Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive113

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Welshsocialist reported by User: Riversider2008 (Result: No vio)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring [5]

Diff of edit warring [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of multiple attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments: I've posted multiple citations showing that Labour is described by many authoritative published sources as neoliberal on the talk page, and in the article. I've added more citations as the edit war has continued, including one quoting a senior Labour Party figure Lord Mandelson "We are all Thatcherites now". Despite the overwhelming weight of this published material, WelshSocialist persists in POV reverts, without attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page, or to produce published material to back his position. It seems likely that Welshsocialist is a member of the Labour Party, and as such has a conflict of interests in editing that page, and also finds it difficult to understand rules on NPOV and Verifiability in relation to a subject close to his heart. Even he however has admitted "New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal" (sic), yet persists in removing this description from the infobox.

This is the first time I've had to report someone for edit warring, in my whole previous experience of editorial disputes it has been possible to find a resolution through talk page discussions, and I feel sorry that I have been left no alternative but to do this.
Riversider (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - No violation. There must be four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. You do seem to be making a significant change in the article by making the Labor Party 'neoliberal', and I don't yet see anyone on the Talk page who supports your view. You are expected to abide by the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I need some help here. I was reporting Welshsocialist for edit warring, not for a violation of WP:3RR a narrow technical definition which there was never any question of him violating. I feel I have done everything right, finding plenty of authoritative published sources that establish that there is a sizeable body of opinion which describes Labour as 'Neo-Liberal' in it's ideology. Welshsocialist reverts this, without explanation, and without seeking consensus by using the talk page (if this is not edit-warring, what is?). How can we find a consensus if he does not use the talk page? I would appreciate it if people who understand rules on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:COI were to come to the talk page and to advise all of us there, perhaps this will help prevent the edit warring there getting worse. Riversider (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
If the two of you are the only participants on the 'neo-liberal' issue, ask for a WP:Third opinion. Otherwise a WP:Request for comment is logical. Keep in mind that the 'neo-liberal' issue has been discussed many times in the past, and consensus has so far not supported putting that label in the infobox. Past discussions have occurred at:
  1. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 1#The Labour Party is neoliberal
  2. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 2#Centre-right?
  3. Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive_2#Membership 'base' of Labour
  4. Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)#Vandalism_2
  5. Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Factions needed & Neo-liberal vandalism
  6. Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Ideology...again
EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that guidance Ed - I've seen the past discussions, and the one common factor is that nobody bothered to do the spadework of finding the citations from authoritative sources. Instead people tended to base their arguments on personal opinion, rather than citing published material. Now that I've done some of this spadework (and it was surprisingly easy to find many many citations), the weight of the sources should persuade anyone who is not a Labour apparatchik of the need to include the neoliberal label. Your guidance is very helpful, and I think the request for comment route sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks! Riversider (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Final comment (from me at least), while I didn't get the result I wanted, I still think this has been a helpful exercise, particularly in the advice and guidance I've received as a result. When a wiki works, it really does work well, by harnessing all that knowledge, experience and wisdom that exists out there. Thanks to all. Riversider (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Page: List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:'ve mentioned a minimum of two times how season numbering works here.

User keep changing the page from 'standard' season numbering format (1**, 2**,3**), which the page was previously using to their own numbering format. IP makes no attempt to communicate at all, simply reverts to their numbering, sometimes adds edits that often have to be reverted as well due to being moderately incoherent. I've had to go as far as to have the page protected for two weeks just so it'd stop, only to have him come back when the page was open again.

I'm not doing anything wrong here; I'm simply reverting the page to the proper numbering system that has always been used until this IP showed up. He won't stop and he won't communicate. HalfShadow (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - 48 hours. Semiprotection has been tried, in late September, and this IP continued his edit warring on 11 October after the two weeks of semi expired. The IP is not inclined to discuss - he has never left a talk message of any kind. If a short block has no effect, escalation may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sgjin reported by User:C.Fred (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [13] and similar. Key issue is the removal of tags from the article, including but not limited to the COI tag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: mentioned in this warning [18]; explicit use of 3RR template [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] — both the warnings inlcuded a request for the user to take this matter to the article's talk page; (s)he has refused to do so.


As I've been one of the main people involved (and have hit three reverts myself), I need a fresh set of administrator eyes to look at the edits and tag removal. Additionally, I'm not sure I'm independent in regards to this article any more, per my comment on the talk page about the lack of sourcing, where I'm contemplating deletion of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The page has now been deleted by DGG. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - No action, since the article has been speedied as a G4, due to resemblance to a previous version deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Don1962 reported by User:Dottiewest1fan (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Linda Ronstadt discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Don1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]


About a few hours ago, I reformatted Linda Ronstadt's singles charts up to standards, so they could meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, however my edits are being continually reverted by user User:Don1962. He or she continually adds the old singles chart that does not include the rest of the Canadian chart positions, as well as the other separate singles charts. The user claims I have failed to add who originally recorded the song (as Ronstadt has recorded many cover versions of songs by other artists), but this is not required on a singles chart and it keeps getting reverted. It was not discussed and if they need to see who originally recorded it, they can look on the song page, right? It is Ronstadt's version that matters after all because it's her discography.

