Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive80

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Diva411 reported by User:CMJMEM (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User has repedidld vandalized page. it is the only page that they are editing.CMJMEM (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This user could easily be the subject of the article, please try and communicate with them. John Reaves 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned It is customary to warn them before reporting them here. I was very close to blocking the reporter for edit warring as well. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: There is certainly an edit war going on at the page, but following the 3RR warning, Diva411 made two more reverts as seen [2] [3]. A short block for 3RR or refusing to follow procedure might still be in order, or perhaps a brief protection of the page. I've made one more revert and a plea to take it to the talk page for Diva411. Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Before I could get back there, an IP reverted DIva411's edits, which seems to be the work of the other editor. I'll leave this one as is for admin attention, thanks on advance. Dayewalker (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: probation by tznkai; user de-watchlisted)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [4]
  1. 03:34, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG per long-running talk page discussion")
  2. 16:46, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ NPOV again")
  3. 17:02, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")
  4. 21:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per WP:BRD, undue weight - see talk")
  5. 22:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")
  6. 22:09, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")


This is EW; both removing content without discussion, citing NPOV (or BLP, as yesterday) to win a content dispute; and now edit warring also to include an NPOV tag. Kelly needs to step back from these articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing this right now, but will also be reviewing all other users on that page.--Tznkai (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Inserting an NPOV tag is a revert now? Kelly hi! 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is absurd. Given the number of people attacking the Sarah Palin articles (6500 edits in the last 7 seven days, vs. 5500 for Obama for the entire year) if this rule is applied to editors defending these articles from POV and BLP the articles will soon descend into a basement of libel and wild inaccuracy. This is just like a denial of service attack.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How something is done is at least as important as why.--Tznkai (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've disengaged and unwatchlisted the Palin pages. Time to hand this off. Kelly hi! 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to say this is the oddest definition of 3RR I've ever seen. Any edit is apparently considered a "revert". ~:) - Kelly hi! 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(E/C)Like Tznkai said, the edits themselves may not be wrong, but the way they are being brought about is a different story and ultimately that is the whole basis for WP:3RR along with WP:EDITWAR. Tiptoety talk 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
People can, and have, been blocked for edit warring over inserting or deleting NPOV tags. Even if that were technically to be considered a violation of 3RR, that seems a matter best worked out on the article talk page or if necessary a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule or a dispute resolution page. Kelly is a good faith editor, trying to help with some exceptionally high volume editing articles, who has not been an edit warrior and shows no inclination to be, so I don't think a block would help the situation even if one disputed the wisdom of the edits (and most people would agree with them, probably).Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)In my capacity as an administrator familiar with edits in question, I am of the opinion the Kelly is a good faith editor. However, I have to be fair, and this is the second 3RR in two days. In an application of common sense I have made this offer[5]--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly has apparently agreed to the conditions I laid out and is on a topic ban for 24 hours from Sarah Palin related article space. Kelly is clear to make constructive comments on related talk space. If this ban is breached, default to standard WP:3RR block, and use your best judgment. I would also appreciate being notified via talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50 reported by Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)[edit]

Time reported: 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:37, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 236575861 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
    Remaining edits restore to the version of 20:50
  2. 21:06, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "stereotype")
  3. 21:17, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "USE the talk page")
  4. 22:51, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk page contribus (dead example)")

—— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I also came here to report this. User:Ramu50 is now at 4 reverts plus the initial edit. I left a specific 3RR warning [6] after the third revert. Discussion at Talk:Function (mathematics) is unanimously against adding this material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing--Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakrtalk / 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Time reported:Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [12]

Comments Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise[13], his last revert would have been 12th revert.

He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[22]
this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. Manacpowers (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.Kumdo, Club for Editing of Korean History, Baekje, Dojang, Second Manchu invasion of Korea. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit.[23][24][25][26] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

24 hours????.too short .WHY??? He is too bad.

User:Grayghost01 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Warning)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [27]

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [32] In addition, a warning in an edit summary at [33] was also given.

