Hearts (talk | contribs | block) blocked BenSpecter (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: Early life and career of Barack Obama) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fyunck(click) reported by User:Chidel (Initial result: No Violation) (Result after updates: )[edit]

Chidel (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not observe clear edit-warring here (although the final set of 4 edits are the same they occur over 3 days). Fyunck should probably go into further discussion on the re-adding of this reference but there is certainly no breach of 3RR in this complaint.--VS talk 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

His edit warring is continuing.

You know, I could be just like Chidel and total up the reverts he and Ryoung122 have imposed on my sourced material but it seems counterproductive and petty. Those two must have one more revert than mine. It seems Chidel and Ryoung122 should be at the top of their own list and that there might be a bit of bias in his posting this here. This is why I brought this to a mediator's attention long before this. Chidel, are you ex Tennis Expert? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

9th revert by Fyunck(click): 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Chidel (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tennis Expert/Chidel. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)'s edits have included such unsourced fantasies that the French Open began in 1925...yet even the Roland Garros website says 1891:

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

His edits are, therefore, unsourced, because the sources he is adding do NOT support his contentions.

Clearly, what he is doing is edit-warring, but trying to get around that on the technicality of not reverting several times in a day. Nonetheless, his edits are damaging to Wikipedia and those that read the articles because he is not following the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect major, mainstream sources, not one's own POV bias. Sources as varied as ESPN, the World Almanac, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the major winners, back to the start. Thus, his deletion of the names of French pre-1925 winners is a particularly egregious offense.

Also, Fyunclick has overemphasized "grand slam counts" when most major sources vary in their presentation...some count just open-era; some count all titles back to the start. Some don't count those before the advent of the challenge round. Historically, the idea of the "Grand Slam" did not even exist until Don Budge won four major tournaments in 1938, when the idea that these were the top-four coalesced gradually, over time. Since all sources do not agree on the second major issue...counting career slam titles...the appropriate response, in line with Wikipedia's calls for a pluralistic approach, is to have lists for any major way to count. This has already been done with pre-Open and Open-era counts. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be done with the pre-1925/post-1925 French Open winners. To do so would allow the reader to decide which version of events they wish to support. Currently, Fyunclick is attempting to impose his WP:OWN-violating, single "hardline" POV, which is also biased because though it excludes early French winners, it includes the early winners of other tournament that were no open to international competition, such as the US Open in 1881.Ryoung122 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Every source counts "grand slam" titles since before they were called "grand slam" titles. Every source. Just like the triple crown in horse racing does the same since before they were called the triple crown. The question is when before. You can certainly change the date of inception to 1891 and if you had done that we would have left it stand. But it started international play in 1925 for slam purposes. I have mentioned dozens of sources and list 10. This was all put in my contacting wiki mediation a week ago. You POV is certainly not helping this article nor is your constant reverting. I noticed that for the last year, before two charts merged, that when non-slam winners names were left grayed-out people were constantly changing counts and totals. How many did you and Chidel change back. Zip. I had to do it all for 2 years. Some I wouldn't catch for weeks and weeks. With the charts moved together (also against my will but fairly talked about and voted on) if this article is going to be accurate it needs to be truthful with a preponderance of sources verifying it. That has been done by me in a friendly manner, not with constant snide remarks and threats on my talk page. If I owned this page you would think I'd be the only one writing to it as opposed to dozens and dozens of others. Please stop the reverting. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fyunck's edit warring is continuing, sadly:

And his "mediator" or "higher up" is a no-show. Not on Fyunck's discussion page. Not on the article discussion pages. No where to be found. Who is this person, anyway? Chidel (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noted that sources as varied as the World Almanac, ESPN, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the French "grand slam" winners back to 1891. Consistent with Wikipedia's calls that their articles must be pluralistic (including multiple major points of view), all you have to do is list the pre-1925 winners but put an asterisk next to their name and a footnote. But while you're at it, the US "Open" in its early years was open only to Americans. For you to exclude early French winners, but not early winners elsewhere, is hypocritical. Further, as one pointed out: should we exclude Wimbledon when it didn't allow blacks?