Previous reverted versions from most recent to least recent:

Please help me in whatever way you can. There is obvious fancruft here. Than you. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I fixed the report and added diffs. Both Don1962 and Dottiewest1fan broke 3rr. Neither was warned, but D obviously knew about the rule. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - Both warned. Neither party is innocent in this dispute since both are over 3RR, but the submitter is a long-experienced editor, and the accused party seems resolute in ignoring feedback as to how these discographies are usually set up on Wikipedia. Both are warned that they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting a talk page consensus first. This warning expires seven days from now, but blocks may be issued (if needed) up until that point. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ShadowRanger reported by User:Crossmr (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: I Am… Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ShadowRanger (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: User has been blocked for 3RR before, he's aware of the policy.

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


Protected for a week. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Stoneacres reported by User:M.nelson (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Politics of Gatineau Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Stoneacres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] Warns that the user has "already" broken 3RR, giving in essence a second chance; [37] Giving "third chance"; [38] Elaboration on "third chance"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Basically the entire section of Talk:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park#Role as a monument (and the comment directly above) is explaining my change to the page, and User:Ahunt's support. User:Stoneacres continues to revert (amid warnings) but does not address the underlying faults of his version.

There is applicable discussion on the article's talk page, as well as in Talk:Gatineau Park, where User:Ahunt and I (do our best to) act as a voice of reason. Also of note is discussion at User talk:Stoneacres, particularly Ahunt's statement at User talk:Stoneacres#Some words of advice. Note that the article remains in Stoneacres' version, as (though I believe to have explained my reasoning clearly) I don't want to get caught up in 3RR myself.

Also, I just realized, user has reverted four times in Gatineau Park: [39], [40], [41], [42], as well as a fifth revert on different text [43]. Should this be a separate report? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the changes made by the above were whimsical and their consequence was to delete important information which viewers are entitled to know to obtain a balanced view of the subject. My edits were made to ensure accuracy and verifiability.

There is a broad consensus that the park needs protection. Unfortunately, comprehensive information on the park is very difficult to obtain, save on wikipedia, as editor Alaney observed some time back.

The Politics of Gatineau Park article, in my view, respects the spirit of wikipedia which is to inform and be easily accessible. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Fairly clear. 24h, Black Kite 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Anthony Watts (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BluefieldWV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Version reverted to (initial edits): diff
  • Warning about edit warring policy: 2 October

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

  1. 14:54, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "sources are used for "facts" not opinions, unless those opinions are directly attributed in the article")
  2. 16:06, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "its the opinion and POV of the reporter, not anything directly attributed to Watts.")
  3. 16:08, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "these look like they should be included under WP:EL")
  4. 16:30, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "the 'novel' discription given in this article appears no where in the link "About surfacestations"")
  5. 17:40, 12 October 2009 (edit summary: "the phrase "peer-reviewed" exists no where in the source")

Verbal chat 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, you and two other editors are deliberately introducing material into the article that is found nowhere in the sources you cite. One of you actually admits as much, but prefers the other version. In addition, since this is a BLP, removal of such material is not subject to 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Only BLP removals are not subject to 3RR. Two of your edits refer to a website, not a person, and the other two the word "conservative" which is sourced and not subject to BLP either. Verbal chat 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The word "conservative", while sourced, was not properly attributed. It was the opinion of the author and should have been reflected as such. The inaccurate description of the website is WP:NOR and is not allowed in a biographical article,. You might have a case if the material was on a page specifically about surfacestation, but it wasnt. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not the opinion on WP:BLPN, but it is irrelevant here. 5 clear reverts well within 24 hours. Verbal chat 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering that it has only been up several hours and all the contributors happen to be the same people involved in the article dispute, that’s hardly a solid example you have set forth. Or as another editor said on the talk page (where several of the editors involved in this back and forth are surprisingly absent): Here's a fact: "Surface stations is not a ball of yarn." That is an entirely true and uncontroversial statement, and yet we don't include it because SS doesn't ever claim to be anything related to yarn, one way or another. I've not seen any evidence that SS claims to publish, nor that it denies publishing, and no reliable source has made these points either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to include what they don't do. BluefieldWV (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't bring disputes here. That doesn't explain your reverts, and has been answered on the article talk (no one has proposed a yarn entry). The way to address these issues is by consensus on the article talk page, not by edit warring. Verbal chat 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it explains the reverts as it is a quite humorous illustration of the kind of garbage that is filling up a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - Blocked 24 hours. Others have extensively discussed the 3RR policy with BluefieldWV on his talk page, so an actual block seems needed to convince him that he really is over the line. A brand-new editor (Sept 23) who starts right off with a lot of reverts on a contested topic like global warming tends to attract attention. Block can be lifted by any admin if Bluefield will agree to stop edit-warring on Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:PRODUCER reported by User:Aradic-es (Result: stale)[edit]

