Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive92

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Marcperkel reported by wrs1864 (Result: 12h each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


  • 1st large edit/revert: [2] Note that there are 24 edits in this diff. This started with marcperkel making a large number of additions/changes. I reviewed these changes and, assuming most changes would be good, piecemeal reverted small sections until I had reverted a large portion of the changes and merged other portions into the existing "drawbacks" section.
  • 2nd edit/revert: [3] Note: 5 edits here. revert by Marcperkel, restoring much of the new stuff he added and I had deleted. In addition, he merged and move stuff around.
  • 3rd edit/revert: [4] Note: 3 edits here. I revered Marcperkel's re-addition of the "how to implement" section, along with more edits, including renaming the "drawbacks" section to what I thought was a more acceptable "Known problem cases when implementing Callback Verification".
  • 4th revert: [5] Marcperkel re-added "implementing" section.
  • 5th revert: [6] User:AndrewHowse removed all sections that had "implementing" in them as per WP:NOTHOWTO
  • 6th revert: [7] I restored the original "drawbacks" section because it isn't a "howto" section, renaming it again, now to "limitations" (as per the title in one of the references that covers the same material.
  • 7th revert: [8] revert by Markperkel back to AndrewHowse's version.
  • 8th revert: [9] I reverted to add back the "limitations" section (originally the "drawbacks" section) and added inline references as per a request by AndrewHowse on the talk page discussing re-adding this section.
  • 9th revert: [10] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
  • 10th revert: [11] revert by me
  • 11th revert: [12] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
  • 12th revert: [13] revert by me
  • 13th revert: [14] revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted. Note this revert was soon after User:RegentsPark had given a third opinion that the "limitations" section was important for the article.
  • 14th revert: [15] revert by Marcperkel to restore the "implementing" section, previously deleted by AndrewHowse
  • 15th revert: [16] revert by me.
  • 16th revert: [17] revert by Marcperkel
  • 17th revert: [18] revert by me
  • 18th revert: [19] revert by Marcperkel
  • 19th revert: [20] revert, with follow-up edits to address points from the discussion on the talk page
  • 20th revert: [21]revert by Marcperkel
  • 21th revert: [22] revert by me
  • 22nd revert: [23] revert by Marcperkel


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

While there have been a large number of reverts, neither of us have technically violated the WP:3RR policy. There has also been a large amount of discussion on the talk page and many points that I thought we might be merging toward a consensus, or at least had the potential to be working that way. Many of the reverts had followup edits by both parties to try to resolve things. We appear to have had two third parties come in and try to resolve this situation. However, I no longer see a good way to proceed via the talk page and other resources and I think the article as it stands now neither represents the WP:CONSENSUS from the previous two years nor is it an encyclopedic article.

As a summary, I feel that User:Marcperkel is asserting himself as an WP:EXPERT to use this article as a WP:SOAPBOX to create a WP:NOTHOWTO article based on WP:OR.

12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rapparee71 reported by NJGW (Result: warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [25]


  • 1st revert: [26]
    • (a reversion of [27])
  • 2nd revert: [28]
    • (a reversion of [29])
  • 3rd revert: [30]
    • (a reversion of [31])
  • 4th revert: [32]
    • (a repetition of the above reversion)
  • 5th revert: [33]
    • (a reversion of [34]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

This all revolves around a section which Rapparee71 has demanded be removed. After being reverted by 5 separate editors in the past week, Rapparee71 has started making POV edits which have also been reverted by different editors. He has made 5 sets of reversions in the past 24 hours. After being warned for a 2nd time of 3rr and asked to self revert the 5th set, Rapparee71 tried to compromise with a partial revert[36]. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be argued that the edits I have made are POV Edits or not. That is the point in which I have been trying to get across to Jim Dunning and NJGW. I changed the title of the sections back to "Misogyny" to appease NJGW, but BoomerAB actually changed it back to "Alleged Misogyny"!
The section in which I changed the introductory sentence of the second paragraph of "Themes" was, in fact, already edited by Jim Dunning from the paragraph that I had inserted in the first place (a quotation from Richard Adams from an interview with BBC Radio). I was merely improving on his edit. This is neither against the rules nor the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, to date, I haven't heard any complaints from Jim Dunning on this specific action. The edit to his edit was merely an effort to streamline the sentence and to take out superfluous words he had added. All of this is clearly within the bounds of a good edit. None of the actions I have taken are "vandalism". All edits were made in an effort to improve the article.
Since I made an effort to reach a compromise (several times in fact) and they were summarily reverted without an effort on the other party's part to reach a compromise, I can only assume that NJGW's motives are vindictive in nature. Also, let us not forget that this is a community effort and I also, am a member of this community. The ONLY reason it could be argued that I have violated the 3RR "rule" is that NJGW and Jim Dunning have insisted on repeatedly reverting my revisions without discussion. Or when they do discuss it, they do so without giving my opinions (term used loosely) equal weight. Rapparee71 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not clear that this is 4R. You'll have to follow the instructions for "complex reverts" if you care. I'll warn R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I revised this to show 5 reverts in 24 hours, after the initial warning. Prior to this, the editor reverted 8 times in 48 hours. NJGW (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Constructive editor reported by Martin451 (Result: 24h )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [37]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]