As for the counts, personally I believe the French champs should count, so why would I revert something I agree with? Also, it seems a lot of other people agree with myself and Chidel, or you wouldn't have had to revert so many times. That you did, shows that you are not being constructive but instead being an obstacle to having a consensus article. You should consider that the point here is for Wikipedia to put all the information out, and let the user decide.

Ryoung122 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:73.60.208.15 reported by User:Cactusjump (Result: Stale )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [44]



Attempted to get discussion to article talk page, but was then met with more accusations of racism and hostility. Asked for page protection to resolve dispute, but has not been addressed at this time. Cactusjump (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale User hasn't edited the main page in over 24 hours, thus there's no ongoing edit war and no need for intervention. If you're having issues with the editor on the article's talk page, then consider reviewing the dispute resolution procedure, particularly consider filing Wikietiquette alert, etc. Cheers. Nja247 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User keeps arguing and threatening to change the article without gaining consensus on the talk page. They are not a regular user--they do not show up daily. Yet it is extremely disruptive on both the talk page and the article itself. Cactusjump (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Filed a Wikietiquette alert. I'm at a loss of what else to do. Cactusjump (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [49]


Warning by me on user:Scientus talk page [54]

I have reverted all of those as my own user space is exempt from the 3RR rule.


This user has been accused of WP:Vandalism, WP:Edit warring and tendentious WP:Disruptive editing on the Office Open XML article (see also: talk:Office Open XML which has included obsessive fact tagging, deleting sourced information and has now moved to personal attacks against me on my talk page. This is another sign of a disruputive editor. (see WP:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing.

These disruptive edits led, after me reverting as per WP:Disruptive_editing#Dealing with disruptive editors, to me being blocked for edit warring and also user:Scientus being blocked for edit warring.

An example of the disputed edits then [57] where user:Scientus added 12 tendentious critisism citations on Office Open XML citations in the Office Open XML article lead to a neutral sentence

Microsoft developed the over 6000 page [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] standard

which did not even need a citation. Removing these 12 unnessesary and tendentious critisism citations led to me getting a block for edit warring (as some how an admin reverted the 12 tendentious citations back in and blokced me for reverting them). Since then another user has also removed them of course and has User:Scientus put in other effort to delete information from the Office Open XML article and put the removed links back in on some other place.

This user has taken his disruptive behaviour from the Office Open XML article now to edit warring on my user talk page with the example 6 reverts listed above. hAl (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since then another revert has been made

7th revert [58]

This increases the continuous edit warring by user:Scientus on my user talk page. hAl (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing story. This guy keeps reverting:

8th revert [59]

hAl (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Orceuos reported by User:Vicenarian (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [60]



  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]
  • Diff of comment on user's talk page, asking to bring dispute to article talk: [69]


This user appears to be engaging in edit warring behavior similar to that of Orsahnses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who previously was blocked for warring over this same article and issue. While the final diffs listed aren't technically reverts, they are edits to the same material, blatantly ignoring requests to discuss such changes on the talk page. Please see the previous edit warring report regarding Orsahnses when deciding what action to take here. Many thanks, Vicenarian (T · C) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thephilologist7 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: blocked indefinitely)[edit]

  • Stubborn POV-pushing reverts against long-standing status quo and consensus of multiple users. Two 3RR vios on each of two days, 11 and 13 July:
  1. 11 July, 20.25 (rv. to immediately previous [71])
  2. 11 July, 20:28
  3. 11 July, 20:30
  4. 11 July, 20:36
  5. 13 July (slight variation of previous edit)
  6. 13 July, 16:03
  7. 13 July, 16:20
  8. 13 July, 17:43 (rv to intermediate edit [72])
  9. 13 July, 18:13 (yet another variation of the same edit)