Notification Page: Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PRODUCER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Couple blind reverts:

Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you BOTH reverted like five times. --King Öomie 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

his history of reverts blind reverts: Page: Slobodan Praljak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[47][48][49][50] -pay attention to category and external links removal.

Summa summarum:he deletes what he dislikes, does not care if he commits some collateral damage.He is an SPA edit warrior.Añtó| Àntó (talk)

I don't see any 'blind' reverts, actually. --King Öomie 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

aNOTHER example:of blind reverting

He removed with no explanation this section:

The ledership of Herzeg-Bosnia, however, did not proclaim independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina , and Herzeg-Bosnia did not have its own constituition (not any similar document). The official capital city of Herzeg-Bosnia was Western Mostar.However, beeing that Mostar was a war zone, effective control center was in Grude.

HE tried to do that as well before [51] but this time he offered no explanation. he inserted what he likes and removed what he dislikes.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CraigMonroe reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Already protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chris Benoit#Murderer


I love your trickery. You get reported, so you report me. One problem, unlike you, I did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours as required by the rule. In fact, a poster even pointed this out in the history for the Chris Benoit article. Admins, please take notice of this. I am trying to make this place better, and posters like GaryColeman seem intent on trying to change history. I keep asking for evidence that Benoit didn't do it so I can at least understand the dissaproval of the edit but instead get the response that the murder is unverified despite the facts, news reports, legal findings, etc. In fact, the majority of logic agaisnt me seems to be "I don't care what the papers say, I know better." Without question, such edits are clearly questionable. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts were:
18:27, 8 October 2009
11:32, 9 October 2009
15:55, 9 October 2009
17:40, 9 October 2009
Clearly, this was all within a 24 hour period. The article history shows that I did not, in fact, violate 3RR. Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
First, you posted my violation here prior to the fourth edit which was not a reversion so the argument about it being a "warning" is asinine. Second, where did I revert for the fourth time within 24 hours, unlike you? Come on, I am still waiting for you to explain your logic. Saying the investigation MAY be wrong is not a valid reason. What can we do to compromise and make the article better? I have repeatedly asked you to explain your reasons but the best you have stated is that a coroner's inquest is only an opinion. I guess if a person stretches logical reality it may be. Then again, if that is true, so is a court's decision, admissions of guilt, video of a crime, etc. Looking away from this, what can be done to compromise? (Which, by the way, my fourth edit was an attempt at and was not a reversion). Admins, do you see what I am dealing with now? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Note, he edited his post substantially. Note the absurdity of his claims: <url></url> —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talkcontribs) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is uncommon for someone in a 3RR case to be blocked when the article is already protected. (Since the article is protected, the war can't continue). Ask the protecting admin, User:Bibliomaniac15, if you believe there is a continuing problem. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • So, even though CraigMonroe deliberately violated 3RR after being warned about the consequences, the "solution" is just to reward his edit warring by locking the article on his preferred version? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Gary, please just let the Admins do their job. If we had worked this out on the talk page, this would be unnecessary. Also, you violated 3RR. So Don't play so innocent. CraigMonroe (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: GaryColemanFan is now questioning Admin action, and accusing admins of being "spineless" and "ignorant:" [1]. Is there any way to get a ruling so that further attacks by GaryColeman can be stopped? I am simply trying to improve an article and he seems steadfast in not allowing improvement for some unforeseen motive and talking down to anyone trying to follow Wikipedia policy. When will it end? CraigMonroe (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) CraigMonroe is now engaged in wikihounding, as he is following all of my edits and posting numerous follow-up notes to each of them. (2) Any editor is perfectly entitled to question administrative action. Administrators makes mistakes and I think it would be hard to find an administator that does not believe that he or she should be held accountable by other editors. (3) CraigMonroe is deliberately misquoting me, as I have never called an administrator ignorant, let alone multiple administrators, as he has claimed. (4) I provided the diffs to prove that CraigMonroe violated 3RR. His claim of innocence is a blatant lie. (5) His claim that I violated 3RR is also a blatant lie. If diffs proving otherwise can be provided, I will apologize fully...but they won't be, because they simply don't exist. (6) As I said before, Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not being disingenuous in any way. See EdJohnston talk page where Gary states: "What does this teach him? That Wikipedia administrators are spineless and that acting like a bully will get him his way." Additionally, he states "As an administrator, you should be open to giving a straight answer to a reasonable question instead of making the situation worse with such an ignorant response." In response to an Admin pointing out the rules, he states "The issue at hand is the attitude with with you replied to my question and your failure to apologize." I am sorry if he thinks my act of responding to him discussing ME when he is trying to get me banned is wikihounding. Also, talk about hypocrisy. He claims this isn't the proper place to take a dispute yet still comes back here forcing me to respond, otherwise being accussed of ignoring his half-truth argument. Now he continues to lie about his innocence and me. The fact remains--despite his lies--that if a rule was broken by one person, they were broken by both of us, except in the case of a 3RR violation since, unlike him, I did not violate the rule. Meanwhile, I still want to solve the problems with the article but instead, Gary wants to play these games. Admins, is there anything you can do to help?CraigMonroe (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also note the instructions at the top of the page to not continue disputes here. Anyhow, can I please get a straight answer from an administrator that takes his or her position seriously? I have two "yes" or "no" questions. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but I would like a simple "yes" or "no" so that the talk of false accusations can be put to rest. (1) Did I violate 3RR on this article? (2) Did CraigMonroe violate 3RR on this article? Thank you in advance for your two-word response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a four-against-three revert situation, with Craig reverting one more than GaryColemanFan. In a case like this article, I would not have blocked for 3RR but I might have blocked both parties for edit warring. Bibliomaniac15 did the right thing by protecting, since a two-person revert war can't be allowed to decide the fate of an article that has serious WP:BLP issues. User:Bibliomaniac15 has already opened an RfC on the matter: Talk:Chris Benoit#What's the deal here? After this RfC has run for at least a week, why not ask him to close it and state the result. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Captain Occam reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:42, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319115151 by Muntuwandi (talk)")
  2. 22:05, 10 October 2009 (edit summary: "Please discuss this on the talk page before continuing to change it. I'm trying to discuss it there; you're reverting without discussion.")
  3. 13:13, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ As I said on the talk page, if we're going to mention that this was done by a blogger, we need to say what the analysis involved. If you disagree, please discuss it there.")
  4. 14:29, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319231653 by Ramdrake (talk) This doesn't accurately describe the Behavioral and Brain Functions study.")
  5. 15:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This is being discussed at length on the talk page. You can express your opinion there if you think this is mis-cited, but just sticking on a tag with no further comment isn't helpful.")
  6. 15:19, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Synthesis problem fixed; tag removed.")
  7. 15:38, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This edit is an obvious NPOV violation.")
  8. 15:50, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Revert: This issue was brought up and resolved on the RS noticeboard. If you wish to dispute its conclusions, you need to bring this up there.")
  9. 17:32, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "Following suggestions from RS noticeboard.")
  10. 19:00, 11 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic hypothesis */ Trying to be NPOV about this.")

Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has already warned others that he will engage in a revert war diff Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) -->

Comment The user's belligerent attitude is clear, but it's not clear to me that this is a 3RR violation. The sequence of the above edits by Captain Occam and edits by others seems to have improved the text over time. Another administrator might see things differently that I do. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not that I'd go forum-shopping with this, but if this isn't a clear case of 3RR, isn't it at least a rather clear case of edit-warring? Wouldn't it at least be worthy of a warning from a thirdt party (as I doubt Capt. Occam will heed a warning from someone involved in the situation - already tried on the talk page).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of forum-shopping, I noted that the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers. I'm leaving this open, but I think it likely that resolution of this issue will occur in the WP:RS discussion. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks!!--Ramdrake (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not resolved, I have added more diffs. I believe we have at least two 3RR violations. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
How can there be a one-sided edit war? Fixentries (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I left a message for User:Captain Occam, pointing him to this 3RR case and asking him to explain the ten edits within 24 hours. I hope that he will respond in time for the closing admin to take this into account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see how there can be a on-sided edit war. One-sided 3RR violation might make sense, but edit warring takes more than one person. Ramdrake makes the following reversions within a 24 hour period on the article:

  1. [58] 20:36, 11 October 2009 (apparently this is counted against 3RR too)
  2. [59] 17:34, 11 October 2009
  3. [60] 15:46, 11 October 2009
  4. [61] 14:22, 11 October 2009
  5. [62] 21:45, 10 October 2009

