Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive73

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:76.189.145.86 reported by User:64.228.89.235 (Result:Warning given )[edit]


I think this might be vandalism disguised as a valid edit (ie using an apparent source) but the source does not say what it should. Anyway, fairly new and hope this is right and helpful procedure. 64.228.89.235 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Shawncorey reported by User:Yamara (Result:stern warning, block possible later)[edit]


User repeatedly removes a cited paragraph, insisting simply that it is "wrong".[1]

User has also insisted on his talk page, "I'll keep removing it until it it correct." (sic)[2]

User has been warned by an admin re WP:NPA. -Yamara 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A 6th edit by the user removed the half of the paragraph with the citation: 23:26, 18 May 2008 - While not a revert, he seems insistent to edit war with numerous other editors. He has reiterated, on his talk page, his intent to continue personal attacks at his discretion, despite a warning by an admin. -Yamara 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please use diffs rather than oldids (i.e., links that show the changes made by the editor).
Fortunately, this one was pretty easy to tell just from the history of the article. It seems to me that Shawncorey has not technically violated 3RR, as no four reverts fall into 24 hours; however, he is gaming the system by reverting three times within 24 hours. I could block for this, but I think instead I'll just issue a stern warning that reverting more will result in a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:The_C_of_E reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [3]


  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 4th revert: [7]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

User:The_C_of_E created a "parody" section in the Carefree (chant) entry. The section contains no notable material and gives ground for potential edit and flame wars. It is typical of soccer fans to vandalize and abuse entries in Wikipedia. Allowing "parodies" and similar defamatory or insulting material to enter unchecked into wiki entries only invites trouble - and deterioration of quality. User has been warned and asked to participate in the Discussion, which I started in the entry's Talk page, but to no avail. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on Carefree (chant) though no 3RR in any 24-hour period. Unwilling to discuss his changes on the article Talk. Eight reverts to his preferred version altogether. His version lacks sources, its authenticity can't be confirmed, and no other editor supports it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:144.92.152.82 (Result: Already semi-protected)[edit]

This user is reverting constructive edits and writing inappropriate edit summaries. (Presumably his "issue" with the editing is the removal of a sentence that the Hattic language is related to a Caucasian language group, which his source does not assert - see the article's talk page).

Note: the reporting anon is a sockpuppet for a banned user (User:Sumerophile) who is not supposed to be editing at all, my reverting of him/her has nothing to do with the content, but is based on policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, will do; it's obvious from the editing history anyway, (numerous addition of portals to the top of pages rather than at the bottom or on talkpage, etc.) not to mention the WHOIS location matches... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The location match is a university, where several of us have worked on these pages. Til Eulenspiegel's choice of what to reverse is based on content. Yearssixty (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Already semi-protected. User:PeterSymonds has already semi-protected the article to stop the IP. Peter makes reference to a sock in his protection summary. It is plausible that another editor reverting Hattians, 144.92.95.110 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Sumerophile. I suggest that Til Eulenspiegel open up a WP:SSP report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The amount of procedure needed to do SSP is too inhibiting to make it worth my time. In aspiring to be magnanimous, I probably wouldn't have even pointed the socks out at all, if they weren't actually trying to get me on this page. After that, I did reopen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile; as you can see, doing this only brought out yet more socks protesting that they are really just a group of people at the same location, who all just happen to edit in exactly the same way. I don't have the time, energy or patience to tackle this at SSP right now but if someone else wants to, please do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Brian Boru is awesome and User:70.172.219.97 reported by User:69.182.79.163 (Result: 24 hours Brian Boru and the IP 70.172 )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [9]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has reverted to sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR
  • Comments

This is just 1 of 3 instances where User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. After repeated notices to stop deleting comments in edit summaries and on the users talk page the IP began removing the comments. The IP has only been used in instances where the same user was involved in edit disputes. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both Brian Boru is awesome and the IP 70.172. This 3RR report takes it on faith that the IP and Brian Boru are working together, but it's otherwise hard to explain why:
  • Brian B. would take such an interest in removing notices of cut-and-paste moves from other people's talk pages (an unusual activity in its own right, besides being a violation of WP:TALK), and
  • An IP 70.172 would arrive out of the middle of nowhere to continue that exact pattern of reverts.
I was curious whether the other IP, the one making this report, was an editor in good standing, but I notice that here Anthony Appleyard made one of the cut-paste move repairs requested by the IP, so he's probably legit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JJJ999/User:122.148.218.27 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hour block)[edit]