Fut.Perf. 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked account indefinitely. He is not here to help, he is here to push his point of view. If the article gets out of hand, I can protect it. A rangeblock may be possible as well if he decides to follow you around, but it would not be desirable (a /16 on of one of the largest ISPs in Greece). J.delanoygabsadds 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 72h block lifted)[edit]




  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Currently, he is even edit warring on the POV-tag, as he also notes in the referenced talk page discussion. Appears to be fallout from Verifiability Noticeboard issue and Neutral POV Noticeboard issue. -- Yaf (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Following appeal, I've reconsidered and am not comfortable with this block. In particular I don't like the fact that Yaf failed to report this [74] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Which was overwritten through SaltyBoatr's subsequent repeat of the same reverts, restoring the same content that he self-reverted this one time. Whether there were 6 reverts or 5, there was still a clear violation of 3RR. But, no block. It appears that the 3RR bright line doesn't apply to some editors. Yaf (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Taraborn reported by User:Cnoguera (result: warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [75]
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

The user has been edit warring in this and other articles for several weeks. He has been warned by several users (User:Mountolive, User:Dúnadan, User:Maurice27) and politely invited to discuss his proposed changes ([78]). He has ignored all warnings and invitations. He has even tried to delete the discussions ([79]) and has attacked those who were trying to make him understand that his behavior wasn't appropriate ([80], [81]) breaking Wikiquette with offensive words like 'idiot' and 'retarded'. --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll be pretty easy to run out of "reverting credits" when Cnoguera double teams someone with his comrade User:Dúnadan. Moreover, I've said like a dozen times the former version was NPOV (and factually wrong) and clearly stated the reasons. They decided to team up and revert like crazy. And he's unable to understand that I can remove his trolling from MY discussion page if I want to (he kept on spamming like crazy). --Taraborn (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't say I like the idea of "reverting credits". But you seem to have stopped for now; don't continue William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Gorillasapiens reported by User:Destinero (Result: more info / caution)[edit]

Editor Gorillasapiens continue with vandalism of misinterpreting several most reliable sources possible relevant to the topic. He repeatedly tries to discredit scientific research. His behavior is unacceptable under Wikipedia policies. See relevant Talk Page. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're obliged to at least pretend to follow the instructions: please list some reverts, ideally 4. Also, I caution you that your edit summary here [82] accusing Gs of vandalism is inappropriate; the edit is not vandalism, merely one with which you disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just listed many his reverts. The reasons why his reverts are unacceptable under Wikipedia policies are clarified on Talk Page: Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits --Destinero (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dumamd reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 24h both)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [83]


  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

The IP edit is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account anyway. Despite this content also being removed by an administrator and two editors on the talk page being against inclusion, this single purpose account continues to push the ridiculous fringe view that the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were a terrorist incident, supported by a vague Chinese state source. I've asked for multiple independent neutral reliable sources to show this isn't some fringe view, all I get is revert after revert. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

24h for both William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a BS block. Edit warring disruptive IP using alternate accounts, and a first class content editor. This is not like with like and rewards disruption IMHO. --Domer48'fenian' 07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rocknroll714 reported by User:NJGW (Result: 48h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [91]

(The above is the first instance of Rocknroll714 inserting a list of slang into the article against previously established consensus. There are many other edits in the history today, but the reinsertion of these terms by Rocknroll714 happens 4 more times below, completely ignoring the discussion on the talk page by several other editors.)



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

I've reverted this user for other issues (removing a ref with no edit summary, overlinking of common terms, etc.), but other users have reverted Rocknroll714 for this exact issue. They are involved in discussion on this issue on the talk page, but Rocknroll has been silent on the talk page. NJGW (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h)[edit]



Category:English-language_surnames

Category:German-language_surnames


In the English case, Badagnani removed the {{Surnames by language}} template, and was promptly reverted by Good Olfactory. Since then, he's been engaged in a slow motion 1 or 2 removals (page blanking) per day. Also, has used an IP surrogate.

More recently, he's started doing the same removal (page blanking) in the German case – once per day so far.