It's a waste of my time to have to dig through that. I would rather be editing neglected and "less important" articles some of which are badly in need of it. I wish the litigiousness (wikilawyering?) and careless/POV edits would stop and people would just try to work together. I'm about to remove this article from my watch list because the nonsense is distracting me from more useful things. Fixentries (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Fixentries, why do you give me a nasty feeling of deja vu? Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Race and intelligence was recently placed under full protection. That protection expired at 07:46 UTC on 10 October. The protecting admin, MuZemike, has commented on the situation here. At this time he favors blocks in lieu of a new spell of protection. If his advice were followed, Captain Occam and Ramdrake would need to be checked for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment on this, so here's what I have to say.
As Fixcentrics has pointed out here, the race and intelligence article has a lot of issues that involve more than just edit warring. He mentioned some of the issues in his comment, and I described them in a little more detail here and here. If I've contributed to this problem by violating 3RR, I'm willing to accept a temporary block for that, as long as it's part of a larger effort to fix the problems with this article.
Alternatively, if the rest of these issues can be addressed, I'm willing to promise not to violate 3RR anymore. My repeated reverting of the article was done out of frustration at some of the other POV-pushing edits that were occurring, and while I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have made the problem worse rather than better, fixing the rest of this article's problems would nevertheless remove my motivation for involving myself in it. As I mentioned in the comment on my user talk page, previous attempts to resolve this problem through the proper channels have been unsuccessful.
Either way, the one thing that I ask is that administrators come up with a solution that addresses all of this article's problems. It's had these problems for upwards of two years, and I'm willing to accept a block if it's necessary as part of a long-term solution. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm being called into question for possible edit warring, I'd like to point out that out of the 5 edits I made within 24 hours, one was a simple rewording to make a sentence more descriptive of the situation, and of the remaining four, I'm quite certain they don't point back to the same revision/version of the article (unless someone can point out to me the revision in question). In other words, while I've threaded quite close to 3RR in this case, I don't see that I have broken the rule per se.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - 24h to Captain Occam. He was notified that he was over 3RR, and was given a chance to promise to stop edit warring. He did not do so, and he has continued to revert while this case was open. He wants to make a deal with admins that he will accept a block if they pursue the improper editing of others. (The comments he left above are some evidence of that). If other admins believe that sanctions are also due to other parties, then can handle that as they wish. Ramdrake is warned that his above justification for exceeding 3RR doesn't hold water, and he may be sanctioned if he doesn't follow the letter of WP:3RR in the future. (See WP:REVERT for specifics). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:User:Hdboeck reported by User:Modernist (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: List of contemporary artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hdboeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71], [72],[73] Comments:
User:Hdboeck claims to be a veteran editor only he's using another name. He added material to the article and was reverted by User:Freshacconci whose rational was that the edit did not fit the criteria of the article, he reverted Freshacconci, then he was reverted by User:Teapotgeorge, then he reverted Teapotgeorge and changed the criteria on the page, which has been there relatively unchanged since 2004. I then reverted him, he reverted me again and I 3RR warned him. Then he reverted User:Kafka Liz and finally User:Ewulp a couple of times, and I reverted his last edit. All the time ignoring the voluminous talkpage arguments by Tyrenius, Freshacconci, KafkaLiz, Ewulp, and me...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Marin17 reported by User:Martin451 (Result: protected )[edit]

18 Kids and Counting episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:38, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319443394 by TH43 (talk) Undid my work.")
  2. 14:39, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319371790 by TH43 (talk)undid my work and changed it")
  3. 14:40, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319371679 by TH43 (talk)changed my work.")
  4. 14:51, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  5. 15:00, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  6. 15:01, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  7. 15:02, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Series overview */")
  8. 15:11, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "moved List of 18 Kids and Counting episodes to 18 Kids and Counting episodes")
  9. 18:12, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319655717 by TH43 (talk)You don't have to say it snotty and why did you change it back. I u[date the episodes every week.")
  10. 18:13, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654775 by TH43 (talk) I do work hard I was the one before you so rudely took over added each episode each week.")
  11. 18:14, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654202 by TH43 (talk) I do work hard.")
  12. 18:15, 13 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319654574 by TH43 (talk) I liked it all in one color how it orignally was.")
  13. 00:42, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319719183 by TH43 (talk)I am right your wrong. By the way your an adult fighting with a high schooler pretty pathetic.")
  14. 00:43, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319718296 by TH43 (talk)I was here first. I will keep changing it back so everytime you change be preparded for me to chang")
  15. 00:45, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717974 by TH43 (talk) I don't care about jon and kate plus eight's format.")
  16. 00:46, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717663 by TH43 (talk) I liked it before.")
  17. 00:46, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319717520 by TH43 (talk) I will change it back everytime you change it.")
  18. 00:53, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 319656189 by TH43 (talk) Look at the logs bitch I have been editing this article since July 1,2009.")
  19. 00:53, 14 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Comments.

The user has not edited since I gave him the warning, however his edit summaries maintain that he will continue warring, and he has significant WP:Own problems. I am particularly concerned about this edit. Note I am not involved in the dispute, I noticed whilst patrolling recent changes.

