Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive70

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Debo7 reported by User:Mdsummermsw (Result: Blocked for BLP violations)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


Against concensus and multiple #RR and BLP warning, editor continues to return poorly sourced, contentious material. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No four reverts are within the one 24-hour period, however Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Coconut99 99 reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

John first reverted my change. After this revert, I tried to come up with a compromise with his text still in. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above two reverts have been resolved in a compromised text which the original person who blanked it agreed. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The person who blanked it cited the reason to have reference (but he really should have used citation flag instead). I added the reference and put the text back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talkcontribs) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The person who blanked it did not give any reason. Then the feud went to discussion. Subsequent reverts have been made. There is a stalemate at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
John reverted my text (a lot and with citations) without going through a discussion with me first. I believe that citing statements by an organization or an individual that contains no facts is POV. I didn't blank any text (in fact, John blanked my mine) and only added background information on Dalai Lama. I've made the point in discussion saying those are relevant since Dalai Lama is a slave master, and his talk of human rights were simply hypocrites. IMO, if those background information weren't there, then words from Dalai and his organization (which I think highly unreliable, if I may use John's way of thinking) should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I warned Coconut that he had broken the rules and asked him to revert. However, he responded in a hostile manner and indicated that he did not think the rules applied to him - he refused to undo his last reversion. He has been around since May 2006 so shouldn't need a warning.

Coconut has been adding highly biased and POV material to the article, labelling allegations as facts and often inserting irrelevant material in order to distract from the article's focus on human rights in China - eg. he tries to blame foreign countries for backing the Dalai Lama. In many ways these edits can be regarded as vandalism, but I have not repeatedly removed them to avoid an edit war.

Sadly Coconut has proved resistant to reasoned discussion. He makes comments like we have to prove things are "fake" example here, even though it is obvious to anyone that is highly difficult, if not completely impossible. I and others have argued for a neutral position, but he clearly wants to assert a biased, POV version to suit his own views. His repeated reverting is in clear breach of the 3RR. He knows that and will not stop, so sadly I fear he needs a block. John Smith's (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, that is not a defence at all. You kept reverting. Even if you do not remove text, if you keep adding disputed material that is a reversion. You have been here for nearly two years - you know the rules. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
John, you call my cited text allegations when you couldn't come up with facts supporting your statement. I've provided all my text with citations. What about you? You've been in here for so many years and still doesn't know that. Remember to hold the same standard for your own text and others. Coconut99 99 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Coconut, you know full well that a citation doesn't make something true. There are plenty of sources out there that dispute what you have said - clearly they cannot both be true. If text is disputed, it is disputed. If you keep reinserting it, that is a reversion. You know you should not make more than 3 reversions a day on any one article - you broke the rules. John Smith's (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 24 hours. As a side note, "The Dalai Lama, in the past funded by CIA and with ties to Nazis, originally pushed for independence for Tibet ..." is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please see WP:COATRACK. --B (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:152.2.100.229 reported by User:AuburnPilot (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


User has been edit warring to his/her preferred version without commenting on talk page. 3RR warning was given by Kevin Baas (talk · contribs). I'd place the block myself (recommend 24 hour standard block), but I've been involved on this article previously. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti reported by User:Krawndawg (Result: Reported user blocked for 1 week, reporting user blocked for 24 hours)[edit]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: User was just recently blocked for 3rr [3]