This sequence is the result of conflicts between this editor versus myself and several other editors (one other has particularly been singled out by Grayghost) over several articles including Confederate States of America, Great Train Raid of 1861, and Winchester in the American Civil War. The editor repeatedly categorizes others' edits as vandalism both in edit summaries and by actual warnings placed on user talk pages. He identifies his particular POV a well as editing style at User talk:Grayghost01#Neo-Yankee vandalism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy. Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it. I posted a 3RR warning at 16:47 7 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The warning seems to have stopped the edit war; we'll leave it at that. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy on other wiki-topics, see my list of created pages and long-standing contributions of high-quality. The user User:North Shoreman, from Ohio, originally made the POV alternations to Virginia in the American Civil War, on off-topic news articles, and various details below the level of detail appropriate for the page. As a Virginian, and member of the Virginia Task Force and Civil War Task Force, I stick to contributions of my locality. North Shoreman has a POV on the Civil War that he wishes to put in almost every page on a Southern Locale. Several times I have had to undo off-topic out-of-scope edits that North Shoreman has INTENTIONALLY put in only for the sake of being bothersome, not in the INTENT OF GOOD WIKI SPIRIT. In my humble opinion, the Revert-Violator and well beyond 3RR has been North Shoreman. I have called his attention to look at himself introspectively, to see his own conflict of interest on the topic (An Ohio-man with a POV editing Virginia pages, disputing with a published Virginia Historian). In conclusion, there are both POV and COI problems here. I have advised him that if he wishes to diatribe or blog on Lincoln and Fort Sumter to PLEASE ... PLEASE ... go ahead, but to do so on pages on THOSE topics. As a retired instructor from Marine Corps University, and curriculum developer on topics such as this ... I'm frankly apalled ... but thus is the nature of Wiki to deal with bothersome folks such as this. Good day, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a P.S. topic, as a resident of Winchester, Virginia, you will see in that page which I created initially quite awhile ago, a depth of information, content, graphics and quality not present in many other ACW pages. I have obtained free-release permission on many embedded images, as well as created many. My contributions are purely historically-topic in nature. I have added and cited many references. If the gentleman from Ohio, User:North Shoreman, honestly things he has something positive or valuable to contribute to these very localized articles Winchester in the American Civil War, Great Train Raid of 1861, Romney Expedition ... then by all means, he is welcome. However, as I mentioned previously, as a published author I do not agree with the nature, the content, the orientation, and the level of detail of North Shoreman's edits. In fact, they are intented to express his POV on the Civil War as a whole. By chance, I made a minor edit to the very high-level topic of Confederate States of America by merely adding a secession date for Arizona Territory (a well documented historic fact). Thereupon User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae proceed to war-edit on this page, and then delve down into other areas where I mainly work and contribute. I am merely a retiree, Virginia historian, spending free time on history packages, tours, and writings. I am local to this area, and work with local organizations, schools, etc. for the promotion of local history. My contributions (see my user page) are focused in Virginia and locally. I don't normally contribute to the high-level topics where User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae like to edit frequently with their POV. I stand confident that any fair examination of these users vis-a-vis my contributions will reveal a very different tone and nature, and from my contributions you will find material which is organized, coherent, thoughtful, and attractive to wiki users reading on this topic. I hope that the admins and admin-helpers here are diligent in their examination, interested in the aims of Wiki, and take the time to exercise due course as necessary. Finally, I have invited these users to discuss on the discussion pages. They have had no interest in this normal forum, and simply undo, revert, and war-edit at will. Again, thank you for your time in the matter.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Karvok reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:24 h)[edit]

Hugh Ross (creationist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karvok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:07, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237214380 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
  2. 05:46, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237221562 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
  3. 06:02, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237223177 by Hrafn (talk)")
  4. 06:12, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237225054 by Hrafn (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (Kafziel did the blocking, just noting here.) Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Be Black Hole Sun (talk) reported by Andreas81 (talk (Result: Users warned )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [40]

I don't want this user to be blocked completely but to stay away from the site Roxette discography. He erased information which was given a reliable source and that can not be accepted. so please could you please make this user stay away from this site or block him from editing this site. thank you. Andreas81 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay first off, most of those reverts are Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Secondly the Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs) has never been warned (I have now done so), the warning diff you provided above is that of a warning issued to you from Be Black Hole Sun and I heed you to take that warning because you have caused just as much disruption as him. I am going to leave this open a bit longer and see what transpires, but I am thinking (and hoping) that no block will be needed here. Tiptoety talk 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the edit war has appeared to die down and no one has edited the article after their warning. Tiptoety talk 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh reported by Canadian Monkey (Result: Stale )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [41] - this is a complex 3RR violaiton, invloving partial reverts.

  • 1st revert: [42] edit sumamry describes it as "partial rv"
  • 2nd revert: [43] edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237146162 by Hypnosadist" - simple revert
  • 3rd revert: [44] reverts this edit by Raggz
  • 4th revert: [45] edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237168311 by Raggz" - simple revert
  • 5th revert: [46] edit summary describes it as "Undo series of unilateral edits"
  • 6th revert: [47] edit summary

describes it as "Restore material." - repeats many of the reverts included in revert #5

  • Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned about violations before [48][49]

Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Westrim reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [54]

Made a single revert after the warning and reverted my warning calling me a "perpetuator" of 'said war': [55]--Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [60]
  • Two previous generic warnings today for disruptive editing. [61] and [62] WilyD 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Robbo25 reported by Pfainuk (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [63]

  • 1st revert: [64]
  • 2nd revert: [65]
  • 3rd revert: [66]
  • 4th revert: [67] (Came before the 3RR warning)
  • 5th revert: [68]
  • 6th revert: [69]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [70]

I'm not involved here, just noticed it on my watchlist. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I checked out the article and the reverts - can't speak for all the diffs but in the last one he has certainly added a source and it cites exactly the information he claims it does. Porterjoh (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was just about to make a correction. The source actually shows up in the fifth revert. The source does appear to say what he says it does, but he's still edit warring over it. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "bankrolled" is being used pejoratively here, sourced or not, and if you look at previous edits you can clearly see this is the intention. Beve (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
He has also continued to revert after the 3RR warning. I've lost count now. The user insits that anyone disagreeing is a vandal, which is hardly playing nice. The source provided is hardly great. A piece in a tabloid that uses the term once in a throw away fashion? I'm not sure it meshes with the other sourced info where his father was having towork hard to support Lewis' racing. Narson (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakrtalk / 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perry mason reported by User: (Result: User warned )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Okay, first off this user was never warned in regards to this, so I have done so. Secondly, a few of the reverts are Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. If the user continues, I will block them (but understand that it takes two to edit war and if the IP continues they will be blocked as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talkcontribs) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Shootmaster_44 (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [75]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [83]

While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user ( I had the same problem with a few days ago. I resubmitted this report as the previous one I edited did not seem to be getting any further action. There have been some intermediary edits on the template during this edit war. The correct version should be [84] However, the template asked for a correct version from before the edit war began, so that is the one listed above. Also, the user has progressed into making nonsensical edits to the page as demonstrated here [85], Ron Lancaster has not played for the Riders since the late 70's and does not belong on there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also, Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Tiptoety talk 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mooretwin reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 1 week )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

There has been an ongoing discussion here, and they were told by two editors how the information could be introduced, but kept reverting anyway. Now they have again reverted, adding references which do not support what they want to say. We all know the term is used, just not by the Party itself. Now they are trying it on with this article, granted the last edit made me smile, when they cop what they are after doing, but that is beside the point. Likewise this seems to be the next article we can expect more of the same. A quick click of the link would have ruled out the need for a citation Ulsterisation. They seem to have a thing about reverting consensus versions? Thanks--Domer48'fenian' 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Tiptoety talk 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Catiline63 reported by Arcayne (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Catiline63 is a fairly new user who sometimes fails to sign in before editing, (thus, the anon account: (talk · contribs)).

  • Diff of 3RR warning:
-To the anon: 1, 2
-To the primary account: 3, 4

I've offered to counsel the fairly new user, and didn't report him yesterday when I discovered the seven reverts yesterday. I warned the user, and hoped (s)he would listen to the warning to stop reverting. The last two diffs indicate that the warning was ignored. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  •  Question: Has Catiline63 stated that they do in fact edit using that IP (if so, could you provide a diff, please)? Tiptoety talk 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, sure did. Less than two minutes after the anon posted in article discussion here, Catiline67 signed in, and posted that the anon response had come from him here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, seeing as neither the IP or the named account has edited since you have left them a warning, and seeing as neither their IP or named account have ever been blocked for 3RR or edit warring before I am going to give them the benefit of doubt. But if they revert one more time I will block. Tiptoety talk 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind you giving the contributor another chance, but I respectfully believe that you might have the chronology backwards. The user was warned via his anon account at 11:17 and 11:24, September 9, 2008, and via the named account at 11:59. The 8th and 9th reverts occurred after that notice was made. During that notice, they were encouraged to ask questions before reverting. It did not happen.
Again, I don't mind the newbie (if they are indeed such) getting cut a little slack, but it is important to note that (s)he were told what the rules were, and the user reverted anyway. At least a small block or stern warning would seem to be warranted. If they are new, they need to know that we take our rules rather seriously. If they aren't new...well, same thing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Durh! I guess I did not see the first warnings, just the second ones. As such I have Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PsychD11 reported by Yilloslime (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Yilloslime (t) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked This looks like a run of the mill vandalism to me, and seeing as the account is clearly a SPA I have indef blocked it. Tiptoety talk 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jamescp reported by Jagiellon (Result:User warned )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [93]
  • 1st revert: [94] 17:42, 10 September 2008
  • 2nd revert: [95] 18:01, 10 September 2008
  • 3rd revert: [96] 21:53, 10 September 2008
  • 4th revert: [97] 22:48, 10 September 2008
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [98]

Comment: Apart from the above 4 diffs, user Jamescp has made more than 50 other edits to the article over the last 24 hours. The majority of his edits have been to delete existing material. The majority of these edits can therefore be considered disruptive, as they remove valuable information on the topic which has been added in the previous days and weeks by numerous other editors. Others have already pointed out to this user the disruptiveness of his edits (see for instance [99]) which nevertheless continued unrestrained afterwards with little or no discussion. Please pause this. The page is a controversial page which has recently been locked for similar edit warring reasons. Jagiellon (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note I have left the user a message/warning, lets see where it goes from here. Tiptoety talk 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 reported by Bignole (Result:24 hours )[edit]

Phlegm Rooster reported by Hobartimus (Result:stale )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [providing below]

Previous edit being reverted 12:51, 9 September 2008 inserting poll numbers

Previous edit being reverted 16:53, 9 September 2008inserting section header religion

Previous edit being reverted 05:26, 10 September 2008 Jossi inserting the section header again

Previous edit being reverted 09:40, 10 September 2008

Further edits within 24 hours that could be potentially reverts, [100] deletion of marathon info. And other deletions (could be reverting the person who inserted them) [101] [102] [103]. I think this case is somewhat similar to that of Kelly [104] in that due to circumstances, some type of non-block measure should be used so the block log is not affected. Hobartimus (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Maybe I am the only one here, but the diff's provided above do not link to anything, and I am having a hard time finding anything recent in the article history that has Phlegm Rooster's username linked to it. Tiptoety talk 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Tiptoety talk 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Robbo25 reported by Beve (result: already blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [113]

User has returned to edit war on the article ten minutes after a 24-hour ban expired, against clear consensus of several other editors, whose reverts he labels as "vandalism". No intention to reach consensus by discussion, his last edit states "The discusion will continue forever and never come to a conclusion". If you look at the user's edit history, there is only one constructive edit that I can see, the rest is blatant POV at best and vandalism at worst. The user clearly has no intention of following the rules and will continue to revert against consensus ad nauseam. Beve (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DX120 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [114]
After warning
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [119]

Use has been adding a win which other editors including myself have removed. Only reason for gap between version reverted to and 3 reverts was a 12-hour block for disruptive editing. Also this personal attack [120]. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For edit warring at multiple pages. --Oxymoron83 10:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing reported by Pyl (Result:warned )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [127]


The second 3RR warning link was given because the account in question admitted he/she was one and the same person as (having 2 or more accounts). The admission is here. [129]--pyl (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Correct me if I am wrong, but no three of the revert diffs are within 24 hours. As stated, I previously edited at an IP, and created an account upon being prodded; yet he filed a misleading sockpuppet report. All of this appears to have been done because User:Pyl has a particular position regarding ROC/Taiwan and has been unable to get his way on this article: this editor has engaged in edit warring throughout (whomever that may have been with) and has not used the article's talk page to compel or to get a consensus. In fact, the editor whom Pyl has accused of being the sockpuppetmaster (?) restored and reformatted references Pyl blatantly removed to further their viewpoint.[130] So, if I am to be disciplined for edit warring, Pyl should also be. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I believe that creating an account to circumvent the no-3RR rule is a violation of the rules, even if these accounts aren't sock puppets/sock puppeteer (which I believe they are). I've only listed reverts under the Bosonic dressing account and the reverts done by your other account is not listed in this report. But the administrator is free to inspect the history of the article for further details.--pyl (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account is not an attempt to circumvent anything: you asked for the creation of an account to legitimatize edits, and now you have submitted a plethora of reports to distract and conflate. Whatever else you believe is, frankly, irrelevant. And your long, drawn-out, dilatory responses, edit warring (including the removal of references pointed out above), and multiple reports regarding so simple a notion is inane and borders on disruptive. I have no further commentary regarding this ... editor, or actions same. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Lets see where it goes from here. Tiptoety talk 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stale
    Tiptoety talk 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale )[edit]

No sorry. The first entry cited above is clearly an edit of long satnding text, and not a reversion (if you look at what Piotrus is trying to pass off as a "reversion," you will see that all that was done on his edit was wikify a name--the edit I made was a correction of an error in long standing text--while leaving his wikifying alone). So in fact, both Piotrus and I did 3 reversions.
Piotrus' reversions
So I'm afraid this latest attempt of Piotrus to use the 3RR process for edit warring doesn't fly. It's also the second harassing 3RR complaint in a week. Its getting annoying. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No, Boody; you have removed part of the article four times within few hours. The fact that my previous edit was, as you point out, not a revert, only means I've not violated 3RR, it doesn't say anything about you. It is quite possible for one user to violate 3RR and the other not to. You should be familiar with WP:3RR, you have done that thing before (reverted four or more times within 24h) and you should now the consequences. PS. And yes, your edit warring and habitual breaking of 3RR is getting annoying. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, first one was clearly an edit. And since you are being scrutinized right now in your Arb for this very sort of misuse of the system for edit warring, I actually would have expected that you would have known better. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverts are edits, yes. You removed something four times. That's a violation of the 3RR (just as adding something four times would be). In that case it's the same something and your violation is easy to see (and similar to ones from your past). And yes, I am sure that ArbCom will take your continuing history of edit warring and 3RR violations into consideration when they get around to issuing some rulings.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No the reverts start from the point where you reverted my edit, not from my edit (which is not a revert). Come on, you should know these things. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if the closing admin agrees that you can remove something from the articles 4 times within 2 hours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Ok first off both parties here have violated WP:EDITWAR, but seeing as blocks are not punitive and the edit's in question are a bit stale, I am going to leave both editors unblocked. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: clear 3RR by Boodlesthecat; I would've blocked him and warned Piotrus if I had seen this report fresh; it is now being moved to a separate venue, though. Black Kite 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceOfCanada reported by User:G2bambino (Result:both blocked )[edit]