Martin451 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for three days. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Jk54 (Result: Jk54 indef)[edit]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talkcontribs)

Comment - I closed a 3RR case involving Jk54 and the Quilliam Foundation back in February, 2009. He was given a 24-hour block for edit warring at that time. Though Jk54 has received plenty of advice from regular editors, none of it seems to sink in. He is back again charging other editors of Quilliam Foundation with vandalism in this edit summary. In the cited edit, made on 26 September 2009, he blanket-reverts the work of others, and triples the length of the article using his own favored material. This is the same editing pattern he displayed last February.
Here is some background:
I consider the behavior of Jk54 to be long-term edit warring. It would be logical to warn him that he will be blocked if he restores his own version of the article again. Let him know that he must not make further changes to Quilliam Foundation unless he can find support for his edit from at least one other person. He is welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page. Since I took the previous admin action on this article, in February, I hope that another admin will consider the matter and close the case as they deem appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I was mentioned here without being informed. The issue is currently being actively discussed here, - with an apparent consensus so far against Jk54's insertion of NPOV original material. In the meantime I've been undoing JK54's reversions pending the end of the discussion, since that seems the sensible thing to do? In his latest reversion he states that "Avaya1 is a Quilliam employee". Making this kind of accusation is surely POV (and reflects his/her POV editing style), and also against wikipedia etiquette. I hope some adminstrators can assist us in this case. Best Avaya1 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I came to this via Wikiquette Alerts, and agree with Avaya1. What Jk54 keeps re-adding is entirely hostile WP:SYNTH, and the repeated demands for discussion smell of WP:TE; we're not obliged to discuss every detail of something that is wrong in so many ways: POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS. Nor does Wikipedia work by inclusion by default, then everyone has to discuss what should be removed. The way to go is for Jk54 to propose changes, incrementally, on the Talk page - but I'm not sure how this is going to work since he doesn't seem to 'get' fundamentals of what constitutes original research, why blogs are treated as unreliable, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - After edit warring by some parties on a previous occassion, the last version of this article that EdJohnson and the editors involved at the time approved to remain and locked down was the version I have reverted - the advice provided was to work off this version and remove and POV/original research etc that may exist. I am working off te version on which there had been a concensus at the time. For reference see:
  1. 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (59,396 bytes) (Add semi-protection template) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 03:14, 19 February 2009 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) m (59,366 bytes) (Protected Quilliam Foundation: Edit warring by IPs who do not participate on Talk ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)))) (undo)
Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included. I have requested POV or original material to be removed if it can be demonstrated to be the case as this article has been vandalised by those supporters/employees/sock puppets of the Quilliam Foundation who cannot bear to see any balanced critique of the organisation - Avaya1 has repeatedly removed 3/4 of an article which no doubt includes non-wiki approved material but importantly includes non-POV, non-blog and non-original material. Whenever I have done a revert it is simply to replace the large quantities of material that has been incorrectly and arbitrarily labelled as POV/original material. I would be obliged if facts were represented as they are and not how Avaya1 is choosing to portray them.
I would suggest the full article is used as a basis to reduce what may be objectionable or against Wiki rules rather than the other way round as the vast majority of the content is valid and some material needs to be removed - this approach was being explored until the arrival of Avaya1 - one simply needs to look at the article's discussion forum to see sections being debated in a sensible manner and what has been shown to be POV / original material etc was agreed to be removed with concensus.
Finally, I would request the editors to consider Avaya1's IP address to check if he is a sock puppet of the Quilliam Organisation. If one simply looks at Avaya1's history, the sole focus has been this article and since I have raised this point, he has over the last couple of days started editing other articles which makes it appear he is contributing towards other wiki articles. Jk54 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, I have not disputed at any point that POV material, blogs or original research should be included
Yes, but you've made no attempt to self-assess the material, merely re-added it wholesale.
JK54 has restored the disputed version yet again. EdJohnston, would a block be appropriate? As I said, Wikipedia doesn't work on a default of adding contentious material against consensus - in this case, hostile WP:SYNTH - then everyone discussing what to remove; dubious material starts as out by default, and we discuss what can go in.
I'm also concerned about the similarity to this text [74]: Wikipedia isn't an annexe of someone's polemical blog. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with JK54's edits is also related to the rule WP:N and to coherence, given the history of the article, in which all the time we've merely been editing down his polemical essay. If we look at the history of the page, it originally started out the same as that blog article. Additionally the continuous claim that I'm an undercover quilliam employee is bad wikipedia etiquette. I have no association with quilliam. Like all the other users here, I merely read JK54's edits and saw that they broke all of wikipedia's rules. However studying the talk page of the article shows that the accusation has been made before to other users who similarly disputed his essay. Avaya1 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed result - Within the next 12 hours, I'm planning to close this complaint with an indefinite block of Jk54, unless some other admin decides to close it. Due to the many links above, there is plenty of data to review to decide whether Jk54 is working in good faith on this article. Since he only comes around occasionally, and always does the same thing, it is unlikely that a short block will be much of a crimp in his activities. Unless we actually GIVE him the article on the Quilliam Foundation to do with as he pleases, we need to do something decisive. So far nothing any other editor has said to him (since February) has persuaded him to modify his approach. I am notifying him of this comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with you EdJohnston. I have no objections to the edits made by Gordonofcartoon and have let them lie as they have removed only those aspects which violate wiki rules. As I have repeatedly said if someone is removeing valid research then surely that must be reverted. I have accepted the point that when reverting material one should assess it to revert only that which is relevant which I will do in future. I see little point to a ban as the issue appears resolved.Jk54 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - Jk54 blocked indef. This is a single-purpose account, devoted entirely to long-term POV-pushing at Quilliam Foundation. He has continued to revert even while this 3RR complaint was open, suggesting that he is immune to correction and is unwilling to follow our policies. His suggestion that things are fine cannot be confirmed from any of his actions. Any other persion who edits the article he sees as 'removing valid research.' So by restoring his POV material, he is fixing a 'violation of wiki rules.' The edit summary from his last wholesale revert, dated October 12, was "Reverting Avaya1 vandalism".' EdJohnston (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sherurcij reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 11 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

