Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive111

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Moondial reported by E. Ripley (Result: 12h)[edit]

Diffs are listed from newest to oldest.

  1. [1] 00:48 Sept. 23]
  2. [2] 00:22 Sept. 23]
  3. [3] 00:10 Sept. 23]
  4. [4] 20:11 Sept. 22]

This is just barely beyond the 24-hour threshold however a definite pattern has emerged and I have no doubt that if one of the three editors who have reverted this practice so far (myself included) were to revert him again right now, he would put his preferred version right back. He has repeatedly sought to scrub this reference to Uri Geller's practices being debunked, justifying it by either suggesting that an article by AP reposted by USA Today is a less reputable source than "UFO Digest," or saying he has information that "proves" that AP was wrong. This has been going on for days now, see this edit from Sept. 20: [5].

  • 3RR warning: [6]. (20:38, August 27, 2009 )

e. ripley\talk 02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The time interval which includes the reverts is 4:37; not 24:37. I was just going to report it, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All the reverts include removing USA Today as a source (for the magnet), and adding UFO Digest as a source that he has psychic powers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
12 hours as a first offender. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:84.109.74.77 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Slavoj Žižek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 84.109.74.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Comments:

Aside from the 3RR violation, the insertion is a violation of WP:BLP since it contains an accusation that Zizek stole his work from an unknown Israeli. As well as the BLP issue, it is futher a failure of WP:RS and links to a non-English source. The anon is a SPA who's whole edit history consists of adding this link (also on the article Controvery, but mostly on Zizek. LotLE×talk 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 31 hours for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Werewaz reported by User: Stephan Schulz (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Werewaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18] (and several similar ones)

The user in question is mass-converting Republic of China to Taiwan over a range of articles. There are many more reverts and partial reverts on this page alone, see the article history.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

  • [23] (discussion on the user page due to the large number of articles affected
  • Also see this ANI discussion.

Comments:

I could block myself, but think it is useful to bring a wider range of admins into play. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


The total number of pages where 3RR has been broken (it's easier if I just post the articles rather than all the diffs)

Additionally, similar POV edits have been made here:

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24h for edit warring, by User:EyeSerene. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Whatishere reported by User:Aunt Entropy (Result: 31 hrs)[edit]

Page: Immanuel Velikovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Whatishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also logging out to edit war as 98.232.70.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
Socking under an ip to keep a POV tag against consensus. Auntie E. 04:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

31 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.138.10.158 and user:68.9.22.155 reported by - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } (Result: semi)[edit]

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:

  1. 09:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  2. 07:58, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  3. 08:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
  4. 13:15, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  5. 13:27, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  6. 13:35, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  7. 13:45, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  8. 13:48, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  9. 13:51, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  10. 13:54, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  11. 14:07, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
  12. 14:23, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
  13. 14:25, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
  14. 14:28, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
  15. 14:31, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:

  1. 02:11, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
  2. 02:17, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
  3. 00:33, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
  4. 13:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  5. 20:54, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
  6. 01:25, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "input poems")
  7. 14:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "seven trees")
  8. 15:16, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
  9. 13:08, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
  10. 13:24, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  11. 13:29, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  12. 13:36, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  13. 13:47, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  14. 13:50, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  15. 13:53, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
  16. 13:55, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.
More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.
The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h)[edit]

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. 23 September, 12:53–13:08 (several consecutive edits, reinstating the same series of edits from 7 September [32])
  2. 24 September, 11:19–11:39 (same series of edits)
  3. 24 September, 11:43–12:27 (partially same series)
  4. 24 September, 13:35–13:42 (partially same series, reinstating non-standard POV naming of "FYROM" for the fourth time, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR)
  • Single-article user who refuses to discuss – no talk page activity, no edit summaries, just stubborn reverts.
  • 3RR violation as well as violation of Arbcom-imposed 1RR on Macedonia naming issue per ARBMAC2 and WP:NCMAC. (Note that my own reverts were exempt from the naming-related 1RR, because they restored the consensus version of WP:NCMAC. I made two reverts including other content, and a third that was restricted solely to enforcing the naming guideline.)
  • 1RR warning given before the 3rd and 4th revert, here: [33]

Fut.Perf. 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

12 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka reported by jersey_emt (Result: 1 week )[edit]

Page: Glock pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [34]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:


After making a good-faith edit, Koalorka has reverted my edit a total of four times, in violation of 3RR. Koalorka did not make any attempt to resolve the issue before reverting. After repeatedly asking Koalorka to refrain from reverting a good-faith edit without first reaching consensus on the discussion page, threatening me, and calling me a vandal, I am reporting this negative behavior.