Asian Universities Debating Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JJJ999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

also 122.148.218.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 18 May 2008

  1. 15:03, 18 May 2008
  2. 03:25, 19 May 2008
  3. 07:16, 19 May 2008
  4. 07:31, 19 May 2008
  • Diff of warning: here

Half of above edits were done as IP edits. This diff [10] shows they are the same user. The information being added is also a violation of BLP, as the source is a forum post and clearly questionable. —V-train (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is laughable to suggest this is a violation of 3R. I have been preventing the removal of sourced content without consensus, not the other way around. Anyway, it's now up to an AfD.JJJ999 (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This editor actually warned me about 3RR yesterday (see here), even though I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. Ongoing content dispute regarding this article is being discussed at Talk:Asian Universities Debating Championship. So far this editor is the only one advocating adding in content that is from a questionable source, and keeps reverting other editors with sharply worded edit summaries. Singopo (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both user and UIP address blocked. The diffs show addition of content unsupported by a reliable source and in violation of WP:BLP as per the talk page discussion. Discussion on the talk page does not support this editor's view of including the material. The diffs are quite clearly within the 24 hour framework.--Matilda talk 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gouryella reported by User:Haza-w (Result: blocked 24 hours )[edit]

A little bird tells me that 66.121.127.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was the IP of the editor before this username was registered, which would make this the first revert. In any case, user has made four reversions to Paul van Dyk, and was warned after two, with no response to discussion on talk page. The final reversion actually took place slightly outside the 24 hour window, but there is a case for bending the rule here, since the user has been previously warned for edit-warring and repeatedly re-uploading deleted images. haz (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on Paul van Dyk --Matilda talk 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: varies, described below
Boodlesthecat seems to have straightforwardly violated 3RR on the article. I notice there is a report open at WP:BLPN about this article, but I think it is about remarks being made on the Talk page. Before we close this, does anyone see a justification under WP:BLP for the edits made by either side? Mostly I see entire ethnicities or national groups being possibly criticized. My guess is that unless a specific individual is defamed, that is not BLP. But let's have a chance for anyone to comment on the relevance of BLP if they wish.
Nobody has filed a 3RR about the behavior on the article's Talk page, so that issue is for other noticeboards to assess if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see anything approaching a 3RR violation. User:Piotrus is involved in a content dispute on this article, see here and here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since Boodles is not offering a BLP defence, I think this is a straightforward 3RR case, with four reverts within 24 hours as listed above, and no other editor coming anywhere near four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract reported by User:AnmaFinotera (Result: Warned)[edit]