The user above has repeatedly reverted attempts by myself to add sourced statements to the article in question. He has also categorically refused to allow both myself and another editor to select more appropriate language for certain passages in the article that gratuitously use strong, racist language (specifically the word nigger). The user for some inexplicable has insisted on retaining this word, although it has already been demonstrated by myself and the other editor on that article's talk page that this is contrary to Wikipedia's WP:PROFANITY policy. Despite our citing the relevant policy for him, my already having warned the user before his last revert that he had breached 3RR, & my already having explained the rest of my edits to this editor at the Administrator's noticeboard where this same issue is being discussed, he just keeps reverting & has now well surpassed three reverts. Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Results - 48 hours. Editor has three past blocks for edit warring. I do not see that Sherurcij obtained a talk page consensus anywhere for his version. Since only three parties were active in the editing dispute of October 12-14, they might consider opening a WP:Request for comment that could draw more participation. It may not be easy to reconcile the verifiable but harsh language that Sherurcij favors for the article with our WP:PROFANITY policy. This issue was recently discussed at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl reported by User:Scientus (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

After the block expired user:HAl immediately proceeded to edit war, with no discussion, no rationale, and no consensus—infant against long established consensus.

As he gives no reasons, I have a hard time seeing how user:HAl's edits are constructive, and I have a feeling he is pushing an agenda instead of trying to improve the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Office_Open_XML#Vandalism_of_the_page


Stale at this point. I'll keep an eye on it, however. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the page links above.Scientus (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

user:HAl continues to hide the origins of Microsoft-run sites, and remove criticism from Google and other notable sources.

user:HAl has a long history of uncivil behavior. including hiding origins of Microsoft-run sites, being called out for apparently biased editing, being blocked for edit warring, among other things.Scientus (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit warring has been going on for months at that article. No sooner has one guy got off a 10-day block, and he's at it again within minutes. Light penalties obviously haven't worked.--Lester 11:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by Dr.K. (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Presidential_Commission to_Counter Attempts to Falsify History (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: (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:[95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


IP keeps reverting different editors inserting heavy-handed POV into article. Technically he is not in violation of 3RR within 24 hours but warning had no effect on the behaviour of the IP. I suggest a block based on a pattern of edit-warring and no discussion. Dr.K. logos 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess. It's gone stale. No problem. It's maybe for the best. Dr.K. logos 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Result - 24 hours. If the problem continues, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Nice seeing you after such a long time. Thank you for the action and for exercising your discretion. It was a nice surprise. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Scientus reported by User:hAl (Result: no vio)[edit]

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

User:Scientus has more than 50 edits on his name echt time removing fully sourced information on organizations supporting the Office Open XML and adding hidden critisism link in a string of irrelevant 12 critisims citation links (in stead onf just one) added to an (unchallenged) critisism about the 6000 page size of the specification. The extr additional links are actually about the standardization proces of Office Open XML and belong in the Standardization of Office Open XML article. The supporting sites issue (which has been reverted most of all) was recnetly discussed again and by dealt with by consensus multiple editors in this section [[[Talk:Office_Open_XML#.27Support.27_by_Microsoft-run_websites]]

user:Scientus pattern is to start with fact tagging, then removing info (even though citation were provided) and reverting them then complain on the ANI board to get them a bnan and then a few day later again edit the same edits over an over and over again.

user:Scientus has several times added in his edit summeries or on the talk page he thinks Office Open XML is a Microsoft standard and that he removed information because that information is somehow related to Microsoft.