Martin451 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

24h. yandman 08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon reported by Jenuk1985 (Result: talk / DR)[edit]

.. among others, see user's contributions

  • Previous version reverted to: [44]

The above are diffs for Isaac McLellan, there are about 8 articles the user has reverted in this way.

The user repeatedly removes orphan tags despite being warned not to by myself and another user. The user has also engaged in what I believe to be uncivil conduct on my talk page: User_talk:Jenuk1985#WTF, but that may be a different road I'd need to go down. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You and he and who knows who else disagree about those tags. You need to talk it over rather than revert it over, perhaps at the relevant noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Caldwell reported by Anyone77 (Result: talk)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st edit: # (cur) (prev) 15:41, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,291 bytes) (See discusion section) (undo)
  • 1st revert: # (cur) (prev) 17:35, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
  • 1st undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 21:08, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,311 bytes) (Undid revision 272531823 by Lynn Caldwell (talk)) (undo)
  • 2nd revert: # (undo)# (cur) (prev) 21:33, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
  • 2nd undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 22:01, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,330 bytes) (See Discussion section on this matter and use it rather than wantonly vandelizing the edit.) (undo)
  • 3rd revert: # prev) 00:26, 23 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,209 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)


  • I made what I have termed the "1st edit" above in the interest of accuracy to the facts. "Lynn Caldwell" evidently doesn't like the fact that changes I made to his link description are accurate to the facts and has engaded in what appears to be a 3RR violation. He will not use the Discussion section to respond to my posting there on the matter, even though I have directed his attention there. He wrongly claims that I am vandalizing his posting. As there are numerous links in that External Links section, I provided a brief discription of each so that the reader may choose which to investigate without having to look at each one. The facts I noted in the description of Caldwell's link are accurate to the facts, and I can easily prove them. He wants to give a false impression of what his site actually contains. That just doesn't seem right, as this doesn't seem to be a forum for private opinions, but rather a place of simple facts. Please help, allowing my description to remain, and blocking him from changing it if necessary. Thank you Anyone77 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) -->

Um, looking at the diffs there is no strict 3RR vio, and the text being removed is odd. I've mentionned this on the talk page: it looks to me as though that link should die, not be qualified William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

86.155.147.172 reported by CHawke (Result: semi)[edit]

  • Page: Hawkwind
  • User: 86.155.147.172


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]



(No 3 reverts in 24 hours but a constant battle over the last week or so over unsourced entries between myself and IP address only users - initially I flagged these two changes in the Hawkwind#2000s section as "fact" requiring citations - the fact tag kept getting removed - after a week I removed even the entry as these "facts" should have had another source by now - and invited anyone wanting to change the page to add it to the talk page rather than direct - the latest IP editor has reverted to the unsourced, untagged version almost straight away--C Hawke (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure blocking one IP is going to change much. This is more of a BLP issue. How about I semi-protect it for a short while until the user(s) behind the IPs discusses it on the talk page? yandman 13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Semi Protection would be cool - thanks for understanding, this is the 1st time I've had to raise things like this, so not sure what was best - I think the user will either get bored or, of course, there is a chance that the "facts" will have some external source after a while - how do I go about getting the protection removed once added? --C Hawke (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. It'll expire in 1 week. If after that time the issue isn't resolved, drop a note on my talk page. yandman 14:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks - I'm sure the other person will get bored - and I am pretty sure that these different IPs are the same person--C Hawke (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Amyseekuif reported by Ward3001 (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [48]


3RR warnings here and here. Level 4 warning here.