I've added information to the above report. Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically this user is preventing insertion of sourced NPOV material that he doesn't like. The article says the CIA lists Turkey as a "developed" country, so I insisted that we either need to remove that, or also add that the World Bank and IMF list it as "developing". He didn't seem to like either of those options so decided an edit war was the right course of action. Krawndawg (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: The reported user does appear to have violated 3RR and has already been blocked twice in the last 3 days, I have blocked them for a week for repeated violations. The reporting user has also violated 3RR on the same article, and seems sufficiently aware of 3RR to report here, so I have blocked them for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. First, why was I blocked for "violating 3rr" when I only made three reverts? 3rr says you'll be blocked on the 4th edit, which is why I didn't revert a 4th time. Second, why wasn't I given the ability to contest that block? Krawndawg (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Counting two consecutive edits as one edit, you had four edits between 06:00 29 March and 06:00 30 March (UTC). Which of those do you not consider to be a revert? If it's the first one, note that deleting information can always technically count as a revert, since someone at some time in the past must have added that information.
Arguing that you shouldn't have been blocked because you only had 3 reverts is always a very weak argument, per WP:3RR where it says "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique", and per WP:Edit war policy, Wikipedia:Gaming the system guideline and Heimstern's essay on editwarring. One reason the argument is very weak is that it seems to indicate a feeling that doing 3 reverts is perfectly acceptable, and thus tends to fail to convince anyone reviewing your block that you'll make efforts to avoid editwarring.
It's not clear to me that you didn't have an opportunity to contest the block. Usually blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. Your talk page doesn't seem to have been protected, so as far as I know you could have edited it and put {{unblock|Your reason here}} to contest the block. I'm not aware of any reason why you couldn't have done that, although maybe you know of some reason I'm not aware of. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware that an initial edit is counted as a revert. The 3RR article doesn't say so. Also, I didn't know about the unblock template, and it's not mentioned on the blocking policy article. How was I supposed to know about that? What's so hard about just posting it on my talk page along with the block? Anyhow it doesn't matter any more, I'll be more careful about edit warring in the future. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Krawndawg (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Funkynusayri reported by User:209.59.33.32 (Result: Warning)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [4]


harrasment and not respecting the consensus[12] 209.59.33.32 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned - It's customary to warn users before reporting them here. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: After the posting of this report, users Alyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seem to me to have both violated 3RR on the same article. They're continuing essentially the same editwar as the abovementioned usernames, over whether to include an image of Gamal Abdel Nasser. I've posted warnings to both of them. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna reported by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) (Result: No violation/not blocked)[edit]

2008-09 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:24, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Schedule */ Rm'd a whole bunch of unsourced info")
  2. 02:27, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Line-Up */ Rm'd unverified info")
  3. 02:28, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "The reference links don't back up what's here, removed truly unsourced")
  4. 02:34, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "Look at the listed reference, it doesn't reflect what is here. This article should really be deleted since it violates WP:CRYSTAL")
  5. 02:49, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "Rm'd unreliable source. NBC official isn't releasing that source, wiki is not about rumors or gossip and Futon Critic is not reliable sourcing")
  • Diff of warning: here

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted since the "warning" but I am nominating the article for deletion based on the fact that it's speculation and rumor, based on very little fact. And the "listed edits" aren't accurate either. If you look at the listed source, it doesn't reflect what was added. Additionally, some of the listed the edits are repetative, with no other edits in between which means NO REVERT. Look at the times, they were all consecutive, not reverts. 24, 27, 28, 34 ~ all basically at the same time, not warring, just editing with edit conflicts at best but not a violation of 3RR.KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You've been blocked for 3RR before. There is no entitlement to revert until warned and since you are aware of the rule, that's not an issue. (I haven't looked at diffs yet, just responding to the comment about warning.) --B (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There was also a previous warning here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not blocked - back-to-back edits are generally considered a single revert, not multiple reverts. So there are only three reverts here and in any event, KellyAna appears to have stopped. If he/she reverts again, please reopen this case. It is also worth noting that the bulk of the material being removed was unsourced - even in non-BLPs, Wikipedia requires content to be sourced and the onus is on the person seeking to readd the material to demonstrate that it is verifiable. --B (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure: Material that is unsourced, needs to be sourced. If an editor wants to challenge material which is not controversial, placing a {{fact}} in the areas that need work is the correct procedure, to allow other editors to look for sources. If we are going to start deleting long portions of articles because these are unsourced, without giving a chance to others to look for them, we are not building an encyclopedia. In any case, blocks are not punitive and the user has stopped. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't advocate the wholesale removal of every sentence that doesn't have an inline citation (that, as you correctly point out, would be very disruptive), but if I may be permitted an argument ad Jimbonem, at Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Jimbo says, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." So even though explicit revert exemptions only apply to BLPs, it's still a really good idea (tm) to have a cite if you are going to add it back. (B's corollary to Jimbo's law.)--B (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the exception was made for BLPs for obvious reasons. This, is an article about a TV station program schedule. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Relata refero reported by User:Agha Nader (Result: No block)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]


  • 1st revert: [14] Clear revert of non-vandalism (changed date).
  • 2nd revert: [15] Revert of sourced pertinent information (but that's beside the point).
  • 3rd revert: [16] Ditto
  • 4th revert: [17] Ditto
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [18] and his response denying violating 3RR and refusing to self revert once given the chance [19].