Abtract, who has a long history of unpunished edit warring, has violated 3RR on the YuYu Hakusho article. He disruptively added a ton of {{citation}} tags to the article headers, was reverted, put them back, was reverted again, then put them back moved to the end of every paragraph. He also called several undoing of his disruptive tagging as being vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment by User:Sesshomaru. While not technically edit warring, Abtract is still making subsequent edits to the page: [13], [14], [15], [16]. These edits have been reverted all at once, yet he is slowly re-placing them one by one. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I did replace some of them one at a time to give you guys an opportunity to consider them individually and to realise that each one was fully justified ... or are you saying these sections do not require referencing? Abtract (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by User:Abtract. First technicalities: The supposed first revert was in fact my original insertion of tags not a revert. The second supposed revert was another attempt to put the tags on but in a different place as advised by Collectonian on my talk page (thinly disguised as a "welcome") so I can't see why she is objecting now (well I suppose I can because she is trying to build a case) this also was not a revert. The 3rd, 4th and 5th are indeed reverts. The supposed 6th is not even an edit so I'm not sure what it is but it certainly isn't a revert. Total three reverts not 4 and certainly not 6. Having said that, three reverts is hardly praisworthy, I admit. My reason is that I was reverting User:Sesshomaru following their reversion of my quite legitimate insertion of fact tags (several I admit but the article is in a bit of a state citationwise) ... we each reverted three times ... I put the tags in they removed them. My insertion of the tags was simply doing what the tags were designed for (pointing to unreferenced material which for all I know may be incorred at worst, or original research at best) whereas (IMHO) removing these tags after just telling me "Feel free and remove whatever sections violate policy", was deliberate vandalism. I would like you also to note that I have opened a thread for discussion on the article talk page but neither Collonian nor Sess have been courteous enough to reply, being content to issue warnings on my talk page no doubt. Abtract (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't advice you to place them anywhere else, I warned you for removing them (and it wasn't thinly disguised as anything, it was the standard 1st level warning template). You have done 6 reverts. Doing them section by section and moving the tag around does not change that, nor does your tagging these sections out of retaliation for your disagreement with Sess over the article content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Not so interested in the technicalities offered in Abtract's note. As far as I can see other users are objecting to Undid disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited as per at least one edit summary undoing Abtract's edits. Happy to leave this incident as a warning. Please don't persist with this behaviour.--Matilda talk 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I accept what you say. Abtract (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for 1 week)[edit]


User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also this may require looking closely because some formatting changes occurred during the edit warring, but the demographic text in question that he reverted back to repeatedly is very clearly TeePee's favorite version and not what had been decided by consensus on the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved: blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen for a number of issues including edit warring

--Matilda talk 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

[...etc...]

I think User:FoveanAuthor is also a sockpuppet of this user, which would contribute further reverts to the list:

Continual restoration (and expansion) of removed-by-consensus long discussion of Rev. Wright from Barack Obama (and deletion of summary-style link to dedicated article). Some edits also add a rant from National Review and/or some unneeded material on alleged association with Bill Ayers.

Clarification: I think Kossack4Truth may have been careful enough to technically avoid the letter of 3RR (assuming FoveanAuthor is just another editor with the same interest in the same articles). S/h has probably spaced reversions at just under 3/24h. But this barely-rule-meeting pattern has gone on for a number of days, the Kossack4Truth has ignored the consensus on the talk page, and essentially stated his/her intention to keep doing so forever. 3 reversions per 24 hours is not a right, and his/her edits clearly violate the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x has been unusually active lately, and this was one of his favorite targets. It might be worth a checkuser here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The listed reverts by User:Kossack4Truth span more than a 24-hour period. I recommend that the submitter clarify the claim to say if you think it's a conventional 3RR violation, or is a more general type of edit-warring. If you think User:Fovean Author is a sockpuppet of Kossack4truth some evidence would be good. (Fovean Author is the older of the two accounts). If you think you have enough to justify a checkuser, go ahead and submit the request there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring even if not technically 3RR, not within spirit as per LotLE --Matilda talk 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Brando130 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: page protected)[edit]

  1. 01:21, 20 May 2008
  2. 02:07, 20 May 2008
  3. 16:19, 20 May 2008
  4. 16:23, 20 May 2008
  5. 16:34, 20 May 2008
  • User has been around for two years, and knows the rule well enough. 4 of the reverts relate to a date and one to some tags, totally 5 reverts. I myself and another user have also had a couple of reverts, which (esp. as an admin) I shouldn't really have done, but edits being forced are serious errors which contradict the text as well as another Featured Article and user was conducting himself in a tendentious manner, such as leaving edit summaries like "stop just edit warring" while reverting and opening talk page comments with statements like "You're pretty dense, bubs." Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Brando130 has violated 3RR and Deacon of Pdnapetzim missed violating it by about 45 minutes. Blocking both would be justifiable, but I've protected the page instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wfgh66 reported by User:Wednesday Next (Result: both editors blocked for 24 hours but subsequently unblocked)[edit]