Amyseekuif was blocked for 24 hours. I also warned Ward3001, who also was close to 3RR limit. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cosmic Latte reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: No violation/No block )[edit]


  • 1st revert: 09:09, 23 February 2009 , reverting someone's minor addition;
  • 2nd revert: 16:42, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
  • 3rd revert: 21:37, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
  • 4th revert: 22:51, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."

FYI, the article is subject to arbcom sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page." Thankfully I have this page watchlisted. Anyway, "1st revert" doesn't even pertain to the section in question, so I have no idea why it is even mentioned here. In fact, it involved the removal of a claim (perhaps introduced in bad faith) about "conspiracies," whereas my later reversions involve the inclusion of information regarding conspiracy-related perspectives, so the mention of this "1st revert" is especially bizarre. "2nd revert" involved the restoration of a sentence in which the views of a signifant minority were attributed to their source. Only "3rd revert" and "4th revert" involve the restoration of the entire section that appears to be in dispute now. As per usual, I have made extensive use of edit summaries ([53], [54]) and the talk page. The pertinent discussion may be found at Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories. There, I have made what I consider a compelling case that the views held by a significant minority should be attributed to that minority, as per WP:DUE, which states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." A third of the American population, while not an individual adherent, is nonetheless prominent, and it is reliably sourced (see this talk page post of mine). Whether or not the view of a significant minority is "backed" by the sources is of limited relevance, because, as per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I pointed that out on the talk page here. Apparently unable to refute this, TH has thrown a 3RR template and vague references to an ArbCom hearing at me, even though I'm not advocating anything substantively new or more controversial than what had already been included in the article, but rather am advocating that the perspective already included in the article be attributed to the significant minority that happens to hold this perspective--a move that is supported by WP:DUE, the very policy that is being distorted and overmphasized in an effort to discredit my edits. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, note that other editors ([55], [56]) have been making subtle modifications to the disputed section (as have I: [57], [58]—note how I resolve the issue of potentially "dated" sources by putting both sides of the debate in the past tense), so there certainly does not seem to be any consensus that the section should be eliminated entirely or even reduced to a bare minimum--a minimum that, oddly, eliminates the balanced attribution prescribed by WP:NPOV and its WP:DUE section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I find it discouraging that people are using this forum to "report" a good-faith editor—one who makes extensive use of talk pages, edit summaries, and policy references—rather than following the much-less-confrontational steps outlined in WP:DR (see this talk page post, for what it's worth). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I am going to do the bold thing and not block Cosmic Latte. The important thing here is that Cosmic Latte, that if you know you're getting close to the 3RR/Edit Warring rules, to back off. 3RR is really really bad, and its obvious that when you have two reports on the same page. I agree on the case that the first revert would immediately discount this as 3RR. Cosmic Latte, I think it would be better if you backed off for a little while. I know that September 11 is a strong fighting area, and I don't think a 3RR needs to spawn another ArbCom case. I am saying this, Cosmic Latte, one more 3RR violation, and you might be blocked, pretty harshly. Tom Harrison, don't you think this is leading to stalking a bit? Its his second report by you and I believe its time you back off from him.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to back down in terms of reverting, but as I feel that my position is defensible in terms of policy and have used the talk page extensively to demonstrate this, I think it might be a reasonable discussion for a pertinent WikiProject, WP:RFC, or WP:3 (any of which would have been my first choice for "reporting" a dispute like this if my intent is not to alienate myself from other editors). Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
While your edits of themselves may be defensible, you still may not cross the 3RR line. When you reach that point it's either time to stop, or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. Please note also that the 3RR guidelines at the top of this page make it clear that reverts do not have to be the same material. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, there is just the problem that eventually this causes more problems. I understand what you want, and you're right about defense of your position. However, be careful how much you make your position known. I often screw up royally when I do, and make giant rants, 1/2 that aren't correct. Just understand: Bad decisions ---> Problems between 1 or 2 users ---> More users do "Great War" declarations ---> RFC ---> MedCom (or ArbCom) ---> Bad reputations ---> Users fight and hate you totally. I don't like the decision and the highway leads to a bad area. I am a big person against banning or blocking, and will alway look for the probational way out.

I am going to watch this page more carefully, if anything comes up, it may involve more issues or harsh punishments.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as has been noted here, I did not violate 3RR. I have never done so, have no plans to do so, and (in apparent contrast to the spirit of some of what has been said above) have never tried to make any case that I should be able to do so. I said that "I'll be happy to back down in terms of reverting," and I hope that you all will take my word for it. If my word is not enough, however, I offer you this evidence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic (although it might seem odd more because it's simply unusual for AN3), but probably appropriate to mention because it can help me to improve as an editor and thus help to improve the project, at least insofar as I am involved with it. I invite anyone who has participated in this thread, including Mr. Harrison, to comment at my editor review. Rather than canvassing for glowing feedback, I often find it useful to hear from those who have interacted with me in difficult circumstances--even circumstances, such as this, that I feel should not have arisen in the manner that they did--in order to help me better to address, and indeed to avoid, such circumstances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Solino reported by User:Wiki libs (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


Comment User:Solino was warned for edit warring after a period a multiple reverts on the same article of the past few weeks. The user ignored the warning. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursAitias // discussion 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result:Warned )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [59]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]
Addendum: a fifth earlier revert--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User keeps adding the claim that legitimate criticism of Israel is confused with Antisemitism, despite a rought consensus at the Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Criticisms_and_condemnations and repeated warnings that newsletters or blogs (i.e. CounterPunch and a The Brussels Journal) are not a reliable source according to WP:RS. The same editor also before expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "Judeopedia" due to articles such as this (see [65]). Afroghost (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd and 4th revert allegations are illegally constructed. User Afro is carrying out a personal vendetta against me because I made edits that he did not like. If anyone looks at history of the article, one would realize that it was the user who reported against me that started the edit war(from which I had gracefully exited). His mentioning of a comment I had made at a specific context in a talk page again and again wherever I make an edit shows him carrying personal vendetta Zencv Lets discuss 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring disaster area. As usual, all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order. Deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume your account has been compromised, because otherwise I cannot explain why you are not following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions. And your claims are ridiculous, several editors, including me tried their best to keep the article in order. Afroghost (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-02-22T23:50:34 Black Kite (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Afroghost (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This block is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The block was for unrelated reasons. Action still must be taken against User:Zencv who violated 3rr and was clearly edit-warring in violation of the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I can only find 3 reverts by User:Zencv. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The four reverts are listed above. Although the fourth revert has slightly different wording then the first three, it was a revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Does a rephrasing count as a revert? --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A revert with slightly different phraseology is a revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems a tad more than slightly to me. The phrasing removes 'those concerned with anti-semitism' and is expressed in a more neutral fashion. Borderline perhaps, but worth cutting the editor some slack here. Perhaps a warning to be more careful but no more than that. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see how it is more neutral. I would also support "cutting some slack" but not when it's really the 5th revert (added above) and when the same editor has been grossly incivil (one example). If an editor's civility behavior is problematic but unsanctionable because it's not that bad, when he clearly breaks the rules, he should be sanctioned.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The fifth revert above is from the 20th and not a violation of 3RR (4 reverts in a 24 hour period). I'm reluctant to block the editor because the last rewording, to me anyway, can be construed as a genuine attempt to reword in a more acceptable way. The civility issue would likely require digging into the relationship between the editors involved so I would ignore that unless its been reported on a more appropriate forum.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That's true, the fifth was few days earlier, I didn't realize that. But it does go to prove that he is generally an edit-warrior. If he was a long time established editor with a history of productive contributions to Wikipedia, I would be first in line to argue for giving him a break. But this clearcut 3rr violation coupled with his general incivility issues warrants a 24 hour block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not convinced that the 4th instance above is a pure revert. I'll post a warning on the user page and lets see where they go next. Best to err on the side of not straining the quality of mercy and all that! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. It was a clear 3rr violation and he should be sanctioned. His talk page is full of incivility and inability to interact normally with other editors. Also, I just realized that he was blocked previously for edit-warring. If you feel that a block was unwarranted despite the 3rr violation you should have avoided this thread, instead of encouraging his policy-violative editing. I'm very disappointed. Admins should be furthering the interests of Wikipedia and letting him get away with this behavior is a step back for Wikipedia. With respect,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think broader civility issues are best discussed elsewhere. On this article, from what I can see, they've been editing for three days with 4 clear reversions and 1 marginal one. One of the four reversions was two days before the other three. I did see the other block but it was almost a year ago and the editor seems to be a prolific contributor to the encyclopedia and I'd rather just assume good faith than do something punitive. I do realize that that you don't say things lightly, and, if the editor is back here anytime soon, ......! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism and User:Jayjg (no vio)[edit]

A couple weeks ago I added the self-hating Jew link to the antisemitism template. Another user, Malik Shabazz, reverted me, (diff) and we engaged in a brief discussion on the talk. The first reverter gave consideration to my argument for inclusion and, for the time being, consented. Malik himself undid his revert and restored the link (diff), and there it has been until Jayjg came along not long ago to remove it. Jay's substantial justification in the comment line was terse: "[it has] nothing to do with the topic of antisemitism." (diff)

Call me unwiki or whatever but I generally don't like it when people revert good faith edits (ie. "my edits") without joining the discussion. I'm referring to such tactics as "ninja edits," (ie. 'deadly but pointless' edits: WP:NINJA). I restored my changes (diff not really a revert, see) and stated "that's nice Jayjg, but you forgot to discuss this on the talk page, where there is a section dealing with this addition. Others appear to agree its relevant". Which was true! The talk page section is here if anyone wants to look. Jay reverted again, here, "even if relevant, which it's not, it's not significant enough to go in the template," and I "restored" again here, "That't great, Jayjg. You might be right about the concept, and therefore have an argument against inclusion here. On Wikipedia we have talk pages, and on these pages we talk about the articles. Please join us other three by clicking "discussion" abov[e]."

So, I'm asking Jayjg to put aside his ninja-editing concept, and join us in a discussion about its inclusion. I admit that he may have a point, or I should say instead as with anything, there is legitimate cause to question the concept's sufficient relevance such that would justify the link's inclusion. Whether Jayjg wants to make a valid argument on the talk page that could perhaps persuade others to join his position remains to be seen, and I would like to see him conform to these tedious traditions of we call "discussion" and "consensus." That is my entire purpose for this report, and I plan on using AN3 more often for this purpose of promoting such tedious traditions. -Stevertigo 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay wasn't edit warring (2 reverts in 2 weeks). This isn't the venue for this accusation. Grsz11 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Agreed. Maybe try a WP:RFC or other venue. --Tom 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ps, oops, looks like there was one?? --Tom 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is, given that I don't want him to accuse me of 3RR, when reverts again without joining the discussion, thinking he owns the place, and that we who differ with him deserve no more than his ninja-esque treatment. There were two reverts each, not counting the reverts and restorations previous. That is edit warring, even if it is just at a low-intensity warfare, and doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet. -Stevertigo 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pursue WP:DR. We can't solve all problems here. There are 4 reverts today, 2 are yours, one is J's, what do you want, to be blocked? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet, what the heck are you talking about?!? Can we save the nuke references for deserving matters please, --Tom 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been reverted again without explanation. Ive listed it under WP:RFC pol. Thanks for being erm... useful. Apparently this well-monitored page is only for people who "..want.. to be blocked.." (and of course those people endowed with the skills to block them). Eugh. -Stevertigo 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A self-hating Jew is not an antisemite, these are two different things. I fail to see what is gained by adding a link. And many people agree. I see no consensus to add the link, and editors who have spend a long time working on the article have an apparent consensus that the link is inappropriate. Does Jayjg or Malik Shabazz think they own the article? I do not think so. But I recommend to Stevertigo that he be more careful throwing around terms like ningja-editing and good-faith edit. Stevertigo has not made any substantive contribution to the article. He has not done anything to suggest he has researched antisemitism, and he has not participated in consensus-building discussions to improve the article. In anyone is a ninja-editor, he is - he picks an article about which he knows nothing and "whoosh" swoops in with an edit, which everyone else is now supposed to devote time and energy to discussing. Stevertigo is actually an disruptive editor who has done this elsewhere, making unsupported or divisive edits at one article and then moving on to make equally unsupported or otherwise disruptive edits to another. Maybe we should have an RfC, but not on Jayjg! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Atmos User:Enuja User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Stephan Schulz User:William M. Connolley reported by MarkR1717 (Result: no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [66]