In fact, my edit was supported by an additional user ([43]) -- anonymous, yes, so not as much weight, but still supported -- further indicating that Koalorka is reverting my edit out of spite.

I request that my edit be added, and the page be protected from being again reverted by Koalorka unless a consensus is reached against my edit on the page's discussion.

Jersey emt (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Looks like the disruptive editor beat me to it. I guess there is no point to starting a new section. I'll let the admins review the edit history of the affected page. I'll just state that the editor who has no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms on Wikipedia has decided that a shiny image of a new Glock appeals to the new user aesthetically, and therefore decided to engage me in an edit war, generating a wall of useless text on the discussion page and generally wasting everyone's time, because he didn't get what he wanted. I apologize for inciting the fire here, but I have no tolerance for degrading consistency or quality standards in well-developed articles to appease some random editor's tastes. Koalorka (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Even after one user agreed with my edit on the article's discussion page, and a different user re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it [44], Koalorka has, now for the 5th time, reverted my good-faith edit to improve the flow of the article [45]. In addition, Koalorka has made the untrue (and irrelevant) claim that I have 'no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms', and has labeled me as another user's sock puppet (on top of labeling me as a vandal, and 'wasting his time').
Clearly, Koalorka is continuing to be disruptive and completely unable to handle anyone disagreeing with him. It seems to me that Koalorka believes that he 'owns' the article, and that anyone that disagrees with him is automatically wrong. Koalorka has a long history of blocks due to similar behavior in the past. He flips out when anyone makes edits that he disagrees with, making personal attacks and reverting changes without any discussion. The ability to successfully collaborate with others is a required skill on Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly proven himself unable to do so.
I have also further investigated Koalorka's claim that the issue of which 'generation' of Glock pistol should be the lead image had already been previously discussed and a consensus reached. I found no evidence of this; the change was made by him with no discussion (and therefore, no consensus) [46]. Jersey emt (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A different user has re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it[47]. Koalorka has yet again reverted the edit (and labeling that user as a sock -- but that user has no relation to me), now for the 6th time. [48]. Finally, the page has been protected, unfortunately it was done so right after the 6th reversion of my edit that was supported by 4 users (myself included).
After 6 reversions by Koalorka of an edit supported by 4 different users, I think it is made quite clear that, (a) my edit was made in good faith one, (b) my edit is an improvement to the article, with a more logical layout, and (c) Koalorka's behavior is a personal attack and his reversions were made in bad faith. Jersey emt (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Koalorka for one week. Tom Harrison Talk 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik Ernst reported by User:Coolcaesar (Result: Blocked as a sock/meatpuppet)[edit]

Page: Law of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Erik Ernst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:12, 22 September 2009


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 00:24, 25 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 23:54, 24 September 2009

Comments:

We're having problems with User:Zephram Stark (banned four years by ArbCom for POV pushing and racist remarks and permanently banned by SlimVirgin after repeated violations), his sockpuppets, and various friends of his who have been vandalizing the Law of the United States article. See his blog entry urging his friends to join him in such vandalism. User:Fuhghettaboutit already imposed semi-protection, which brought the anon IPs and newer sockpuppets under control but we're having problems with friends of Zephram's like User:Erik Ernst who do not understand Wikipedia policies. I request a temporary block on User:Erik Ernst for a few days and full protection for Law of the United States for a few weeks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Blocked as a sock or meatpuppet. Black Kite 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert reported by User:Granitethighs (Result: malformed report)[edit]