Check on User:Wednesday Next who also broke the 3RR on Berenger Sauniere and is the only Wikipedia Editor who demands copious references on Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau matters but not to any other subject matters on Wikipedia. He visits Wikipedia with the sole intention of targetting those subject matters (Priory of Sion, Rennes-le-Chateau, Berenger Sauniere, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, etc). His ignorance of the subject matter is quite shocking. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the above is true. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Rest assured that I will not be providing footnotes to the Berenger Sauniere article for the amusement of Wednesday Next, who is the only editor who demands copious footnotes; it's high time that Wednesday Next started reading real history as opposed to fake history.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Although I'm not the admin, I will give my say). Wfgh66, you yourself have broken the rule. 3 reverts is the MAX, not the I'm reporting time. Although you may not like it, I suggest that you revert your own revision to the previous. Although this may not lower your chance of getting blocked, it may teach you a lesson, a case in which requires no block. Ellomate (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please format this report according to the example provided below with diffs. I have included the template elements for you--Matilda talk 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Matilda talk 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Case closed. Ellomate (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both editors were unblocked --Matilda talk 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera reported by User:Abtract (Result: nominating editor blocked for 24 hours )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [17]
  • 1st revert: [18] 22.54, 20 May 2008
  • 2nd revert: [19] 00:09, 21 May 2008
  • 3rd revert: [20] 00:09, 21 May 2008
  • 4th revert: [21] 00:14, 21 May 2008
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [22] ... she is a highly experienced editor who should know better and does not need a warning, but I warned her anyway in this edit summary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talkcontribs)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is gaming the system after the previous incident above. --Matilda talk 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Croctotheface reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: Stale)[edit]


Please note when determining the length of the block that the user made his sixth revert after the warning, and even went so far as to delete the warning without comment. Please also note that the reverts started right after page protection had been lifted and participants were warned for previous edit warring.

BLP issues are immune to 3RR, csloat. Seriously, quit shopping for a block to try to force your POV into the article, sir. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Wikipedia policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read WP:AGF; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. csloat (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The continued placement of the slander by yourself and jim is a BLP issue regardless of whether or not you accept it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting the BLP issues on this page; admins are perfectly capable of looking at the O'Reilly page to see that what you're saying is completely false. By the way, I didn't see your apology on my talk page yet regarding your insults above; did you place it somewhere else? csloat (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no apology granted for speaking the truth. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Merzbow (Result: Stale)[edit]

  • Previous versions reverted to:


These reverts are not of the same material. Moreover, the last three reverts are of an edit that I believed had been previously agreed upon. Ramsquire, who initially removed the edit, explicitly agreed to its inclusion weeks ago. I addressed this history on the Talk Page of the article as follows:

Your not knowing it was there is evidence that you weren't paying attention, not a basis for an accusation of bad faith. Review the discussion above, particularly under second try, and the prior section. I initially proposed a separate subsection under Media Matters dealing only with their "Stop the Homophobic Comments" campaign. I explicitly stated that I agreed to other editors' recommendation that what I had initially proposed as a subsection be reduced to a sentence or two, and I added the suggested edit. You didn't object to this proposed resolution. Given your history of almost instantly reverting my previous edits, I assumed you were in agreement. (After that, you and I had a prolonged discussion about edit warring.) During the discussion, Ramsquire, who agreed that a sentence or two could be appropriate, suggested that the edit might have more substance if GLAAD or others gay/lesbian org weighed in. This prompted additional research and the subsequent, broader, proposed edit "Allegations of Homophobia" in which I attempted to merge the different groups' criticism. Your objections to that edit were based on linking the different criticisms. You never advocated removing the existing material; your doing so after the extended debate about GLAAD/MM stunned me and could have lead me to accuse you of bad faith. I did not. The MM edit has been sitting in plain sight; I cannot be responsible for your failure to read it. I'd appreciate an apology.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talkcontribs)