  • (repeat offender, previous subject of RFC, blocked for edit warring several times per year for 3+ years.)

With the recent removal of WP:3RR, nobody knows what to expect (looks like that was a bad idea). Obviously, this slow motion page blanking isn't exactly covered. But isn't page blanking still vandalism by definition?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Although Badagnani did not respond here, certainly saw notice – about 1.5 hours later edited own Talk, and was taken to WP:WQA by 2 more editors (administrators?) for that infraction, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

48h, per this and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Badagnani William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Liu Tao reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48h)[edit]


NB, this edit was part of the third revert, which restored text previously removed.

Liu has twice been blocked for edit-warring on this page. We also had a discussion with him on the talk page, but because he couldn't gain consensus for the change he re-started edit-warring. He has now tried to continue edit-warring by simply removing the text he doesn't like, claiming it's not a revert (despite the fact I've explained to him that policy says it is).

He isn't listening, so I had to bring it here. John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3RR rule. I have only made 2 reversions then stopped. My third edit towards the article was to restore the previous vandalisation done by Smith. My 4th edit was to remove information and POV that had no consensus reached or evidence to back up. I did not break the 3RR rule, all my edits were done in response to discussions in the Talks as well as to fix and revert vandalisations done by others. Liu Tao (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have not started edit war either. About the consensus, none was ever reached. I had pleaded and begged for them to continue discussing about the issue, but they refused and chose to ignore my discussions and points. They are the ones who have refused to discuss the matter and chose to edit the article by their own wills. There are multiple of them but only one of me, for each edit they make are multiple reversions I have to make to remove their unsupported and non-consented edits. Liu Tao (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Form. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)[edit]



It looks like user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Checkuser already requested.

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator [101]


B@xter9 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Gorillasapiens reported by User:Teahot (result: 24h)[edit]

Gorillasapiens appears to be on a continued campaign, using the talk page and this article as a soapbox as well as continuing to revert other editors with the same issue and disrupting improvement to the article. I have offered some suggestions as to how to proceed on the talk page but they have been ignored. In addition to the above list of reverts given by Destinero, here are the most recent two examples:

  • 8th revert: diff 16 July 2009
  • 9th revert: diff 16 July 2009

Teahot (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, User:Gorillasapiens has recently raised a request on wp:3O. However, I believe their history of reversions on this page still requires review.—Teahot (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

  1. 20:25, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections") (Version generally reverted to, also a revert)
  2. 21:52, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "once again undoing the work of reckless, anti-science vandals")
  3. 09:50, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections and removed uncited allegation that scientists have accused him of pseudoscience")
    09:52, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */ restored censored statement from two biologists in support of Sheldrake") (These are two sequential reverts, hence count as one)
  4. 10:31, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
  5. 11:39, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored material censored by anti-Sheldrake fanatic")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rupert Sheldrake User has been warned and reverted by at least three different editors who have questioned his contributions.
  • User attempting to justify why his reverts aren't in violation of 3RR on my talk page.

Verbal chat 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

24 hours --B (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:99.254.62.8 reported by User:EEMIV (Result: LAME)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [102]


(I believe there are others earlier than the first one listed here)

Point of contention is whether it's "jerkwad" or "jerk wad." Muy importante. This is technically not a 3RR violation (given the 24+-hour window of edit warring). However, the sheer number of reverts and counter-reverts -- including one after a 3RR warring -- make this a clear violation in spirit.

  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

I'll add as a PS that User:Montana's Defender has been the other half of the edit war. Although he hasn't technically violated 3RR, he's well aware of the policy and has thoroughly broken it in spirit, too. Per his MO, he's reverted the IP editor without initiating in any sort of talk-page discussion. He placed the warning on the IP editor's talk page, and I placed one on his for edit-warring in kind. Frankly, I believe both the IP and MD should receive the usual block. --EEMIV (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Added to WP:LAME, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! :-D --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Edokter reported by User:Arcayne (Result: both warned)[edit]