The above edits followed a previous series of edits of the same content under heading Michael E. Mann [78]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: If this is reversed I will go to Administrators[85]


Please see discussion [86]

In my view no valid reason has been provided for the non inclusion of the quote from Ms Schakowsky. Another perso from the same Committee has been quoted. viz. This contention is further illustrated by the first sentence of the subcommittee's ranking minority member Bart Stupak's remarks:

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a little bewildering to me why the committee is holding its very first hearing on global warming to referee a dispute over a 1999 hockey stick graph of global temperatures for the past millennium." [43]

I am including several users in this complaint because in my view they are acting in concert.MarkR1717 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: None of these editors appears to be edit warring, and consensus on the talk page appears to be against the reporter. Furthermore, there are only four edits on the article today, and two of those are from the reporter. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note - MarkR1717 is warned for edit warring. Nothing else to do here. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I count 18 edits of exactly the same thing by the above group over a 5 month period. How is that not edit warring?MarkR1717 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48hr block )[edit]

  1. 24 February, 04:30
  2. 24 February, 04:52
  3. 24 February, 04:56
  4. 24 February, 09:40

Warning: [87] Previous blocking case and ARBMAC warning: [88]

Recently returned POV-pushing SPA, used to edit-war about the same issues back in August. Stubbornly reverting against consensus. Could do with a revert limitation under ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - I have blocked Monshuai for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: Full prot )[edit]

Right to keep and bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In May of 2008 Yaf negotiated and agreed to a settlement with administrator User:Vassyana to not edit war with multiple reverts in exchange for the lifting of a 3RR block for edit warring of this article.

In the last week, Yaf has engaged in five identical large scale reverts, in violation of his promise:

  1. revert of section 04:46 24Feb09
  2. revert of section 13:07 23Feb09
  3. revert of section 04:10 22Feb09
  4. revert of section 03:56 22Feb09
  5. revert of section 06:26 17Feb09
  • Diff of Yaf's commitment, negotiated with User:Vassyana, to not edit war with multiple reverts: here
  • Result - Full prot'd talk page for 3 days to allow for mandatory discussion. If edit warring persists after the 3 days please inform me and I will block the involved users. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Blee Blee reported by User:A More Perfect Onion (Result: 48hr block for socking )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [89]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

The redirect edit war is over redirecting Photo hunt to the general game type of Spot the difference vs. a specific commercial game of that type, Photo Hunt. Note the capitalization difference. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - Got a CU run after some suspicious activity on that redirect history. Turns out Blee Blee had a couple of accounts. Blocked them both indef and then blocked BB for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MKil reported by Vintagekits (talk) (Result: no vio )[edit]

Boxrec.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MKil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:46, 22 February 2009 (edit summary: "Once again removed POV insertion sourced by dead link and unreliable fansite")
  2. 18:44, 23 February 2009 (edit summary: "Revert insertion of POV-pushing material referenced with unreliable "sources" and replaced, once again, with neutral description")
  3. 18:45, 23 February 2009 (edit summary: "Removed outdated material and restored reference")
  4. 13:23, 24 February 2009 (edit summary: "See talk")
  • Diff of warning: here

The editor has been warned before about the 3RR and here. He has also been engaged in editing original research in the article and when asked to justify this there response was to state "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." —Vintagekits (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note There is no 3RR violation here. I suggest trying some other means of dispute resolution. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es reported by User:Yano (Result: balkan sanctions)[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

User:Aradic-es has been edit warring on Marko Djokovic and Novak Djokovic following two page moves that he disagrees with. He appears to be using IPs to avoid 3RR, as the edit summaries are the same (representing my own reverts as vandalism). I have presented my opinion on each of the Talk pages and invited him to discuss the matter there, but he continues to add the information, sometimes with obstinate edit summaries. --Yano (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I judge that the anon's are A. However, that doesn't much help: all we have is you and he edit warring together. So Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions comes into play: you're both on WP:1RR on Marko Djokovic and Novak Djokovic and anything else that comes to my notice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense to me. User:Aradic-es is editing against consensus, despite overtures to join the discussion. His edits are an avenue for him to vent his frustrations over the page move, by changing the template to match his desired page title. This seems to be quite against the spirit of adhering to the move request decision to me, and I would ask you to reconsider his actions with that in mind, specifically how they are needlessly and disruptively continuing a closed debate. --Yano (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:143.167.235.164 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [97]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