I would further add that as I was restoring an edit that had been extensively debated and, I thought, agreed upon, the deletions of that material were violations of the 3RR. The material, after much discussion, was added weeks ago. It's sudden deletion by editors who had either expressly agreed to its inclusion (Ramsquire) or who I believed had (Croctotheface) shocked me.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:3RR - reverts do not have to be of the same material. - Merzbow (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, and I apologize if this is overkill, but I ask that whoever is reviewing this matter look at (1) Ramsquire's recent comment on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly talk page where he apologized if he mislead me (I do not think he did; there was a misunderstanding) and (2) the comments on Croc's Talk page where I am described as civil and responsive to questions. I am the first to admit that I argue my positions forcefully, and lengthily...,but I consider that a good thing compared to editors who offer pro forma objections (e,g,. violates BLP, undue weight, not sourced) w/o any argument to support their bald assertions. I had thought that Croc, while profoundly misguided on some points(kidding, mostly) was at least engaging in honest debate; his recent accusations are strong evidence to the contrary, and, well, really piss me off.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:86.175.64.136 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

11:38, 20 May 2008 and 16:30, 20 May 2008


This editor has a long history of edit warring, and has reverted four times in less than 24 hours (to 2 different version), including abuse of twinkle. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fifth revert added, which is a revert back to the version of 11:38, 20 May 2008. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect this user is a sock.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More evidence of a knowledge of WP rules. This user, knowingly, waded into an ongoing discussion adding controvercial weaslry.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.175.64.136.
That has no bearing on this violation again you are edit warring and the evidence you provided in your sock accusation is non existent so an IP reverts you, so what you still were in an edit war, and you have been warned and blocked before for this same thing. BigDuncTalk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And you have no reason to get involved. You have been warned about your civility already this week.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Fovean Author reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale, no vio)[edit]

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:47, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213644627 by Newross (talk)Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")
  2. 11:14, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213678141 by Brothejr (talk)Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")
  3. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")

Comment[edit]

This particular editor has a history of disruptive edits and edit warring that are mostly reversions to the same article, although the editor normally takes care not to violate WP:3RR. Administrators may wish to consider this overall pattern when deciding on whether or not to block. In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously received a 12-hour block for edit warring on the same article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Stale, and no 3RR violation. There's only been one edit in the last few days, to the talk page. I've warned him re: personal attacks; a brief glance at the contribs and usertalk page suggest there's a real issue here, but it's not particularly active at present. MastCell Talk 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Grant.Alpaugh reported by User:Fasach Nua (Result: Declined)[edit]

Im really embarassed to have to report this, a user is edit warring to have his comments displayyed on my talk page even though I have removed them on ten occasions and issued a warning on 3 occasions to stop reverting my blanking in the past few hours.

edit warring and the 3RR warning is here User_talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Warning

I don't want him blocked, I just want to be left alone Fasach Nua (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 96 hours )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: vary, usually the previous version by himself or one of the earlier versions by himself


Please note that Boodlesthecat was recently blocked for 48h after a 3RR report for the same page (here), then unblocked after 5h - and immediately jumped back into revert warring. The editor is also very incivil on talk, constantly harassing his opponents and accusing them of bad faith, trolling, and so on (example). Please also note that this user has been blocked 5 times this year so far for 3RR violations, harassment and disruption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not pretend this is entirely one sided. I've already mentioned to you that you are not helping calm the situation by your comments and threats towards Boodlesthecat. We should be striving to calm things at the article, not exacerbate them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments that he should be civil and that if he breaks 3RR he will be blocked? Well, I am not so sorry that as an admin I am trying to enforce our policies. Considering that Boodlesthecast is single-handedly waging a revert war - with 9 reverts in a single day after his unblock - and is reverting about 5 or 6 other editors (who are not reverting anybody but him, and who are all polite towards everybody else) I think it is quite clear what (or who) is the problem here. PS. I am afraid it is you who is not helping here, by trying to appease the user who just broke 3RR three time in less than 24h. Appeasement never works, it only makes such user bolder: as I predicted few days ago, by supporting his unblock from last 3RR violation you only convinced him he is immune to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to appease anyone, and you are hardly enforcing policies when you restore BLP violations and threaten users who remove them. If everyone stopped the blame game and started being civil to one another, then you wouldn't need outside editors like myself trying to sort out this mess. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a single of the 9 reverts I reported concerns a BLP violation. This is a simple case of 3RR warring (something that this user already has a block record of). I am not denying Boodlesthecat POV has some merits, and a consensus with more reasonable and neutral editors is possible, but we cannot reach it with a 9RR warrior harassing everybody who disagrees with him, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending a revert war (I don't agree with your interpretation that this is a 9RR, but that's another matter), what I'm trying to get through to you is that if you blame Boodles for everything and ignore the behavior of others like Greg park avenue as well as what you have said to Boodles yourself, you will do nothing but prolong this conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I would recommend that you explain the constant deletions of well sourced information from this article with reference to what WP guidelines justify these deletions, rather than these continual attempts to orchestrate a team of editors to get their way via an orchestrated edit war (evidenced by the steady arrival of new editors who blindlt revert to your POV) designed to get other editors blocked. There have been zero arguments made justifying these constant deletions, and much ranting instead. You behavior constitutes a seriuos misuse of admin authority. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In reading the "rules" for this page, this "discussion" needs to stay on the question at hand: Did boodlesthecat violate WP:3RR?