Page: Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
For over a year now there has been a collaborative editing effort to bring the Sustainability article to GA or FA status. Throughout this period editor Skipsievert has refused to collaborate in editing, confronting each editor in turn. He has constantly accused the collaborative editing as being a team of people colluding against him despite constant invitations for additional editors from all concerned. He also has concerns about the article that he has expressed innumerable times and these, in turn, have been addressed many times by the editors who have reached consensus on the way to proceed, a consensus which has not been accepted by him. This has, in effect, constituted a pattern of tendentious editing for a long time. There have also been many accusations of current editors driving off potential new editors, being uncivil etc. when it it is not apparent to Skipsievert that he is in fact the incitor and perpetrator. The latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high standard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. This might seem a relatively minor issue but in the context of over a year's conflict the matter just has to be resolved - reading the last 2-3 talk pages and most recent archive will illustrate the situation - but almost any archive will demonstrate the editing battles and pattern of behaviour. Granitethighs 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Malformed report - please provide diffs etc. Black Kite 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jdorney reported by User:Domer48 (Result: nothing)[edit]

Page: Kilmichael Ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49]

As an established Editor they are aware of WP:3RR.

Diff were it was tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page.

Additional Comments:

This editor is also edit warring on: Page: Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding information which is blatantly incorrect from even a cursory reading of the articles on the persons named in the edit. The most obvious being John Mitchel and Charles Gavan Duffy. The information which was added was copy and pasted by an IP from this web site.

Page: Charles Gavan Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The exact same information was added to the Charles Gavan Duffy which even contradicts the additions they replaced.

  • No violstion - 3RR not exceeded in 24h period. Also, the creator of this report has reverted just as many times on Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848. Articles will be protected if edit-warring continues, please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

The information was clearly unsourced and biased. Therefore I did not violate the the three-revert rule. Having pointed out that the information was unsourced and incorrect to again add it back is obvious vandalism. To point an editor to WP:PROVEIT and they still add it back is Edit warring is a behavior.

Edit warring is a behavior, typically explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. No effort was made at all to check or support the information suggesting that it was correct when obviously it was not.

I'll accept the decision by Black Kite, but not their conclusions. --Domer48'fenian' 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Gordon Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 2009-09-20T11:03:40 (UTC) (original edit)

Note by a third party:This edit by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) who created the disputed category on the same date is not the original edit. The filer misleads the previous edit.Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009-09-22T19:20:46

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gordon_Brown#Category:Half-blind_people

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring in the past: last unblock was advanced after he gave his word not to do so in the future...! ninety:one 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

First edit is from Revision as of 12:12, 20 September 2009 which is over two days ago, there was plenty of discussion going on all of it instigated by me, the discussion is over a catagory that I have nominated for deletion. I had a warning left on my talkpage and have made no edits to the article since then and have left the disputed catagory in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is the discussion for deletion regarding the catagory for deletion that I started [58] Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I should "assume good faith" or think "plain vandalism" if someone creates a category "half-blind people" and then five minutes later goes ahead and attaches it to the article on the British Prime Minister (even if the man has lost sight in one eye). This is what happened here. JN466 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • comment This seems to fall under WP:BLP exemption.-Caspian blue 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I formatted the report since the timeline is very important to judge whether Off2riorob violated 3RR or not. However, I see no 3RR violation because the first revert occurred on two days ago, and the alleged "original version" is incorrectly prsented since the disputed category was created and inserted by Paladin R.T. (talk · contribs) on Sep.20. I'm not sure as to why the filer did not add the timeline because without the timestamp, Off2riorob seemingly violated 3RR (edit warred though for removing potentially BLP material). If Ninetyone (talk · contribs) believed Off2riorob violated 3RR, then why the 3RR warning was given after the last revert? Bad faith filing.--Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • One more disturbing thing to me is that Rrius (talk · contribs) also clearly reverted 3 times just like Off2riorob, but why Ninetyone did not report Rrius to here or give him 3RR warning? Ninetyone reverted one time which shares the view of Rrius.--Caspian blue 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I gave Rrius a 3RR waring for the fairness.--Caspian blue 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • For "the fairness"? Ridiculous. Off2riorob was reverting to protect his version. He directed people to the talk page, but did not actually address the points raised there, which is his modus operandi. He has a history of asserting that edits he wants to get rid of violate BLP, which after the number of times I have seen it from him suggests he is gaming the system. What's more, his history of blocks for edit warring suggest the warning was needed. I have no such history. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
          • You were also edit warring to keep your favorite version which currently remains. I don't know how rich his history may be, however, he did not violate 3RR, but reverted 3 times so did you. If somebody exploits his block history to win a content dispute, then he/she is the one "gaming the system".--Caspian blue 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This should be concluded with no action. The edit is the inclusion of a category, and a discussion is happening at the talk page including Off2riorob, Ninetyone, and me. As far as I can tell, the impetus for this report was Ninetyone's false belief that Off2riorob had violated 3RR, which he had not because the first revert happened more than 24 hours before the last. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't anybody start accusing me of anything. I thought better of "filing a report", but then I checked Rob's form and saw the assurance given in the last unblock, and though this was worth raising. I don't give a toss about who did what, or when when, it's the fact that Rob gave an explicit assurance not to edit war, which he seems to have gone back on, that caused me to bring this here. Now to address the smokescreen that's been laid: the wording "In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to." is very confusing; what I linked to was the version from before all the reverting took place - and I don't have a clue what the second part is supposed to mean. And here's a hint: straight out accusing someone of a "bad faith filing" shows just as much bad faith on the accusers part. And you don't give out warnings "for the fairness" either... ninety:one 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. you have had a plenty of time to sharply say like that not only at CfD but here, but no time for checking the timestamp of the report? :-P That is a requirement for 3RR report of which you might be aware of. Your attitude unfortunately does not change my judgment on your filing. Caspian blue 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like both Rrius and Off2riorob were edit warring. No opinion on whether blocks are necessary or useful right now (if they have stopped and are now discussing things, as Rrius claims), but they were both edit warring when this was filed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No action - The parties were edit-warring but neither one exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Last revert was over 18 hours ago. I suggest that the issue be closed here unless the parties start reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If Off2riorob has been edit-warring, they have broken the promise on the grounds of which they were unblocked. I have been involved in an editing dispute with the editor at Jimmy Wales, but I suggest a second look at this editor's recent history.  Skomorokh  22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )[edit]