Without getting into the actual content dispute, Relata refero has exhibited WP:OWN on the Nehru article, ignored the discussion page [20], refused to use the discussions page and instead uses edit summaries (at times levying accusations in them), and has wrongly termed other editor's edits as vandalism.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • One of the reverts was removal of vandalism, so no block is required. Having said that, I would encourage Relata and Agha to seek WP:DR, and apply WP:BRD until the dispute is resolved. Edit-warring accomplished nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

78.129.175.207[edit]

Reverted 3 edits on the Family Force 5 article. I reverted his last revert, so it would make mine 3RR as well, and I'll admit to it.

Neglects WP:COMMON, editorial judgement, and is gaming the system. May be a sockpuppet of two other contributers within the article, but I have filed no checkuser request out of good faith. He's reverted the edits against a consensus from before. He kept deleting band interviews that sourced their label as "Christian" and then tried to state they were not reliable. He may be a troll, however, I am unsure as to it. IronCrow (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid content dispute. See below for another, also malformed, report. Relata refero (disp.) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Link to the other report.--Coppertwig (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie‎ reported by User:Matt Lewis (Result: No violation, nominator warned)[edit]


(I made the warning verbally in Talk - I didn't realise I had to put code on her talk page(?) (and I hoped we could work it out). She has been on WP since 2006, so I assumed she knows the rules.)

Lucy-marie is removing 'Voting records' from British MP's articles. See also Margaret Beckett‎ (which I used as an example of how they are used elsewhere - then she removed it!), Charlotte Atkins, Janet Anderson‎, Hilary Armstrong, Candy Atherton. I have explained why I find this unacceptable but her language is that they are "pointless" and "meaningless" - they are anything but, as I have clearly explained in the David Lammy Talk page. She is arguing that I am "doing the same" in reverting her back - but I don't see I have had any choice, and I have been explaining why all the while. Her last revert was to a new paragraph of her own which she claims is not a real revert (as it was not a straight delete) - but she removed the entire 'Voting record' again, so it clearly is a third revert.