Discussion external to that needs to be taken elsewhere. If it continues, I, or others, may follow the directive at the top of this page, and remove it. - jc37 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't close this one since I acted on a previous complaint between the same people and the same article. If the concern is that the edit war is causing disturbance, then full protection is something that should be considered. If the matter raises issues that are larger than this noticeboard usually handles, consider transferring the complaint to WP:ANI. Since Piotrus is an admin I hope he is considering some ideas for resolving the conflict that might win general support. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Both Boodlesthecat and User:Poeticbent reverted beyond 3RR. By numbers, Boodlesthecat was against a majority but by ethnic composition one might too easily see it as a Polish versus non-Polish revert war. A third, uninvolved party should help with getting the article right. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since my family is from Białystok, which side does that put me on? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat is on the 10th revert now. Are we going to allow such behavior to continue and wait to see if he can have 20 reverts in 48h? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not. Just tell User:Molobo over Gadu-Gadu instant messenger to back off. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CABAL is here, muhahaha :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

96 hours. You just can't revert that much against established users, I'm sorry, no matter how right you are. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: 48 hrs )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: various reverts, see below


User has edited the article nearly 30 times in the past 25 hours, and these specific edits appear to be more than three reverts within a 24 hour span, as defined by the rules:

  • Has also been warned twice in the past regarding the same article:

10:13, 6 May 2008 , 02:42, 22 April 2008

  • And, previously blocked for 3RR violations on the same article here
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Domer48 and User:BigDunc reported by User:Setanta747 (Result:no action)[edit]

Both users have effectively assumed ownership of the article, offering no explanation of their reversions of my edit - despite invitation to do so.

Both users have subsequently removed the warnings from their talk pages. They often work in tandem to start revert wars of articles within a certain topic area.

3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting. Additionally, there have only been two reverts by those two all day. 3RR is four reverts for a violation. Decline action here. Metros (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:86.154.178.231 reported by Charles (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


This editor has been making a series of disruptive reverts across a number of pages by re-including material that other people have removed such as lists of siblings and biographical details for those siblings on the pages of royal individuals (something we simply don't do) and also by filling articles with lots of useless info that we normally don't include. FactStraight, another user and myself have been trying to restore some of these pages to a point where we can work on improving them but as you can see, from this and also from the user's contribution history, it is difficult to do so. Two other users and another IP, I believe, have done or are doing the same sorts of things and concern has been expressed that sockpuppetry is in play here. The user has also been reverting to include a non-standard, to say as kindly as possibly, system of dividing the articles with headings. However, the 3RR is concerned here (although I think the background information is important). Charles 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this anonymous editor has been warned not to violate 3RR, in multiple edit summaries and on the talk page of articles he subsequently edited. See: warning re 3RR and warning on Talk page. Most recently, when requested in edit summary to explain the grounds for his repeated reversions on the Talk page, he refused. FactStraight (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, FS. Please also see the exchange on FS' talk page as it is indicative of the anonymous user's attitude toward editing on Wikipedia. Charles 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tempted to let this go as stale, but the IP's comments give reason to believe it will be an ongoing problem. Blocked for 24 hours. If there are dynamic IP issues, we could consider semi-protection. MastCell Talk 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DaveJP reported by User:Snowded (Result: 24 hours)[edit]