Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive85

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Elohimgenius reported by User:collounsbury (Result: Malformed/Incomplete)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

In Reverse Chron, 16 Nov. all


Although not involved in this, I have been an editor of the Moors article. The edit war seems to have been set off by this editors strong POV edits. Discussion seems to have occured, but rather one sidedly on the user pages of the two editors. (collounsbury (talk) 14:32, 18 November 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) 16:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
From a check of the history, I believe this case might have deserved a block if it were timely filed. (Though the URLs are to versions rather than reverts, you can see the reverts if you append '&diff=prev' to the end of each one). The reverts listed are two days old (Nov. 16). Since that time, other editors have removed the inappropriate POV and original research from the article, so the issue is less pressing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful. Well I only came up on this today, as for the fucking report form, one reason I detest this bloody process is it geared to internet nerds. Thanks for your bloody help, goddamned Wikiwhankers. (collounsbury (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
There's a few people watching this article now. That should help. It is traditional that admins don't take action on stale reverts, since that means the edit war could be over. You might also get assistance at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard if the champions of this unusual point of view continue to try adding it to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reported by RolandR (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

Not obvious that #1 is a revert. No reverts since your warning. No vio, unless anything further happens William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sachingolhar reported by Touchdown Turnaround (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

Only 3R, and none since the warning. No vio. Be a bit more understanding to newbies William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rave92 reported by Nikola Smolenski (Result:Editors warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

Nikola (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thats not a warning, thats you reporting him here William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If you guys continue on like this I'll have to lock the page and eventually block your accounts. C'mon. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC), User:BaldPete, User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II reported by CIreland (Result:IP blocked, editors warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: Irrelevant
  • Diff of 3RR warning: All users show talk page evidence that they are aware of the three-revert-rule.

CIreland (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked IP. I'll warn the other two. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Zbrink89 reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24h and 8h)[edit]

  • Aside from the 3RR violation, this user has shown extremely incivility with a single purpose: removing referenced info from the article.--Caspian blue 14:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
24h for Z. 8h for K William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reported by Kevin Forsyth (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [29]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

This editor appears to be the same person who has performed the same edit in the past, from this and one other ISP: see [35], [36], and [37]. Repeated requests for a reliable source have resulted in edit warring accusations and profanity. Their response is always the same, reverting with shouted warnings about "edit waring" [sic] while themselves violating 3RR. The edit in question is their attempt to add a term for Grimbarians that is intentionally derogatory. (The term has also been denied by an editor who claims to be from Grimsby.) Each time their edit is removed, it sets them off with these results. Truth be told, I have violated 3RR myself to revert this edit which I consider disruptive, but as far as I can tell only I and editor Keith D seem to be aware of the disruption. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2008-11-20T17:56:27 Keith D (Talk | contribs | block) blocked (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: first violation of 3 revert rule) (Unblock). Consider yourself lucky not to get a gentle tap yourself; the claimed vandalism exemption is dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon2239 reported by User:User: (Result: Protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

This user has become belligerent and refuses to discuss any edits. He appears to be taking ownership of the article and is reverting other good faith edits as well. This article is also up for deletion with overwhelming support for deletion. He has since deleted the 3RR warning. (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I have already protected the article and we usually allow new users a little slack. Deleting the warning is fine. He knows the score now and will get blocked if there is further edit warring. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole[edit]

Dabomb87 is performing dozens of edits (and if you go back further, hundreds) which are currently disputed at WT:MOSNUM. Specifically, he is unlinking full dates and despite a good faith discussion and RFC forming, he is refusing to stop his automated edits pushing his POV. I believe this is "edit warring". —Locke Coletc 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment – Abstaining from any action on this subject due to prior interaction with Locke Cole, but other parties should note WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, WP:ANI#Locke Cole. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Coment. Date-linking is something on which the community has not yet made up its mind. Admin action taken from this noticeboard might have trouble winning general support. I suggest that you add any complaint about this editor's work to the existing thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly there's no harm in stopping these mass edits from being performed is there? It doesn't help the ongoing discussion and debate when you have this editor (amongst others, I might add) using a single script (created/maintained by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)) to make so many automated edits that the opposing side just throws its arms up in disgust. See my notification diff which quotes a recent ArbCom decision stating that just these types of acts are wrong. —Locke Coletc 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So that makes your nearly-automated edits (and that of Tennis Expert) correct or more respectable? Conducting such edits in a matter of seconds over dozens of pages hundreds of times is just as nasty as an automated account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually my reverts, when I was doing them nearly a week ago, were done entirely by hand. Trust me, if I chose to address this as my opponents do (mass scripted edits with little or no actual checking of their work) I could probably do a thousand edits a day. But that would be just as disruptive as the edits I'm reporting here. Or do two wrongs make a right now? Give me the word and I'll proceed immediately to automatically undo all of their edits. —Locke Coletc 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, can you tell me how Dabomb87's actions are not in violation of this ArbCom decision? — Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompliLocke Coletc 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there has been consensus to not link dates since August. See the MOS archives, Featured Articles and Featured Lists, and this page. I do check my work, the thing is, do you (Locke Cole)? See these edits ([46] and [47]); not only did you link the dates against MOS, but you introduced inconsistencies in date formats within the article. If that is not an example of making an edit without checking work, then what is? (P.S. Locke Cole, you could have informed me about this thread instead of letting me find out for myself) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Twelve editors in an unadvertised straw poll are not consensus to undo something across the entire wiki. Fascinating as the idea may be, it just doesn't work. Especially when at least as many editors have came to the page since this was "decided" and registered their dislike for the change (only to be told, effectively, to go away; or simply ignored). Now I invite you again: stop unlinking dates and join the discussion/RFC at WT:MOSNUM. This would 1) cease your disruption of Wikipedia and 2) allow you to voice your opinion on date linking. —Locke Coletc 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You forgot this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't. I just don't see the relevance. I asked them to stop for a week or two before finally caving and joining them in their disruption. I'd really rather NOT be disruptive though, and despite being asked (often times repeatedly) to stop, they choose to continue. There's an RFC being discussed and more at WT:MOSNUM and it's clear (to all but the most arrogant) that this practice is disputed. —Locke Coletc 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is edit warring, without implausibly stretching the definition. Provide clear evidence of edit warring if you believe otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's edit warring date-delinking record and intentions, as evidenced by his edit summaries, are clear. For example:
Casey Dellacqua: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).
Jessica Moore (tennis): (1), (2), (3), (4).
Hurricane Fifi-Orlene: (1), (2), (3).
Air raids on Australia, 1942–43: (1), (2), (3).
Roscoe Tanner: (1), (2), (3).
Steve Shak: (1), (2), (3).
Chuck Jones: (1), (2), (3).
Christina Fusano: (1), (2), (3).
Jamal Sutton: (1), (2)
Robert Ssejjemba: (1), (2).
Diplomatic history of Australia: (1), (2).
List of surviving veterans of World War I: (1), (2).
Darlene Hard: (1), (2).
Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You forgot this (and more). seicer | talk | contribs 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise and dispute resolution, I am willing to voluntarily stop my delinking edits with the script. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe that is part of the solution. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Hmm, OK, from [48] it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. [49] appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, William; that sounds like good advice. While the community decided on the removal of date autoformatting and links to irrelevant date-fragment pages in August and much earlier still, respectively, there's a small band of loud complainers—none of them representative of WPians or readers at large. I note that these complainers are increasingly resorting to dramatic techniques to shout down hard-working editors who are striving to assist general users to bring their articles into compliance with the style guides. This page is just one of those techniques, which include the posting of threatening, bullying messages on talk pages; I'm sorry that your time and that of others has been taken up in dealing with it at this point. Tony (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 72h)[edit]

All additions are violations of WP:RS and WP:BLP as well. Thanks, Grsz11 →Review! 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: 8 hours & 24h & 72h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [59]

Serbia/Kosovo edit warrior took a month off and has now reengaged. Is blind-reverting general article fixes as well as country names. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Now off his block, the user has re-reverted the article again [67]. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
And...he's back. With a somewhat amusing edit summary, considering his behavior: [68]. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Gave notice; further reverts will result in an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reported by CH52584[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [69]

  • I warned him about ownership of articles on his talk page: [72], which he blanked before making his most recent revert.
  • I then warned him that he is not providing an argument against the current consensus on the discussion page: [73]

He's insisting that because the Ole Miss-Mississippi State football game wasn't called the Egg Bowl before the 1930s, all games before then shouldn't be listed on the page. There is no precident for this practice for any other named rivalry, and I've asked him to take it to the discussion page to build consensus, which he has not done.

I have also noticed that he is making the same changes to the Jackson, Mississippi article as well, using the exact same message in his edit summary, quote, "restore original content and original flow of the article before it got all mucked up." This has been his exact edit summary for all three reverts of Egg Bowl and the exact edit summary for several reverts of Jackson, Mississippi. CH52584 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted just as often. You've made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. You haven't warned the anon of this report. I could just as well block you, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The same subject was brought up on the talk page several months ago. I don't think a final agreement was ever made, but since I've been editing this particular article, this is the first time that this particular issue has come up. I have responded to that discussion on the discussion page, and have enouraged the anon to do the same. He has, however, blanked his own user talk page twice since I first posted this alert, so I'm not expecting a response from him. I think he is content to continue arguing that the page is "mucked up" in his edit summaries. CH52584 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Srkris (result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [74]

(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.

User:Dbachmann removed academic references and reverted one of my edits. I inserted the reference back and time and again he removed the same without any justification. He seems to be quite rude and obstinate and made the reverts in very quick succession before I could warn him about 3RR. I could not understand why he was removing a reliable academic reference, and he doesnt seem bothered to explain any of his reverts although I tried to bring sense to him, no avail. He accuses me of pushing POVs, but the very version before his reverts will show I sought to establish NPOV and reliability to that article.­ Kris (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see his simultaneous violation of 3RR for Vedic Sanskrit also below

  • Previous version reverted to: [79]

(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)

Too late, he reverted too quickly for me to issue an advance warning.

He seems to have reverted this article too, making it a double-3RR in a single hour.­ Kris (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

24h. No 3RR vio, but edit warring, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
May I enquire why Srkris was blocked, but not Dbachmann? PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight, this editor has been nothing short of disruptive in the past few weeks. Calling him a "good editor" on his talk page as you did [here] is simply not accurate. Edit-warring is one thing; making this sort of commentary is another, and then allowing it to slide is not something we can afford to be doing. There's been wikistalking/wikihounding concerns too in addition to inserting factual errors in Wikipedia. He clearly is a net liability to this project if he continues editing and making unacceptable comments in this atrocious manner - his edits on his talk page since being blocked clearly show that he's going to continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground. Given the variety of concerns, I'd like the duration of this block to be increased so that if he is to return to editing, this is not going to continue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't give PK a particularly good answer. Now 3RR has become edit warring, the lines are blurred, and things become more a matter of judgement. I reviewed S's edits, and the ANI thread, and decided he was at fault. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of block becomes more common, if the feature creep here continues. I'm still comfortable with the block William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. I would have probably given Dbachmann a shorter block - perhaps 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Endorse block for User:Srkris, could have been much longer. Good call, William. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Veecort reported by User:McJeff (blocked 24h)[edit]

A very brief synopsis of the events. Veecort was previously very active on the ITT Tech article, but took a several-month break from editing. His first edit upon return was to revert the article to the last version he had edited, as seen here. He then continued to revert war by readding the things he wrote in the "controversy" section.

McJeff (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours due to disruptive editing – as a side note, McJeff (talk · contribs) looks like he might have violated the 3RR; however, I'm ignoring this, since it's clear that Veecort (talk · contribs)'s edits were substantially more disruptive in that several editors also thought it necessary to revert Veecourt over several days (e.g., [83] [84] [85]). However, I highly advise McJeff (talk · contribs) to also be wary of his reverts in the future, for even when consensus seems to back you, you should still avoid breaking the three-revert rule yourself. --slakrtalk / 08:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that I was only at three reverts, and I was being conscious of my revert count as seen here, where I asked another editor to step in. I'm familiar with 3RR (having once gotten myself blocked for getting careless and forgetting it) and the clause that one isn't entitled to 3 reverts per 24 hours. McJeff (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Roaring Siren reported by Collectonian (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: link
  • 1st revert: link
  • 2nd revert: link (in edit summary he states "we could be at this all day")
  • 3rd revert: link (edit summary of "thanks but no thanks")
  • 4th revert: link
  • 5th revert: link
  • Diff of 3RR warning: link

Despite three other editors reverting his addition, Roaring Siren continues to revert, ignoring the 3RR warning and making edit summaries, as noted above, indicating he intends to continue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 12 hours. If this carries on the next one will be much longer. Spartaz Humbug! 20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [91]
User has not reverted since being advised of the three-revert-rule. Not closing this yet though since his last edit was less an hour ago. CIreland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The TriZ reported by User:Hakkari (Result: No action)[edit]

User continues to delete sources and changes articles w/o using citations on several articles.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

ADMIN NOTE: Hakkari (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Am6212 (talk · contribs). Confirmed by CU Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). لennavecia 04:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No action. This result is not carte blanche to edit war on the Assyrian/Syriac naming issue, but there is no evident 3RR above, most of the reverts being stale. Some articles may need protection if this continues. (The sock Hakkari was not auto-confirmed and would have been stopped by semi-protection). Editors who think they may be participating in such issues in the future should be sure they can link to a Talk page discussion to justify their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam.J.W.C. reported by Noodle snacks (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [107] (There may be intermediate changes, the thing here is the taxobox image)

I have not warned the user, however he is well and truely aware of the rule and has a history of similar behavior in regard to placement of images he has uploaded. If you dig through his talk page there are deleted discussions on such matters.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [112]

Since I tuned in and reverted at the sydney bridge article these reverts at urban exploration have occured as "revenge" only minutes later:

Despite clear consensus for the other image at Talk:Urban_exploration#New_image_that_was_just_added Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The third revert listed is not by Adam.J.W.C. and I cannot find another that you could have meant instead. CIreland (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Elysander reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 24h)[edit]

User:Elysander has been warned more than once about 3RR. He very rarely ever gives a viable reason in the edit summary for his reverts other than the fact that he believes his version to be the "stable" version. Although he can change the article in which case his changes become the new stable version. He also accuses people he disagrees with of making disruptive edits. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

24h for E and I William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Switchintoglide (result: warned)[edit]

User:Switchintoglide is a new user, like me, and is not responding to requests to stop removing my content from David_Ferguson_(impresario). I am attempting to add a well cited *Legal History* section to the article and requests for citations. The new section has had a Third opinion and mostly all of the recommendations were implemented with the exception of once which was not relevant since the information it requested was clear in the context of the article, but the review read the addition out of context. I have warned the user just now about the 3 reverts rule and have reverted the vandalism, putting me in violation of the 3RR myself. Please advise. I'm trying to play by the rules

Cassandrar (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumed newbie, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse reported by Tennis Expert (Result: )[edit]

  • Diff of dispute warnings: (1), (2)
  • Lightmouse has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the five diffs above are but a mere sampling of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of edit warring, it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of disruption. I believe this does, however, meet WP:EDITWAR, especially if you read the first section:

Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.


Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.

  • My notification of Lightmouse about this edit warring case can be found here.

Tennis expert (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note The admin who chooses to review this should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Special:Contributions.2FTennis_expert, where the general dispute recently received extensive administrative attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That discussion was largely sabotaged by an admin who not only blocked an editor but proceeded to engage in assisting pushing the other sides POV. Obviously the more background information people have on this the better, but hopefully nothing there will be used to excuse this disruptive behavior (when most people seem to be trying to help with the RFC). —Locke Coletc 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note See also: Special:Contributions/Tennis expert, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#Locke Cole. And note two other reports by Locke Cole above, both of which were closed as no vio. You should really choose your wording more carefully LC; I was the blocking administrator and I failed to see how I "sabatogued" the extensive edit warring on both sides. In fact, and I've asked this three times already and have yet to receive a response (outside of "look in the archives"), but can you provide a link to a page that states consensus towards keeping the date-links? seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer you misrepresent things: the admin (Master of Puppets) of the Date delinker report above was quite clear that the only reason he took no action was because the editor appeared to have stopped. It wasn't a "no vio" as you claim... —Locke Coletc 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere up above, I said Hmm, OK, from [122] it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. [123] appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) and I can't see any reason to revise that. Its not clear why Lightmouse's edits don't fall into the same category. Furthermore Lightmouse does appear to be in breach of the use conditions on AWB. This needs to be sorted out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC or Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) oe whereever William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note (e.c.) I'm sorry that the time of admins and others is going to be wasted here; this is part of a political campaign by several users at MOSNUM talk to threaten and bully those who work to have articles comply with community decisions that date autoformatting be no longer used and that date fragments not be linked (a battle that was resolved quite some time ago). Several users, among them Tennis expert and Cole, have been waging a war of intimidatory notices on talk pages, stalking, edit-warring and loud complaint. They are few in number, but make up for this in their loudness. They seem to be picking off users they disagree with one by one and taking such quasi-legal action as this, without success thus far. I can provide evidentiary links on request. Tony (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the AWB guidelines, please note the following two extensive discussions on this topic here and here. The discussion included but was not limited to contributions by Tennis expert and Locke Cole. Lightmouse (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines are fairly clear: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding. You are very clearly doing something controversial. Everyone else seems prepared to wait for the RFC (no?); you should too William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see a debate on ANI as to whether date delinking is a breach of AWB guidelines. But it would be a duplication of a previous debate within the AWB jurisdiction itself i.e. here and here. The outcome was that date delinking is not a breach of AWB guidelines. There is nothing to stop ANI duplicating AWB debates about AWB guidelines or finding another guideline that wasn't mentioned in the first debate. But it seems to me that if ANI is discussing a challenge under AWB guidelines, we need to go back to AWB and tell them they made a wrong decision. Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Doing controversial things is a violation of AWB guidelines. If date delinking is controversial, and it is, then date de-linking is a violation. Previous discussions about "inconsequential" seem... inconsequential. I don't see why it should go on ANI. Please join everyone else in waiting for the RFC William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Is something controversial when one person stands up and shouts loudly in protest, or is two three or four enough? There are only 2 people standing on rooftops, jumping and waving flags, and I totally disagree that that is sufficient to make something controversial. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. The AWB people said date delinking is an acceptable use of AWB. If the AWB decision was wrong because they forgot about the 'controversial' guideline then they need to be told of their error. I certainly don't think that date delinking is controversial despite vocal disagreement from editors like Tennis Expert and Locke Cole. If a challenge is to be made under AWB guidelines then the AWB people need to be told that their original decision is being looked at again. Lightmouse (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Since all editors have been notified in some fashion or another, and since this has gone on long enough at EW/AN/ANI with three reports that were all closed at one point or another, if there are any further de-linkings or linkings by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, or other involved editors, they will be blocked for a period of 24 hours. Gain consensus for this at the RFC, not by revert-warring. Furthermore, I suggest that all editors involved refrain from posting on each others talk pages; some of the comments generated on both sides is nonconstructive and unhelpful. seicer | talk | contribs 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I find it a regrettable and lamentable pronunciation - To grant what is effectively an injunction to delinking is capitulation to two loud bullies. We are just doing my bit to tidy up WP in accordance with guideines. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note (e.c.) TE's complaint above cited certain 'problematic edits': However, it would appear that the problems relate more to the incorrect date formats which litter WP. He complained about 5 here and another 5 on LM's talk page,which I have analysed as follows:
    • 1st edit: [124] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
    • 2nd edit: the [only] date link in [125] was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
    • 3rd edit: [126] was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
    • 4th edit: [127]
    • 5th edit: [128]
In User talk:Lightmouse#Follow-up_on_previous_warning_about_delinking_dates TE also warned about certain 'problematic edits'. It's the same story as above, I have analysed those cited as follows:
  1. Apollo 17 was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout;
  2. Royal League 2004–05 refers to Dutch Football, and was correctly converted by LM to dmy;
  3. the [only] date link in Secret Intelligence Service was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
  4. the [only] date link in Royal Knifefish was in the reference or WP:EL section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
These cases, chosen apparently at random to illustrate the 'offenses committed' by Lightmouse are actually symptomatic of the lack of consistency between articles, and clearly illustrates the important work LM is performing to effect compliance with WP:MOSNUM. It also illustrates the disruption being perpetrated by the complainant in concert with User:Locke Cole whether in terms of edit-warring, stalking or other actions against all who disagree with their stance. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. Anymouse reported by Dlabtot (Result: user warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [129]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

Dlabtot (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned There is no evidence that user was aware of the rule before this report was posted. I have reverted the user's post 3RR violation edits, warned the user of the rule and for the significant incivility on his page towards Dlabtot. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Melkortheevil reported by User:Peter Fleet (Result: already blocked 24h )[edit]

Comment User:Melkortheevil has already been warned for edit warring here and has chosen to ignore the warning. In the past two days he has reverted the Slipknot article 8 times and appears to be a single purpose pov account. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked --slakrtalk / 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)[edit]