I'm not sure if she technically has gone over 3RR (her first "Previous version reverted to" doesn't count right?) - but my problem is that it looks like carrying on in the other articles I mentioned above (she has reverted me once on each one, which I've let go for the moment, but would like them back) - and its all over the same 'voting record' sections (which she is entirely removing). Many of these Voting record sections have been there for a long time, possibly years.Matt Lewis (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Looks to me like a technical violation of 3RR by both parties. It takes two to edit war. Either of you is fully capable of opening up an RfC to decide whether those voting sections should be kept for the whole set of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation - reverting to remove a copyright violation is exempt from 3RR limitations. The text being removed was a copy/paste from [21] as Lucy-marie correctly stated in her edit summary. --B (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
On a side-by-side comparison, the data was actually properly edited (and not copy/pasted) - compare the two diffs below (they have been removed so see above). Lucie-marie was right to call call it "add", and not "copy". --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This can easily be corrected - It's merely a short list of freely-available stats (which I support, but didn't include myself - I had not ideas they were not re-formatted). Lucy-marie did NOT make that her reason: SHE SAID "DO NOT ADD" - SHE DID NOT SAY "COPY", OR MENTION COPYRIGHT. Her reasoning was over notability. And I don't think theyworkforyou.com copyright themselves anyway - they are all about public information being free for everyone!!! The GNU Affero GPL is on their site. It is a Wiki site, like this one!
  • And there are only three reverts anyway, four required to breach the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I stated that myself above! Please read my point about the other articles too - I didn't want it to get out of hand. I will correct any copyright issue, but am concerned I now have my hands tied now I'm warned. What have I done that is not in the best of faith, and for the benefit of Wikipedia?. *I DID NOT KNOW OF THE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION UNTIL AFTER I MADE MY EDITS AND MADE THIS REPORT*. Please remove my warning - as it is based on an incorrect summary that I was warned about them. Also they have been on Wikipedia for ages, and are probably not a copyright list!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The information selected, collected, aggregated and annotated by theyworkforyou is clearly copyrightable under both U.K. and U.S. law. The fact that the information itself is public record is irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand the need for WP to always be fully careful and am happy to do some re-writing to completely erase any copyright issues. But I must say again that I did NOT originally put these list in the articles, that they have been on Wikipeida for a while, and that I was NOT warned about any copyright issues by anyone - so I feel the above warning is based on misinformation: (User talk:B incorrectly stated I was warned about copyright by Lucy-marie - but I simply wasn't, and her arguments were on another level). I also feel compromised by the warning (what does it entail?) - as I would like to correct the copyright issues, and replace the deleted text (which is important encyclopedic information). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In this edit summary, Lucy-marie stated that her reason for reverting was that the content was copied from the website. She didn't use the word "copyright", but that's what I was referring to when I said "as Lucy-marie correctly stated in her edit summary". I never said that she "warned" you, nor is a "warning" an entitlement. You didn't know that the content was being copied from another website. Everyone takes you at your word that you didn't realize it was plagiarized. It's not a problem as long as you don't add it again. --B (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll make the records the bare public facts, and unrecognisable from the theyworkforyou lists (it can't be too hard for a group of 10 or so facts). I can see my errors - I just want people to see I'm editing in the best of faith, for the best for Wikipedia, and by extension, those who use it. I can see now that starting this 3RR report was clearly the wrong thing to do - I apologise. I took the time to do it as I honestly thought it would help the other articles involved too - I clearly jumped the gun, and should have researched the records that have clearly been pasted-in at various times (I took user:B's word for this mistake). I'm not just saying that - I do acccept we can't take anything for granted on WP.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: In addition to B's warning about copyright, I've posted a note on Matt Lewis' talk page that in my opinion the user had violated 3RR. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) restoring this comment which had been deleted apparently accidentally. Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you did scold me - but you wrongly suggested that I haven't properly discussed the issue. It's not very clever (or helpful) for a non-admin to 'swing in' like that, imo. I'm trying to back down, here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Struck out, as editor apologised for his use of wording (and explained he's a contibutor to 3RR). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This board is not for discussion. If you wish to discuss the article, use its talk page. If you wish to discuss user behaviour, use WP:AN or WP:DR. If you wish to discuss me, use /dev/null. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I really mean this. I have removed the further discussion. It is accessible in the history. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You have moved the evidence I provided of userB:s clear mistake about "cut/paste" (the one you referred to adding the warning tag to me). You have removed more than the debate - the correction referred to a serious mistake in here - which you clearly judged upon. Please see your Talk page. This simply does not warrant a quickly-made warning given to me! Please give this more of your time, as this is now taking a lot of mine - unfairly. I wish to carry here - but what does the warning entail? Why does a warning even need to be made here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JigmeTobden‎ reported by User:Sylvain1972 (Result: Malformed)[edit]

User JigmeTobden continues to deleted properly sourced and accurate information from Drukpa, refusing to communicate on either the talk page or on his user page. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Olahus reported by User:Xasha (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


User:Olahus tries to push his own personal view that Moldovans should be considered part of the Romanian diaspora, claiming that this is the official position of Romania, and thus we should ignore the neutral point of view and the opinion of Moldovans (an American survey in the early 90s has shown 90% of the Moldovans don't consider themselves Romanians, and the last census in Moldova has shown 2.5 million self-declared Moldovans, compared to 70,000 self-declared Romanians in Moldova). He also accuses me (a Moldovan ethnic) and everyone who doesn't think Moldovans are Romanians (according to census results, about 3.5 million people) of being Stalinists (see his 4th edit above). Xasha (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both users also warned about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for Balkans-related articles. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RJ CG reported by User:82.131.26.47 (Result: Malformed report - no action )[edit]

Kalamaja cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hope this the right place

At Kalamaja cemetery user keeps reverting. If 3RR rule lets three reverts, he's four reverts already:

Also waring at Mõigu_cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [26]. User has [27] long list of edit war blocks already.

Mihail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.26.47 (talkcontribs) 21:02 4 April 2008 (UTC) I added links in the above report Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use the format requested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Does not appear to be a 3RR violation. Similar pattern of editing on both articles. First edit may or may not count as a revert; may be deleting a few words that had been in the article for a long time, e.g. since 00:43, 19 October 2007 in the case of Kalamaja_cemetery. I didn't check the middle two edits. Last edit is adding a POV tag, therefore not a revert. The talk page has not been edited since 19 June 2007. It would be better to use it to discuss your changes instead of repeatedly reverting. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Shpakovich reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 16:35