I can't find the exact first issue edit on this as there are too many

A partial list of recent edits by user:Scientus:

  1. Revision as of 11:32, 1 October 2009
  2. Revision as of 09:30, 30 September 2009
  3. Revision as of 18:53, 22 September 2009
  4. Revision as of 15:41, 16 September 2009
  5. Revision as of 08:11, 16 September 2009
  6. Revision as of 09:29, 15 September 2009
  7. Revision as of 22:56, 16 August 2009
  8. Revision as of 06:57, 16 August 2009
  9. Revision as of 01:36, 14 August 2009
  10. Revision as of 07:34, 17 July 2009
  11. Revision as of 10:17, 12 July 2009
  12. Revision as of 00:07, 11 July 2009
  13. Revision as of 07:36, 10 July 2009
  14. Revision as of 02:22, 3 July 2009
  15. Revision as of 03:33, 28 June 2009
  16. Revision as of 13:14, 24 June 2009
  17. Revision as of 13:56, 19 June 2009
  18. Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2009
  19. Revision as of 20:58, 9 June 2009
  20. Revision as of 01:53, 3 October 2009
  21. Revision as of 19:23, 13 October 2009

The user has been asked to stop his behaviour many times on both his talk page as well as the talk page off the Talk:Office Open XML article:

I have requested help from the wiki project, have tried to get RfC and Request for medation but none has attracted the nescesary outside help.


Could you cut the diffs which aren't reverts, and then highlight which ones happened in which 24hr period. The ones I looked at included normal edits and happened on days more than 24hrs apart, ranging from yesterday to the 22 September - that's a lot more than 24hrs. Verbal chat 11:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it is not about a single 3RR but about the continuous edit warring by user:Scientus over prolonged period of time removing the same information over and over and over and over even against the consensus created on the talk page. hAl (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page history there doesn't seem to be a current issue with Scientus (only three blocks of edits in since the October 3rd, in fact), and Scientus's version seems preferable from an encyclopaedic point of view. Verbal chat 12:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What ????? It is encyclopedic to remove (50 times) fully cited information on support for a document eventhough the consensus was reached on the support info on the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#.27Support.27_by_Microsoft-run_websites ? Is it encyclopedic to reintroduce incorrect information in the article lead even though this was discussed on the talk page and a lot more accurate information was placed in another section ? Talk:Office_Open_XML#Suggested_incompatiblity_MS_Office_2007and_ISO.2FIEC_29500. hAl (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the edit war noticeboard. Do you have evidence for a recent edit war? I don't see how it can even be possible based on the number of edits he has made. Verbal chat 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha I see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:HAl_reported_by_User:Scientus(Result:) this looks like a frivolous response to the report made against hAl. Probably needs action. Verbal chat 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added the dates, there has been no 3RR violation, the most recent edit is October 3rd. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

HAI blocked for two weeks due to disruptive editing. No violation from Scientus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Mr. Hicks The III (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: roughly this, but diffs provided for each revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user is not a newbie, and has been blocked for edit warrign many times before ; [101]. Most recently, we have exchanged 3RR warnings here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in teh edit dispte. There has been discussion the article TAlk page, with a three editors opposing Tiamut's edits.


Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The user's first edits since early August is to report somebody on an article he has never touched? Very sock-like. And "revert" 5 is not a revert, the source used is retained but separated to another sentance for what it actually supports. nableezy - 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If people think I should be blocked for edit-warring for the edits listed above, I accept that decision. While I engaged in substantive talk page discussion, I should have opened a discussion on the disputed text earlier (the first three edits predate my efforts at talk). My past experiences with the editor edit-warring with me led me to shirk a more collaborative approach since it has largely proved unfruitful in the past. That is no excuse however. Nor is the fact that the person filing the report seems to be here to monitor my edits (See previous Edit warring warning from Mr. Hicks the Ill. In that case too, he was not editing the page at the time). I will accept a block for whatever length of time people think is necessary to prevent future disruptions. My apologies to the community for any trouble I have caused. (And apologies to myself for not learning from past mistakes.) Tiamuttalk 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - No action. It seems as though Tiamut is promising to stop warring on this article. We will expect him to seek consensus for any controversial changes from now on. I note that Tiamut was let off a block on September 7, and this forgiveness can't go on too much longer. I do not see anything the matter with Mr Hicks's warnings, or the fact that he made a complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was let off my last block for edit-warring on September 7, 2007, after MangoJuice accepted that I understood that edit-warring is wrong. I do understand that, I am sorry for the lapse, and I appreciate you giving me another chance. Tiamuttalk 21:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Go forth and edit war no more. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [102]

  • 1st revert: [103]
  • 2nd revert: