Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive89

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

Noticeboard archives


Report Nathanael Bar-Aur L.[edit][1]

Being an distruptive person on all the astrology pages. Also removing verifiable sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No disruption, IP is blanking thousands of sourced bytes of information per IDONTLIKEIT. — Realist2 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood reported by Tales23 (Result: 12h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
Comment: Are you sure you have the right editor? Rick Norwood appears to have only made one edit to this article in the past two days. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
He states: History of logic: Remove material that is clearly off topic, but which may belong under either "number" or "calendar".
But when you see the history of logic section, it starts with "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A" so but now in 35000 they got this already 10 + 1, 10 − 1, 20 + 1 and 20 − 1, so in the respect of Mathematical Logic, and in particular the History, How did humans start to think logic - woman tracking menstrual cycles with lunar phases using a device the bone tools. This had a lot of logic applied! At least contributed here and therfor it has its place in History. --Tales23 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Which doesn't mean he's edit warring. You seem to be coming off of a block for edit warring, by the way. I hope you're not reporting anyone who reverts you just to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No i dont report anyone, especialy Novangelis as he started with reporting me and is not accepting legit references. --Tales23 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
False. You've reported Novagelis on three different articles above, and you seemed to be keeping a hitlist of editors on your talk page that disagreed with you while you were blocked. I think it's best an admin take a look at this. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Daywalker we are on the admin page and to understand the matter you would need to see that they didnt disagreed with my references, accept for Novangelis on the topic Meteorit as the Origin of Life. Furthermore your argument is Off Topic. --Tales23 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

24h for disruption, edit warring, and probably 3RR though I haven't checked that last carefully. I removed the other spammed 3RR reports, if you're wondering where they went to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I see Ed blocked him for 24 already for the 3RR. Sorry. OK, 12h for the AN3 spam instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So we can close this than ... --Tales23 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cali567 reported by (Result: all warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [3]

  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 4th revert: [7]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

Warned. I'm warning you against edit warring, too. At least C is contributing to the talk page, which you should be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 31 hours )[edit]

Hi. This is not a direct violation of 3RR, but an "in spirit" violation given that the user recently came off a ban on a couple of days ago.

  • Previous version reverted to: [9]

EuroHistoryTeacher has returned from his prior 24 ban over reverting the map [10] and is engaging in exactly the same behaviour.

Per the previous report, the user was both warned and acknowledged the 3RR rule.

This user has an ongoing problem of making unreferenced edits. Some more disruptive behaviour at War of Jenkins' Ear: [14] [15] where he is removing a referenced statement. It's been like this for the last 4 months now.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked EHT for 31 hours for edit warring straight (near enough) off the block. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DarlieB reported by User:James Cantor (Result:24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [16]

Warning given to user:DarlieB here

User repeatedly reverting agreed-upon text from multiple other editors. Disputed page is the only page user:DarlieB edits and is part of a long-standing series of contested behavior from this user. User has been making this same edit for long time, over the objections of the other editors working on the page:

— James Cantor (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reported by Kotniski (Result: 1 month)[edit]

From actions at Stefan Banach, Lists of Ukrainians and elsewhere, this user is clearly the same as previously blocked User:, and is back to his old tricks. Please block again.--Kotniski (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for disruption, based on edits like this one. "Russians will pay dearly for their terrible genocidal atrocities.. Russians will work as slaves and prostitutes" (This was in an article, not a Talk page). Appears to be a nationalist POV-warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pietru il-Boqli reported by Taivo (Result: warnings, page protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [24] although I have made some improvements since this version

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

I'd like to point out that Taivo is much more to blame than Pietru, and both of us have had to tiringly deal with him:

mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look carefully, you will note that we have been actively engaged in a discussion on the Talk page. Here you will note where Pietru and I agreed to leave the page as is until the issue could be discussed on the relevant Talk page, which was occurring. There were two people in support of retaining the additions and two people opposed (with one IP opposed). Consensus had not yet been reached on whether to retain the new information or to delete it, thus the initiation of the reversions by Pietru was not justified. I had offered a compromise chart for discussion which Mingeyqla then began to revert without any discussion whatsoever. (Taivo (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, it can be clearly seen that there were 2 users for the column, opposed to 3 against it - evidence of that is the very reverts you reported yourself. I support a 24h block for Taivo until he calms down. A quick look at the talk page shows all opposers have clearly discussed this, despite what you say. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Mingeyqla, I clearly stated that there were two for and two against with one IP against. Calm down? I built a compromise table that would eliminate the contention over the extra columns, but you immediately reverted it without allowing anyone to see it or discuss it as an acceptable compromise and without you offering a single word of discussion about it on the Talk page. Mingeyqla has been repeatedly warned on the Talk page of this article about his behavior. (Taivo (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
It doesn't matter whether the table was good or not (although incidentally, the Maltese words themselves aren't even modern spellings) - it is just as relevant there as adding Spanish to the Romance vocabulary section. Like stated on the talk page, it will clearly be allowed at Varieties of Arabic or Siculo-Arabic - but not here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw I wish to withdraw this complaint of 3RR since I have offered a compromise. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

  • All users warned, page protected; see case below -- Samir 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mingeyqla reported by Taivo (Result: warnings, page protection)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]

User is reverting relevant, referenced material without discussion on Talk page. User has been warned many times in the past and is adept at "gaming" the system, thus he simply deletes rather than reverts. (Taivo (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Comment - Please see above thread, where he himself has been mentioned, and where he tried to frame another user again. Discussion has been ongoing on the talk page, but user simply keeps adding back. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It should further be noted that this user broke 3RR on this article only a few days ago (see bot report here). Edit-warring involving (but not restricted to) these editors is crippling this article - it had to be fully protected only three months ago [42], and the current situation is little better. I hope some action is taken which restores stability to the article and civility to its talk page. Knepflerle (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closure. This is a messy case, and it seems to be a war of experts. Since past efforts at compromise on Maltese language have not calmed the dispute, it may be time for blocks. The three most conspicuous reverters of the last couple of days are Pietru, Taivo and Mingeyqla. Since for the moment, Pietru has stopped reverting, that would leave us with a pair of 12-hour blocks for Taivo and Mingeyqla. I'll leave this proposal here for a while, and notify the participants, to see if they wish to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
While no longer directly involved, I think something should be done: the Maltese language article shouldn't be such a contentious place in which to edit. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed. I appreciate the concerns of everyone that something needs to be done about this. It looks like the reversions have stopped. I will protect Maltese language for five days to encourage discussion on the talk page. To all of User:Taivo, User:Mingeyqla and User:Pietru il-Boqli, you have all edit warred on this article, and have narrowly averted blocks; should this behaviour resume after Maltese language is unprotected, expect that this will be managed by blocks as opposed to page protection -- Samir 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines reported by Alynna Kasmira (Result: blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [43]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

This is not the first time Alastair has been involved in edit warring on this page. Alynna (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Later note: It looks like Alastair has now been blocked for arbitration enforcement. So maybe this report is moot now. --Alynna (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I was going to deal with this but apparently User:Tznkai already has -- Samir 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: no violation)[edit]

EuroHistoryTeacher has just (within the last few minutes) come off his second block [45] for reverting a map at Portuguese Empire. His first action on returning from the block (which it seems that he did not realise he was on until it was over [46]) was to post his intention to revert some changes I made to the Spanish Empire map [47] and which I had notified the community about on the talk page. He then made the revert at Wikicommons [48]. EHT appears to have not learned a thing [49] ("there's nothing wrong with reverting wrong stuff") he wrote a few moments ago. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick doesn't understand is that the map he is proposing IS NOT ACCEPTED by the community yet he wants to impose his will on everybody and (once again) I have to stand up for the majority's opinion and revert his edits. In fact another User (SamEv) was going to revert his map [50] but he was waiting for the rest of the community's opinion and after User:SamEv told me to revert it [51] I did but User: The Red hat of pat ferrick is very good at exploiting this revert issue at the expense of me (!!), please don't fall for his very elaborated story, Im just only one of the users who to disagree with him and Im always the one getting blocked.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like a 3RR violation has taken place; can't control Commons issues here either. -- Samir 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This post is in relation to violating the spirit of the rule, rather than actually exceeded three reverts. The Commons map is being used on a Wikipedia article, and the discussion is taking place on a Wikipedia talk page. The action at Commons affects Wikipedia. Is the purpose of this page not to stop editors engaging in a behaviour? This editor is blocked twice for reverting maps, and his first action on returning is to revert a map! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said, we do not deal with reversions on Commons. Your report does not describe edit warring on en.wp for this editor, so there is no indication for blocking here. Sorry. If there is further concern of edit warring, let us know. Thanks -- Samir 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no edit warring here, the only thing I did was to revert his map and add some areas in the map which he had removed some time earlier and to have done that I had the support of the community who went largely against the will of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and now he came here to get me blocked in spite (as I said) of me having the support of the community .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ziggymaster reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [52]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

4 reverts in 24 hours (5 reverts in 24 hours and 4 mins) there were more reverts by the above user on this article, but they were consecutively made without other editors contributing between the reverts - I have not included those in the diffs.

Just for the record I think there it is reasonably likely that the above user has been using multiple accounts on a number of articles. It might be worth keeping an eye on the following accounts: and

The contributions are very similar, but of more interest are the times/dates of editing, and the fact that one account was registered one minute after another account made its last edit for about 2 or 3 weeks.

I realise that this is not the correct place to report sock puppets, however I have the feeling that if action is taken against one account for edit warring, this edit warring will be continued by the other accounts. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If tendentious editing with multiple accounts is suspected, it's best to take it to WP:SPI. With respect to this 3RR report, there were 4 reversions in 24 hours on this article and reversions continued after warning. I have blocked User:Ziggymaster for 8 hours as a result -- Samir 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested to me to note a further incident involving Ziggymaster here, too, which I do though the 3-revert rule was not violated, it may help establish a pattern. S/he edited out the same passage from the Korea Train Express article twice:
* on 2 January, without any explanation: [59]
* on 13 January, after not responding to a Talk request, giving an explanation in the edit summary that doesn't seem to hold up: [60]
Ziggymaster has not reacted to a request at his/her Talk page, either. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Biophys reported by Offliner (Result: Move protected)[edit]

I think User:Biophys deserves a block/warning for disruptive editing/edit warring. For a long time he single handedly reverted edits made by many people on the Web brigades article. He has his own favourite version of the article text, which he has tried to reinsert on a huge number of occasions.

Here is a recent example of what I mean: [61]

This edit by Biophys was reverted by User:Mukadderat [62] with the explanation: "you know perfectly well what was deleted many times, yet you each time restore it..."

However, since so many editors find his version of the text problematic, Biophys has been unable to restore it anymore. Some days ago, he created a new article, with over 50% of its text copied from an earlier version of Web brigades: Internet operations by Russian secret police. The name he chose is problematic because there is no conclusive evidence that such operations exist: his article is only about allegations. Thus, many people have tried to rename the article to Alleged Internet operations by Russian secret police. However, Biophys has single-handedly reverted the rename 5 times in the last 3 days. This is my main complaint.

Here are his reverts:

Biophys also made an annoying little edit to "Alleged Internet operations by Russian secret police" to prevent people from moving the page back there: [68]

Please note, that Biophys' behaviour has also been discussed here: [69] and I can only agree with Russavia's points there. Offliner (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Move protected - talk it out on the talk page. All parties are advised that "gaming the system" by creating a junk article to win a move war is easily solved by an admin - it doesn't accomplish anything. --B (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Or even consider AfD if you feel the content is covered in Web brigades -- Samir 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I asked to debate this matter and vote, but no one responded. I hope now they will. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We are not a debating society. We are Wikipedia which is based upon WP:FIVE; one of those being WP:NPOV. And the title is NOT NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue 01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
          • We are a discussion society, which include discussing whether or not a title is NPOV, not accepting that it is NPOV merely by personal proclamation of a particular editor. PetersV       TALK 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
          • P.S. It helps to discuss people's positions rather than spout piles of WP:ACRONYMS masquerading as a discussion. Try more words and less labels. PetersV       TALK 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, there has already been discussion about the move. 3 editors have tried to rename to the NPOV title beginning with "Alleged/Allegations of ...", and they have given their reasons in the edit summaries. The only person who has been opposing this and reverting the renames is Biophys. Offliner (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"He made an annoying edit, block him" is the very essence of block shopping. User:Offliner would be well advised to refrain from such an activity. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Singh.siddharth reported by User:Themfromspace (Result: be kind)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]

This user's edits to the article compromise WP:NPOV and WP:V, and both of the times I reverted them (with explanations, of course) he has changed it back, the latest time with an IP. Though the 3RR hasn't been broken yet, I have no doubt of his intentions to keep the page in his preferred way since the latest reversion was made by an IP address. The user inappropriately placed the hangon tag after the article was reverted, but even then he failed to explain his edits on his talk page or the article's. I'm not sure if here's the right place to report this, but since the article isn't watched very carefully I have to report this somewhere or it will soon be an edit war between us two. Themfromspace (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be kinder to the noobs. Use the talk page, explain the problem in greater detail. This doesn't need the mailed admin fist yet, and if you're nice it probably never will William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz reported by Tothwolf (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [73]
Reverting spam isn't a violation. I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio, per PK William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. Hopefully that will cut down on the edit warring. I would like to point out that most of these links don't really appear to be spam and seem to be relevant to the Chatterbot topic. If you go back to the 2006 versions of this article, you'll find a huge number of links and it would appear that most of outright spam/junk external links have long since been culled from the article. Wholesale removal of external links that seem relevant to the article just doesn't seem to make much sense though. (I also want to point out that I hold no bias either way as far as these links go, I just never like to see relevant/useful material go to waste.) Tothwolf (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:POTA reported by - Barek (talkcontribs) - (Result: 24h)[edit]

Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). POTA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:22, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
  2. 21:21, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
  3. 21:29, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
  4. 21:35, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Fixed intro")
  5. 21:39, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
  6. 21:44, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Immortale reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: multiple
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:35, 6 January 2009
    • Agree. Even without the IP edit, the reversions are tantamount to edit warring. Given a previous 3RR violation on same article: 36 hours -- Samir 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit reported by Spotfixer (talk) (Result: 12 hours for User:Schrandit and User:Spotfixer)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [80]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

This is part of a long pattern of POV-pushing edit wars by this highly religious and political user. He also likes to toss out bogus citation requests as a preliminary to deleting text on topics he dislikes, and to argue pointlessly on Talk pages and then ignore the consensus if it doesn't suit him. He's been warned before for WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL violations, but warnings alone do not change his behavior. Spotfixer (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I object to the above misscharacterization of myself but as part of the edit-war spotfixer and I have been having on the page Conscience clause (medical)I did misstep and reverted 4 times inside a 24 hour period. - Schrandit (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Schrandit has broken 3RR by the letter. User:Spotfixer's edits over the past 36 hours contributed to this edit war and cannot be ignored. You both should have just discussed this on the talk page as opposed to reverting each other. If talk page discussion was not fruitful, there are many other avenues for dispute resolution other than reverting what is on the article page. That is not the way we edit and reach consensus on Wikipedia. I think a 12 hour block for each of you is fair -- Samir 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was reverting vandalism, not edit-warring, and I did not violate WP:3RR. Blocking me for reporting a genuine WP:3RR violation by a vandal was neither just nor beneficial to the project. It was not even-handed; it was oblivious. It was also typical of the sort of Legalism (Chinese philosophy) practiced by Wikipedia administrators. Spotfixer (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You need to re-read WP:VAND#Types of vandalism if you think you were reverting vandalism. A point of view different from yours is not vandalism; on the other hand, your three reversions over such a short period of time constitutes edit-warring, and -- hate to break it to you -- constitutes a blockable offense. Calling me oblivious is offensive and, frankly, a bad idea given your previous incivility blocks -- Samir 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you're an admin. You are given the power to enforce policies, in hopes that you will use it for good, not evil. However, in the words of the great philosopher, Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility. When you use your super-powers against mere civilians who you think are criminals, you open yourself up to legitimate oversight and even criticism. There need to be checks and balances, which starts with transparency and a tolerance for dissent, so that you don't become a hated vigilante. You must accept being held accountable for your actions, which makes it your obligation to accept feedback, especially when it is critical. And I am entirely free to vent my discontent with your actions so long as I do so with even a modicum of civility. Threatening me with another bad block merely for expressing disagreement with your last bad block is offensive and, frankly, a bad idea given your previous track record with blocks.
Here's why you were wrong:
  1. Blanking, abuse of tags and sneaky vandalism do constitute vandalism, and Schrandit engages in them on a regular basis. He's a vandal, pure and simple. He violates the letter and spirit of the rules by coming to Wikipedia with a huge ax to grind, censoring articles based on his religious views. He ignores consensus and does his level best to game the system.
  2. I frequently see 3RR reports here summarily dismissed on the basis of being one revert too short. This makes sense, because the only way you can fairly hold someone accountable for crossing a boundary is if you make it possible to approach it without crossing. In my case, I walked away from an edit war by turning the matter over to you administrators. In Schrandit's, he intentionally violated 3RR and refused to revert his edit when this was pointed out. Treating these two very different situations as the same was not even-handed, it was oblivious to the moral and legal distinctions; only one of us was guilty. You punished the whistleblower, which is a terrible precedent.
  3. Note that, just like last time, I spoke of the decision as oblivious; I did not call you oblivious. Rather, you jumped to that conclusion when you chose to take my criticism of your behavior personally. Taking insult where none exists is the heart of incivility.
I hope that explains why I disagreed with your actions. Have a frank and productive day. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Madam, I have never blanked anything, I don't abuse tags, I don't engage in "sneaky vandalism" or the rest of your litany of fictitious accusations and for you to darken my good name by by stating such is dishonest and uncivil. - Schrandit (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't have a good name; you were blocked. Unlike some blocks I've seen, the validity of yours was undisputed. You've also been warned repeatedly and justifiably against both edit warring and blatant incivility (remember "jerk"?). Speaking of which, I think it's time you dropped the "madam". Spotfixer (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
4 reverts in 36 hours is edit warring and is blockable, no matter how you couch it. Thank you -- Samir 06:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're entitled to express your opinion, but unless you address criticisms instead of dismissing them, it's only an opinion, and to be frank, a rather self-serving and unpersuasive one at that. I note that you've said nothing about the issue of penalizing whistleblowers. Spotfixer (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Spotfixer, if your accusations of Schradit are legetimate, then provide diff tags of his edits where he's engaged in these things.- (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not the forum for such things. I mentioned Schrandit's behaviors only to the extent that they are relevant to my reasonable conclusion that he is a vandal and therefore 3RR does not apply to reversions of his edits. The admin, as I pointed out, did not in any way address this issue. Spotfixer (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're saying that your accusations against another editor are relevant, but that any possible evidence in support of your accusations is not.- (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that the reasonable belief that he is a vandal speaks to my state of mind and intent, and is therefore relevant. The correctness of my beliefs, while well worth standing by, are a distinct issue fit for another forum. Spotfixer (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The reasonableness of your belief cannot be determined unless you present the evidence (diff tags) on which you are basing it.- (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy reported by Cerejota (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [82]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

I normally do not want to use these methods, in particular because his voice is a valid one... but all avenues have been exhausted to stop edit warring.

The drop that overflowed the cup for me was this edit summary: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR[88]

It felt like blackmail: if you feel there is a need for DR, then by all means pursue it. But going around threatening is not positive and contributes nothing. I gave it a few hours of consideration, but there is no two ways about it.

Images clearly meet WP:IMAGE requirements for being relevant. Multiple users have requested that he stop edit warring. All this happens on the background of meat-puppetry and possible sock puppetry that is being looked into.

There also the issue of the lead, but he seems to have calmed down a bit in this respect, maybe slow-warring, but not as active as with the images.

He has made good contributions, even on the midst of this edit war, but his behavior the last week around this image issue has been less than stellar.--Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith notice. The article under question is an a horrible state of POV. A bunch of SPA's that recently cropped up are swarming the article and not allowing any neutrality come through in the name of "no consensus". Despite these impediments, Tundrabuggy has patiently and civilly interacted with all the editors at the talk page. He is probably the most prolific editor at the article's talk page. Accusing him of being an edit warrior is an extremely ironic and wrongful accusation.
There was no 3rr by the letter of the rule. The last two edits were two edits in a row. Additionally, The first edit was a totally different issue. Although 3rr applies to different reverts, it is not applied to humongous news articles where the information is changing rapidly. The accuser should know better and not make a baseless accusations just to silence another editor who disagees with his POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to mention that user:Brewcrewer hasn't been involved in the lengthy discussions regarding the photos, only when it came time to vote on the issue did he arrive to place a vote. The majority of people that have been involved in prior discussions voted that the photos should remain. The majority of people who voted for removing the photos have not engaged in previous discussions and include people who are new to Wikipedia, possible SPAs. Brewcrewer is helping tundrabuggy in the constant deletion of the photos despite that the photos are relevant and free to use, and there was no dispute when the photos were initially placed in the article [89]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The irony is delicious. You opened your account 8 days ago and have edited nothing outside of this conflict. Yet, you accuse other editors of being SPA's. And I actually have been more involved in the lengthy discussions, but the discusssions took place before you opened your account, 8 days ago. I was disgusted with the swarming spa's shoving their POV's into the article in the name of the SPA's consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion didn't come before I came. I am the one who uploaded the images that are the subject of debate, I was the one who initiated the thread regarding uploading the photos. I was part of it from day one and you were not ever part of them. You came only when there was a vote. As with your accusations regarding SPAs, the people who agreed to the photos include people who have engaged in the discussions prior to the vote and they include chandler, cdogsimmons, sean hoyland, Nableezy, vice regent, cerejota, RomaC, and myself. Also, Jvent is another voter who agreed, he had also uploaded images that are being removed by you both. Among those who disagreed before the vote was initiated include only tariqabjotu, rabend, and the Squicks, and maybe tundrabuggy, the rest are new users and people who thought to take advantage of the vote. You have your facts all mixed up, the page is there, open for every one to see. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I said discussions, I was not referring to the specific images discussion. As for list of editors you mentioned, I don't know where you're going. Being involved in discussions is not relevant to WP:SPA. But in any case, it's irrelevant. This is the edit-warring noticeboard and it's clear that there was no edit warring going on, whether in fact or in spirit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Brewcrewer has serious personal issues against me, and refused informal mediation to resolve them in a highly uncivil manner [90]. His notice of "bad faith" in this case is bad faith in itself... he also got me blocked for a few hours once (over the lamest thing: tags!): he is far from uninvolved. --Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit-warring noticeboard, not the place to air general greivances (especially if they are unfounded). As I pointed out, there was no general or specific edit warring. Would you like to redact this notice?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You are just poisoning the well. I hope that admins will see through it. --Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio. A personal note: while we're making edit comments like "Dead baby" or "dead child" pictures are propaganda for one side. , I find it odd (given the balance of deaths is so one-sided) that the first pic is of an Israeli house, featuring a destroyed doll William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR report, it is an edit-warring report.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I should alert people to the following:

  • 5th revert (post warning): [91]
  • 6th revert (post warning): [92]

--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest insertion of the contested material is by an SPA who has been editing this article, and this article only, for 2 days. Here are just a few of the insertion-reversions of the photographs, [arbitrarily starting 10:48, 18 January 2009 -- ending 10:27, 19 January 2009, a 24 hour period. Read from bottom up --- Clearly there is NO CONSENSUS here. The photographs are obscene and offensive, non-neutral, not properly sourced or licensed, and unbalanced. They should be OUT of the article until and unless there is a consensus to put them IN. I would take it to dispute resolution but I have never done it and not sure how to go about it.

[93] 10:27, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,347 bytes) (Undid revision 265097873 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

[94]10:25, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,211 bytes) (Undid revision 265097536 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

[95] 03:49, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,559 bytes) (undo)

[96] 03:55, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,748 bytes) (undo) see edit summary "a dead Palestinian child killed by the Israelis"

[97] 04:07, 19 January 2009 Wipkipkedia (Talk | contribs) (168,656 bytes) (The picture was not suited to the words, and was very biased, the picture did not belong where it did.)

[98] 02:47, 19 January 2009 RomaC (Talk | contribs) (167,588 bytes) (?Casualties: Replacing the gallery see Talk or take it to DR if you prefer) (undo)

[99] 01:32, 19 January 2009 WanderSage (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (What are pictures of corpses and charred infants doing in a section about Israeli calls to Gazans?) (undo)

[100] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

[101] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

[102] 23:31, 18 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (166,914 bytes) (Undid revision 265025950 by Tomtom (talk) what's with this guy) (undo)

[103] 22:27, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (166,321 bytes) (Removed Tagged non-free images,again. Get the tags removed and AJ to release then they can stay.) (undo)

[104] 20:41, 18 January 2009 Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (166,734 bytes) (?Casualties: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR) (undo)

[105] 16:57, 18 January 2009 Falcorian (Talk | contribs) m (167,140 bytes) (?Warnings: Don't need to repeat the exact same gallery twice, and seems better in the civilian section) (undo

[106] , 18 January 2009 Doright (Talk | contribs) (162,060 bytes) (Restoring Tundrabuggy version reverted by Nableezy per Tundrabuggy edit summary and Talk and restoring NPOV) (undo)

[107] 14:41, 18 January 2009 Nableezy (Talk | contribs) (165,877 bytes) (Undid revision 264937769 by Tundrabuggy (talk)Vandalism) (undo)

[108] 14:37, 18 January 2009 Falastine fee Qalby (Talk | contribs) (161,853 bytes) (revert tomtom9041, when in doubt check it out. don't remove the images before looking up its license) (undo)

[109]14:34, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (161,495 bytes) (Removed non-free images, aJ logo on them) (undo)

[110] 14:29, 18 January 2009 Timeshifter (Talk | contribs) (162,602 bytes) (Undid revision 264941188 by Tomtom9041 (talk). These are free images. Check the image license tags, and the source links.) (undo)

[111] 14:21, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (162,160 bytes) (?Incidents: Removed non free images) (undo)

[112]10:48, 18 January 2009 Skäpperöd (Talk | contribs) (168,634 bytes) (?Casualties: gallery) (undo) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

^Let me break that list down for the unlucky person who is going to handle the case. The above user's list includes tomtom's removal of the pictures and our subsequent reverts of tomtom's edits. Tomtom doesn't object to the content, he just thinks that the images are not free, despite us telling him on his talk page and the talk page of the article that the images are under an accepted license (CC-BY) something that the above user is refusing to acknowledge as well. User Falcorian just removed the copy of the gallery: I had accidentally copied and pasted instead of moving the gallery thus doubling it, and Falcorian just removed the copy. User wander sage removed the gallery because it is in the wrong section even though he could have easily moved it himself.
Also, the above user is saying that there is no consensus to keep the pictures even though there is barely any discussion and dispute regarding the Al Jazeera photos of victims, and he is not even trying to build consensus. People tried confronting him but he is refusing to do any reading of the discussions and checking the licenses etc. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
My reversion in that list is after tundrabuddy removed well cited text from the lead, I havent been involved in the photos besides adding a few comments in the talk, so I cannot really speak on that. But tundrabuggy has shown a persistence in demanding information be removed from the lead over the past 2 weeks, information that has been agreed upon by a wide variety of editors and is well sourced, and has been reverted by several editors for that removal. Yet tundrabuggy persists in performing such actions. But the reversion in my name above is not involved with the reversion of images being discussed here. Nableezy (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This report is closed. Please see the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Historiographer reported by User:ADKTE (Result: warning)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: multiple
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [113] You have reverted on Joseon Dynasty many time. If you revert again, you will be blocked.ADKTE (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I implement the time stamp and "alleged 3RR warning" (actually threat in my view) that the reporter missed to include. This is a hoax report by ADKTE as gaming the system in order to harass Historiographer. Historiographer neither violated 3RR nor even reverted 2 times within 24 hours. Since Bukubku (talk · contribs) inserted misleading contents (original research and misuse of cited sources), Historiographer reverted his edit as much as Bukubku has. However, ADKTE suddenly appeared to blindly revert Historiograher's edits without even looking into the sources. ADKTE is the one who reverted 3 times in 24 hours, but accused Historiograher as his threat. Moreover, after I gave him warnings for his potential 3RR violation (at this point nobody reverted more than 2 times except ADKTE) and his uncivil behaviors, but he then gave me retaliatory 3RR warnings as copying my warning to him[114][115][116] and threatened me to report if I attacked him based on his age. That is a false accusation which never occured.[117][118] According to his theory, his edits ignoring consensus are "constructive" anyone who reverts his edits are doing vandalism.[119] The user also disruptively reverted the article in question to split of Joseon Dynasty without any discussion nor consensus. However, despite the fact that he clearly knows many Wiki rules and has been warned for his disruptive behaviors, his hoax report based on bad faith should not be condoned. ADKTE deserves to be block for his harassment and gaming the system rather to try to resolve the dispute by discussion.

--Caspian blue 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Matthew_hk reported by User:Gcarini (Result: )[edit]

  • Page: Thiago Emiliano da Silva
  • User: Matthew_hk

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]

  • 1st revert: [122]
  • 2nd revert: [link]
  • 3rd revert: [link]
  • 4th revert: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This user has engaged in MALICIOUS edits of the Thiago Emiliano Da Silva page insisting he belongs to a certain football club by the name of Tombenese. There is no mention of this website in the website. He constantly engages in revisions on the webpage, when I made the changes with accurate sources. I suggest this user be blocked from editing this page. Gcarini (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lega Calcio is the ITALIAN Legaue office, so you cannot found Tombenese- Brazilian football club (company). Lega Calcio source is to support Silva is not a Milan player yet because in the list you cannot find his name (just like Pato, able to play club friendly does not mean he officiality registered and able to play official games). But in Brazilian FA OFFICIAL contract archive you can find the entry of Tombenese. As you state your support of "reliable" source is (about his free transfer and etc), but i would say, stated Pablo Daniel Osvaldo completed a transfer to Bologna, but actually not happended. Matthew_hk tc 09:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
To the reporter: your report is missing all the diffs save the first. Could you please provide the rest? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:AKR619 (Result:Blocked three months)[edit]

User constantly edit wars on this article (List of science fiction themes), after multiple blocks for disruptive editing and incvility. All his edits are completely against consensus, that has existed for months, and he refuses to discus on the talk page.

Today he broke:

  • the 3 revert roll again, [123], [124], [125], [126]
  • and made personal attacks,like this one
  • and pointy edits with summaries such as: "Once upon a time this article had all these things with no complaints, then Yobmod fucked it all up, well now I'm fucking it the way it was used to be" and "BUT FUCKING LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA PAGES, THEY FUCKING SHOW SCIENCE FUCKING FICTION THAT HAVE WHAT'S LISTED, NOW FUCK OFF!!!"

These edits have been reverted by multiple users inclusing an admin, and have caused multiple warnings just today (in addition to many other warnings that are no longer on his talk page).

The 3 day block did not work at all, except to give me chance to add all the citations in the consesnus version, so a longer block is needed. (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide diffs for the edit warring? I'll grant that that diff of his telling another user to "fuck off" is pretty damning, but that's not exactly what this noticeboard is about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs added, we had an edit conflict. There are many other such diffs too - another 3 yesterday too for example.Yobmod (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please not, that blanking his talk page and "retiring" is a common tactic. Last time, this forced the article to be semi-protected to stop him sock-pupetting with IP addresses, and then he came back with more warring from his "retired" account - therefore a block is still needed. If he retired, can the block be indefinate? And can an admin remove the personal attck he left behing on his talk? I don't like refactoring others talk pagesYobmod (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three months by another admin. I don't see that indeffing him is appropriate; it would do nothing to prevent sockpuppetry that the three-month block doesn't, and I don't imagine the community's patience with him is exhausted yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's now his second indef block, so i think some of us are a little exhausted. But many thanks for taking a look. Hopefully that will be the first and last report i have to make here!Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Rene (result: no vio)[edit]

Can I have some help with a dispute? Someone is repeatedly deleting two reliable sources ( and from the article on Ralph Rene. I have asked them to stop, but it has happened 3 times now.

As a bit of background, Rene was a major proponent of the Apollo moon landing hoax theory. The article mentions some of his claims, but doesn’t mention that these claims have been debunked by scientists and engineers. This is why I am trying to add those sources to the article. I’m not sure what to do next to resolve it, advice is welcome. Thanks. Logicman1966 (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's edit warring that merits a block (particularly a violation of the three-revert rule), please report it here using the standard method (click the link near the header of the page; it'll show you the right format). If not, I suggest heading for dispute resolution, which I think is really more what you're looking for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a bit more to this content dispute. USRepublican (talk · contribs) put a vandalism warning notice on Logicman1966's talk page, which I have removed as there was no vandalism. When I looked at USRepublican's talk page history I found this [127] and I think that the comment on the 'real world' life of someone needs deleting. Something I haven't done yet and would like guidance as to how to do it (or does it need oversighting)? The content dispute itself should be discussed on the talk page and I'll try to get that to happen. dougweller (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 3RR to me. If the anons continue to revert-without-talk, then maybe semi. You don't seem to have bothered warn them. Aside: debunking the bizarre stupidity of people who believe in the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories belongs on that page, which is OK, cos its linked from the top of RR. There is no need for detail in the RR page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Lowery (result: )[edit]

A minor edit war is developing on Joseph Lowery over whether 'some conservatives' have criticized him for his benediction today. Most of the edits are from unregistered users. Maybe semi-protect? topynate (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick look suggests that there are valuable anon contribs to that page. Since you can't be bothered to fill in any detail, I couldn't be bothered to look any more deeply William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are valuable anon contribs, but there's still an edit war going on. I'd like semi-protection for the following reasons: the article is a BLP, and so should be subject to great scrutiny as far as unsourced, poorly sourced or biased edits are concerned; the article is about someone who's public profile has seen a significant but likely temporary boost, due to the inauguration; most of the tendentious editing is being done by anon users without comment or sourcing. I'll add that the pattern of editing has persisted since William's comment. topynate (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Miw93 reported by Sjö (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [131]

The edit history shows that Miw93 is the same user as the blocked user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He/she has been active on other language versions, on the Swedish Wikipeida editing from and Just a heads-up for those that watch Ethiopia.Sjö (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h, probably for vandalism, by Gyrofrog William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reported by User:Michael X the White (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [132]

There is proof that the contributor-warrior appears with several IPs but is the same person (from comments on the recent diffs in 2008 Greek riots history, from one-edit IPs and from vandalism history of my own user page). The changes made have been discussed in the past and consensus was reached but this person keeps ignoring it and has started edit-warring using different IPs so not to visibly violate 3RR. This person seems to have "technical" knowledge of Wiki [138], and has had a warning of 3rr violation (but yet keeps edit warring) [139]. He admits in Greek "I'm the only one with no account editing this page" when he had a warning about edit warring [140]. What I propose is not banning but protecting the page from the non-registered.-Michael X the White (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected two weeks. About half of all the article edits in the last two days are from IPs, yet I see little or no discussion by IPs on the Talk page. It is plausible that this is all the same person, who has gone way past 3RR, and whose edits are mostly reverts. EdJohnston (