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 16:50

Editor would like to overturn a long-standing consensus concerning the image in an ethnic template. He has been repeatedly advised to propose his changes on the Talk page and wait for other editors' comments, but he continues to revert. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Animal rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Polentario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • 1st edit. 16:10 April 4, adds a quote from Schopenhauer to show that he believed lack of concern for animals was the fault of Jews, and that his views were embraced by the Nazis: "The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom."
  • 1st revert. 16:58 April 4, restored the quote as above
  • 2nd revert. 17:38 April 4, restored the quote as above
  • 3rd revert. 18:07 April 4, restored the quote as above
  • 4th revert. 19:14 April 4, restored the quote, but used a different German-English translation of it — but it is the same quote: "It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that 'there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals.' Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism."
Comments

Polentario has been adding similar material — using poor sources or primary sources only, or no sources at all — to multiple articles since March 26, reverting constantly when other editors (on all sides of the debate) remove it. I gave him the opportunity to revert himself before being reported, but he declined. [28] SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dylandude89 reported by User:24.10.226.63 (Result: Malformed report. No action)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [01:54, 3 April 2008]


  • 1st revert: [14:30, 4 April 2008]
  • 2nd revert: [00:12, 3 April 2008]
  • 3rd revert: [21:13, 2 April 2008]
  • 4th revert: [19:56, 13 March 2008 ]

A short explanation of the incident. For the last several months, user: Dylandude89 has written content that is damaging to the character of the person being mentioned. Dylandude89 has updated, revised and undid multiple revisions of this same article. The "facts" being referenced are completely made up and inaccurate. The person whom these statements were written about is pursuing legal action as these statements have interfered with him in furthering his career. On multiple occasions, associates of the coach have contacted him to inform him that tournaments were hesitant to invite his team due to the information published online. Also in terms of job interviews, the content was referenced and may have played a part in the committee's decision to go a different direction. This defamation has reached a point where action needs to be taken immediately, either by wikipedia or through legal prosecution of the writer.

The report is malformed. No action taken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a BLP warning at 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC) to Dylandude89. No 3RR violation; the diffs span more than 24 hours. (non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Reported to BLP/N: User continues to editwar after my warning; 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I've reported to BLP/N. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR violation (non-admin opinion): and continues to violate BLP after being warned. I've posted a 3RR warning 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) to Dylandude89. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:God Save the South reported by User:B (Result: 48 hour block)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: see below - reverts were to different versions


See also more reverts just outside of the 24 hour fence:

This user is a SPA whose sole focus is making Ku Klux Klan into a pro-KKK article. Cross burnings aren't cross burnings - they are "cross lightings", with the same connotation as a Christmas tree lighting. They aren't a neo-Nazi organization and they banned "National Socialist" (not Nazi) insignia. While my gut says this is a sock puppet, I can't prove that. I can prove that this user violated 3RR, though.--B (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Kudos to B for an excellent report, if it progresses anymore, I'd probably suggest an indefinite block for the reasons explained in the brief summary above. Rudget (review) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:206.74.61.67 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: 1 week)[edit]


Linkspammer just coming off a 72 hour block right back at it. Semi-protection may be appropriate as well. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hesitate on calling him a linkspammer (although I just removed a link like some of those a few hours ago on another article), but certainly afoul of the 3rr rule again. If other mysterious IPs show up, we can consider protection. Kuru talk 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not hyped about protection or anything, it's just been a bit of a problem lately on this backwater article. ➪HiDrNick! 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Si. I'm digging through the discussion; I doubt I'll chime in since I've taken an administrative action, but I've added it to my watchlist of obscure backwater topics so I can keep an eye on it. :) Kuru talk 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


User:207.68.63.144 reported by User:GhostStalker (Result: 48 hours )[edit]


This anonymous IP keeps adding back some original research into the aforementioned article. The OR is discussed in the Talk Page, but that doesn't stop some from readding it into the article. Left 2 warnings, an OR one and a 3RR one, but it doesnt look like the IP wants to stop. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Both parties blocked for 48 hours. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:Orangemarlin (Result: Malformed report. No action)[edit]

article Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); user Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:GordonUS.

Time reported: 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Ku Klux Klan article, I removed #1) wording saying a small Klan faction was violent, telling editors to show it with facts in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves) and #2) removed a duplicate paragraph:

User Guettarda reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201000971&oldid=200978968

I revert, explaining my reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201026563&oldid=201000971

OrangeMarlin reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201065356&oldid=201027380

Accordingly, I revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201147303&oldid=201065356

OrangeMarlin reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201165532&oldid=201157032

Here, I think Guettarda and Marlin think the removal of the word violent is POV, so I decide to drop it and focus on removing the duplicated paragraph. I do not revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201513500&oldid=201441597

I then make a series of unrelated edits. OrangeMarlin reverts, citing Wikipedia NPOV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201516397&oldid=201515610

I tell him if he sees POV to change it but not to revert my work. I make some unrelated edits. I do not revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201517447&oldid=201517255

He reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201518896&oldid=201518137

I do not revert but edit back manually, telling him to change whatever is POV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201519341&oldid=201518896

I then continue working. He leaves me alone for a bit until he reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202186342&oldid=202181747

In accordance with Wikipedia's reverting rules, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Explain_reverts) I tell him, "Its copyediting. Please explain to me what is POV on my talk page. Please follow your advice and consult me instead of getting in rv war.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202191971&oldid=202186342

I consulted him on his talk page to explain and rudely tells me to leave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=202192296&oldid=201869635

He has reverted well over five times and this has been going on for too long.

GordonUS (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added links at the top of this report. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any vio. within 24h. Perhaps you should be discussing your controversal changes in the talk page beforehand. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. In addition, there was no 3RR vio. seicer | talk | contribs 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What would be the point of discussing on the talk pages when User:Orangemarlin has stated that he doesn't get involved in talk pages? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Reenactorjohn reported by User:Joegoodfriend (Result: Declined)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [29]
  • 1st revert: [30] (as 76.112.105.246 )
  • 2nd revert: [31] (as 76.112.105.246 )
  • 3rd revert: [32]
  • 4th revert: [33]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

New editor has refused to respond to talk or to properly cite sources. User also posts dead links and frequently misspells words. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


I sited my sorces. I am new to Wikipedia but I cannot stand by and just agree to let a myth be listed as historical fact on a page about a very interesting human being. The Links I posted only come up dead because I don't know how to post a link at the bottom of the patch so that the HTTP formate will work properly. I appologize for the misspelled words, dislexia does that from time to time. If any one does even a little bit of research on the subject matter by simply calling the National Parks office of the Shiloh National Battle Field park. and Asking them about John Clems involvement at the battle, they will quickly find he was never there. that is why I so adimently dispute the adition of the Shiloh portion of this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenactorjohn (talkcontribs) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to fix the URLs and the spelling. Reenactorjohn, please consider the use of a spelling checker when you make extensive changes. Also, being right is not an excuse for an edit war. Try asking more experienced editors how to handle the situation. Go to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests if you need pointers on how to do things, whether the question is technical or diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thank you Ed I appreaciate the assistance very much. Reenactorjohn (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The reverts were made by two separate users so 3RR is not applicable here. If you believe that they are the same person, make a category E listing at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmod reported by User:Adam.J.W.C. (Result: Both blocked for 8 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [35]


A potential sock puppet of User:The Fence is constantly removing reverenced material from the above mention article. They persist in removing the same paragraph of info that all the other sock puppets have removed in the past. Now this user is teaming up with an ip address to remove the same material. They are now adding what seems like advertising for an organization, that I don't this is suitable for wikipedia . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet and your references are invalid. Could you PLEASE take part in the discussion on the discussion page and perhaps you will understand what we are trying to tell you? I am trying to clean this article up with correctly referenced material, please stop your malicious reverts. Dmod (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:77.78.199.117 reported by User:121.222.30.189 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

The user insists on inserting into the article falsehoods, and straight-up lies - and these have been added before, and all times have been rebuked. On the talk page, the user is uncivil, rude, slightly xenophobic, and shows an unwillingness to listen/compromise. The general consensus is against him, yet he has reverted not 4, but 5 times. 121.222.30.189 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Article semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


User:Anon18 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: Protected)[edit]

User has edit warred to remove quotes from the founders of the website for reasons unknown. Despite attempts to engage the user in various ways - requests that he/she use the talk page, moving the quotes from the lead to a subsection - the user has continued to revert. User has refused to discuss the issue and until his/her last two three reverts has not even used an edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Stifle (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fadiga09 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Article protected)[edit]


Each revert deletes the words "Inter-Cities Fairs".

An edit was made by User:Ultracanalla to differentiate between Valencia CF's UEFA Cup and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup triumphs. I cleaned up the edit to fix some problems with us