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Keysanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

    • I was trying to post a Neutrality Warning in the page, but Keysanger reverted that twice.
    • I also tried to include the fact that Chile declared war on Bolivia first, which official documents demonstrate, but he reverted that also (once).
    • Lastly, I tried to mix sources and create a more neutral and less aggressive statement in the "Peru" section of the consequences of the war subtopic. Of course, Keysanger reverted that as well and claimed it to be "Vandalism."


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

  • We, as in me, User:Likeminas, User:Dentren, attempted to mediate a peaceful solution to the edit war by creating a chart of what we saw as problems. We did not even get half-way through the list, and Keysanger began to massively edit the article based on his own POV. This 29 August 2009 version was the one that was being worked on by me, Likeminas, Dentren, and Keysanger prior to this last user taking wwnership of the article. If an administrator could please revert the article back to this version, it would be greatly appreciated. The information in this previous article is more neutral, and much more factual. The current version by Keysanger is pro-Chilean, anti-Peruvian, non-neutral, and contains erroneous information.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, here is a proof of the discontent of some editors with the actions of Keysanger: [64].--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Another Comment: Keysanger has been warned about the 3RR, but he has deleted the warning: [65]. I'm notifying this in order to demonstrate that the user knows what he has done.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:AnnaFabiano (Result: Both parties warned)[edit]

Page: Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

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

Comments:
This user was trying to make changes without a discussion on matters that are more complex. The references used were from a biased source and from forums. Other sources added today cannot be verified, and the user did not quote any part from the text as it is standard in such discussed issues. Furthermore the user did not discuss constructively in the discussion page before making the changes. Anna Comnena (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. You have both gone well past the point that you should have taken this to a wider forum. See WP:Dispute resolution, and be aware that WP:Third opinion is easy to use. The Serbian reference that Tadija insists upon seems to go to a non-working URL, and the cited book shares an ISBN with an unrelated one. This suggests a problem with the reference. If either party continues to revert without getting support from at least one other person, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: deleted (per GFDL concerns), redirected and protected)[edit]

Page: Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: multiple

No one has broken 3RR. On the other hand, all editors involved have been here for some time, and should know better than to edit war.

On the one camp, undoing the redirect, we have

There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009

In the other camp, installing the redirect we have

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is a slow edit war, without a specific 3RR violation.

I'm well known for disliking the article in question, so one needs to take that into account when reading my take. I think that Kung Fu Man, Artichoker, and Bws2cool are being quite reasonable in pointing at the consensus with WikiProject Pokemon that having the article in project space to be repaired, and think that's a reasonable strategy. In spite of that, the number of redirects that Kung Fu Man has performed disturbs me. Peregrine Fisher at least recognizes the existence of the consensus at WikiProject Pokemon, and has discussed it at the project talk space. He seems to feel comfortable proceeding anyway.