This IP left a personal attack after my first edit. See diff here: [103]. This IP then left the same message over and over on my talk page (see my talk page history here: [104]) getting quite comative about it. He is also being combative on the talk page with this edit: [105] though I had not called anything he did vandalism. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Talk:New_Horizons#Not_the_fastest_man_made_object.3F If you wanna read what the "edit warring" is about--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and Nuske4Tots haven't replied to my content change, he just gave me Wikipedia links, so enough said--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did respond. Lots of times in fact. See here: [106], here: [107], here: [108], and here: [109]. I am not, sir, a "dude", and your defense does not include anything relating to your four reverts. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Your First response: You gave anarticle extract.
Your Second response: You said that speed is relative.
Your third response: You gave me Wikipedialinks on reverting.
Did I miss something? Oh yes. You haven't replied to the topic. I see now... :)--143.167.235.164 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact remains, you broke the 3rr after you were warned. You chose to edit war rather than discuss. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well the fact remains, you chose not to discuss and decided to edit war. So maybe it is you who we should discuss here...--143.167.235.164 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursAitias // discussion 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:190.25.194.38 reported by User:TeaDrinker (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [110]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [116]


User switched IPs, but appears based on edits to be the same user. Issue is at the core one of WP:POV, although there are additionally issues of style and clarity. I am an admin, but thought since I was involved it would be best to bring it here. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursAitias // discussion 02:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

210.49.251.226 reported by Moe Epsilon (Result: Blocked for 3 months)[edit]

A complex case as this user is revert warring on three articles without actually breaking 3RR.

The first article: Imagine Entertainment:

The second article: WWE Hall of Fame

The third article: Little Shop of Horrors (film)

He has been revert warring and adding unsourced content all month and his talk page is cluttered with nothing but warnings about it. — Moe ε 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, nevermind.Moe ε 04:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Methron reported by §hepTalk (Result: 24h)[edit]

Akron, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Methron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:11, 25 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 273078110 by JonRidinger (talk)")
  2. 00:12, 25 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 273077721 by JonRidinger (talk)errors")
  3. 21:47, February 24, 2009
  4. 18:51, February 24, 2009
  5. 18:49, February 24, 2009
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Comments Suspected sockpupet of Sleepydre has the same editing style and similar edit summaries.

§hepTalk 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

uuhhh yeahh but how does this makes me a sockpuppet? im not automatically logged in and when i close out windows sometimes i forget to log back in i didnt know it was a crime. if you would have just asked me if my account was Methron i could had told you... again sorry if crime did and will remember for now on --66.61.87.219 (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about socks for? Relevance? §hepTalk 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

because you started right above me...you know, where you can plainly see something about socks and your name right below it signing it................................--Methron (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-02-25T04:23:56 Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Methron (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006 reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [117]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [125]

At Rheinwiesenlager, Smith2006 is repeatedly adding to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is roundly debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. Smith has been reverted by more than one editor; I have twice left messages on the article talk page [126][127] requesting discussion, but been resolutely ignored, rather the editor in question has repeatedly labelled me a Communist, with the latest charming edit summary of "No talks with extremists who want a Slovenian Communist Yugoslavia" [128]. I have now lost faith that there will be any discussion at all with this editor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Manyanswer reported by Majorly (Result: warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [129]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

Manyanswer has been edit warring over this contentious piece of trivia on a BLP over the past 2 days or so. He's been reverted by multiple other users but doesn't seem to be listening. Majorly talk 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly reveals his abuse in his own sentence above. He calls this a piece of trivia in indicting me for warring. I ask Majorly - where are your comments in THE ACTIVE DISCUSSION I STARTED AFTER THE SECOND REVERT? - he makes his judgment on the suitability of the material without commenting in the discussion? Please try to keep up with the proper order of events. If someone other than Majorly could give direction on the appropriate spot for content before the revisions started I would be helpful. I added the material in good faith. Doesn't W:AGF dictate that the content should remain during the ensuing discussion? I have had users undo it with no comment line and no addition to the discussion - should I be blamed for reverting that?