DreamFocus and Colonel Warden, on the other hand, are not discussing at all: they simply are undoing the redirect. Colonel Warden also cut and pasted the contents of the project space article without attribution, causing GFDL problems.

Since the content of the article is safe and sound at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur, which is the only copy with a valid attribution history, my recommendation is to delete the article in mainspace, install the redirect, protect the redirect, and only undo it when a consensus to restore the article to mainspace can be demonstrated. Whether blocks or warnings need to be issued, and to whom, I leave to people who are a bit more detached.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Yup - attribution history is wrong, so deleted. If the article returns from projectspace at some point, then someone can do a history merge if the editors concerned here really want to have a rather WP:LAME edit-war preserved for ever. In the meantime, consensus at the relevant Project was clear, and so I have recreated the article as a redirect to preserve the links, and protected it so that people can't continue embarrassing themselves. Black Kite 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What nonsense is this? I discussed it on the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed. What you have are some aggressive people determined to destroy an article, without proper consensus. And now Black Kite has deleted the article, history and all, without a proper AFD, and then locked a redirect there. On the talk page Peregrine Fisher found a notable media mention of the character, a biography of the fictional character, at IGN! That would clearly establish notability. If you disagree, take it to the AFD and do things properly. Dream Focus 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Deletion of the mainspace article is quite improper as there have been two AFDs for it already and it was Kept on both occasions. And it has been a Featured Article and so does not merit peremptory deletion. As for other details, a proper attribution was made in the edit summary to the fork created by the Pokemon project. As the article has been developed further with additional sourced material, it would be best to merge the forked versions and allow development to continue. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:gu1dry reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Both parties warned)[edit]

Page: Subaru Impreza WRX STI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [66]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGu1dry

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

Comments:

This stemmed from a content dispute, when I realised that we were both in danger of violating the 3RR, I put a message on the user's talk page suggesting that we both back off and leave the topic alone, so we could avoid edit warring.

I did not try to argue that my edit was correct on his talk page as this could be seen as trying to provoke the user into another revert, my priority was for us to both calm down and prevent an edit war from happening.

The user must be very aware of the potential of a block being given for edit warring, as they were blocked ten days ago for edit warring.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours, but repeated back-and-forth on the same point (automatic transmission) over an extended period could easily draw a block for edit warring. The sources appear to differ on whether an automatic transmission can be ordered, and the matter needs to be worked out on Talk before any more reverts happen. Citing both of the conflicting sources is an option for the editors to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kelly A. Siebecke reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page: Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kelly A. Siebecke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [73]



Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post. Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me.

Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]. <No matter what I say or do, I am personally attacked in many ways violating Wiki standards.>

Comments:
As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? JoyDiamond (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.255.196.199 reported by User:Shoemaker's Holiday (Result: 36h)[edit]

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.255.196.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [81] and [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:99.255.196.199#WP:3RR (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Acupuncture#Evidence_of_effectiveness Comments:

Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 06:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do something. The IP is continuing to edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

86.162.69.86 reported by Clovis Sangrail (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Brothel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.162.69.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [89]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil, they're both irrational [diff]

There's two users that are reverting everything the other does (Multiple articles). The other is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elockid I think they both need a rest. They've even just started arguing on my talk page. Both claim the other is a sockpuppet. Apologies if I've messed the formatting up here

It might be worth trying to sort this one quickly, they're making a bit of a mess..

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please read up on Nangparbat. Please also my talk page. User: AdjustShift agrees that I was indeed reverting edits by a banned user which 3RR is not included in.

Please also note that 86.162.69.86 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being a sock of Nangparbat. Block Log. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked I've already blocked 86.162.69.86 for 1 week. 86.162.69.86 is a sock of Nangparbat. Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user, so there is no need to take any action against Elockid. AdjustShift (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:118.93.41.107 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Scrubs (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 118.93.41.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [95]

  • 1st revert: [96]
  • 2nd revert: [97]
  • 3rd revert: [98]
  • 4th revert: [99] 11 minutes after being warned


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours AdjustShift (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:79.78.6.136 and User:79.78.7.164 reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Tayong Dalawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 79.78.6.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 79.78.7.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·