Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive94

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Sloane reported by User:A Nobody (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: The user in question has removed warnings and efforts to discuss the reverts with somewhat incivil edit summaries: [1], [2]
  • Editor in question is sufficiently familiar with revert warring as seen here. Given that Dream Focus was ultimately blocked for 24 hours for attempting to restore a template Sloane wanted removed, it seems in the interest of fairness that it should similarly not be okay for Sloane to keep restoring a template removed by multiple editors either, no? Moreover, I am in a larger sense concerned that the editor in question seems to be here to fight a "war." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This is pretty ridiculous. First of all, my first edit was the insertion of a speedy deletion tag, not a revert. So there has been no technical breaking of the 3rr. Secondly, I was reverting the removal of the speedy deletion tag by the creator of the article (User:Ks64q2-[3],[4],[5]), which the speedy deletion tag clearly states as not acceptable and I think can be considered a form of vandalism (although the creator doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith, which is why I didn't report him here or elsewhere). The creator has now agreed to just let an admin take a look at the article and decide whether it should be speedy deleted. I have also gladly engaged the other user, as can be seen here (archiving my own talk page is hardly a crime). Finally, I think User:A Nobody is only reporting me here, because he has taken offence to the drama listed higher regarding the "rescue" template, which is why he his dragging all kinds of crazy stuff in his 3rr report.--Sloane (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I am taking offense to hypocritical behavior. If it is wrong for someone to keep adding a rescue template when multiple editors have removed it, then it is surely wrong for someone else to keep adding a SD template when multiple editors have removed it as well and when an AFD is ongoing anyway. Why not just let the AfD play out? And yes, seeing the post about approaching deletion as if it is a war is an uncompromising and uncollegial attitude to take regarding deletion here. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • User:A Nobody seems to be admitting he's only reporting me to make a WP:POINT.--Sloane (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I am reporting you, because you are edit warring, engaging in hypocrisy with regards to edit warring, and apparently think you are here to fight a war. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia in cooperation with our colleagues. Saying you are fighting a war on cruft is disrupting Wikipedia to porve a WP:POINT. Please do not edit war or treat wikipedia as a battleground. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
            • User:A Nobody also seems to be suffering from a serious case of humourlessness (now where's the noticeboard for that?)--Sloane (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
              • I do have a sense of humor here, on occasion, but I don't find insulting the good faith work of our contributors funny, because Wikipedia:Editors matter. AfD should be for serious discussion in which actual policy and guideline based rationales are presented, not non-policy based comments that lack encyclopedic seriouness or that might turn off our colleagues. People can and should argue to delete in much better ways than saying to delete as part of some kind of war on cruft. See my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, for example. I cite a policy and also looked for sources to make sure that it did not meet that policy. But again, my concern here is the edit war over the speedy delete template. And again, why not let the deletion discussion play out? Now that multiple editors have argued to keep in the AfD, tossing a speedy delete tag on seems out of place. Should the article creator remove it, perhaps not, but let someone else revert him rather than be the one to add it four times now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Articles up for AfD regularly get tagged with speedy deletion and sometimes in fact get speedy deleted while the AfD discussion is ongoing. I have no problem with any user or admin disagreeing with me and removing the speedy deletion tag. But creators of articles should refrain from removing it. From WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Your best bet is still to not go back and forth with the editor in question and anyway, Benjiboi has also removed the speedy delete template. Hoaxes, libel, and copy vios do, rightfully so, occasionally get speedily deleted during AfDs and I would not contest that. A couple articles I nominated for deletion wound up speedily deleted and neither I nor anyone else took issue, but here we have multiple editors in the AfD arguing to keep. Thus, perhaps consensus from the previous discussion has changed and as such, just let the discussion play out. It's best to avoid going back and forth with others. If you are correct than multiple editors will revert. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no 3RR violation; Sloane never made his fourth revert. As all parties are now at the AfD, I don't see any point in this report, aside for POINT purposes, but that's a discussion for another time. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's the concern, i.e. putting a speedy delete template on the article to prove a point when a deletion discussion that might establish a new consensus is underway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was referring to your report here being a POINT violation. In any case, if you have any other issues with Sloane, take it to WP:ANI. There is no 3RR violation and no more purpose in continuing here. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Which of course you know not to be true, but I won't let you bait me. So, have a nice night! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Review request, because there has a clear violation of 3RR rule in this report Sloane's first edit is a "revert" given this edit made by 9Nak two days ago; tagging exactly the same template that Sloane used. He reported Dream Focus for the same matter and made him blocked, so the same treatment would meet the sprite of "fairness".--Caspian blue 06:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's just silly. Just because an article was tagged for deletion once, doesn't mean tagging it again constitutes a revert. Also, the comparison with Dream Focus doesn't fly, as I was basically removing a form of vandalism (creator of an article removing a speedy deletion tag), whilst Dream Focus was edit warring over a clean-up tag.--Sloane (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Repeatedly inserting the tag and making a pointless edit war are "silly". The legitimacy of the article has been disputed on the discussion of the AfD, so I don't see any justification of your 3RR violation. You did not revert vadalism at all.--Caspian blue 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll repeat WP:SD: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. --Sloane (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • may not Good. Even the guideline does not say that removing the tag by the creator of a page is "vandalism". So applying the same rule is "fair".--Caspian blue 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • P.S. you made one more revert to the article; 5th revert whilst you're being reported here.--Caspian blue 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I made two ordinary edits. Go ahead and revert them if you disagree. And stop harassing me.[6].--Sloane (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
              • What an outrageous accusation you make. I'm relying on the same rule that you used, so abiding by the same "justice" makes your logic to the blocking Dream Focus meaningful. Your bogus link shows "the history of The Motley Moose". Such false accusation constitutes " harassment and personal attack. You should stop the disruption. The ordinary edits are reverts, and you'd better read the 3RR policy again.--Caspian blue 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Posting the history to the page you accuse me of breaking 3rr on is an "outrageous and false accusation"? What drugs are you on? Als, just as User:A Nobody yesterday, User:Caspian blue now seems to be admit he's only here to make a WP:POINT.--Sloane (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • "What drugs are you on?" Good grief! Your another personal attack just makes you closer to blocking. In your logic, you were harassing Dream Focus. FWIW, I voted for deletion of the article. Your edit warring over the tag is just unworthy and disruptive--Caspian blue 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I reviewed the report and I agree that there was no violation of 3RR. The 5th revert was not a revert but an ordinary edit and WP:AGF compels me to assume that Sloane did not want to break 3RR by readding the db-tag removed by the IP (because I will assume that he did not notice it). He stopped now and as such a block would be punitive in any way, contrary to WP:BLOCK's spirit of blocks as a preventive measure. I urge all parties involved to calm down and leave this page now, it's really not needed that you continue the discussion here. SoWhy 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

68.39.191.43 reported by Beve (Result: 1 week semi)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [7]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]


Beve (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this, NovaGrad70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) looks to be identical to the anonymous user that was reported. I see a self revert about one minute apart, and both users seem to claim to be reverting "malicious" changes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems easiest to semi-protect it for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Evenmoremotor reported by Anonymous user (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [18]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
  • Comment. I've never posted on WP:3RR before so apologies if I've missed something important. Basically, I'm here because User:Evenmoremotor has reverted my edit to List of Jewish American mobsters several times without giving any reason why. I originally edited the page because it had a {{nofootnotes}} template and I spent awhile converting the references to in-text citations. I not only converted the existing references but I added three additional sources. I've done this to a few other pages but this is the first time I've ever had an issue with another editor. One of the links had been reverted by a Bot but I thought it was a useful external link so I added it back. Maybe this is the issue, and I don't nessessarily have an problem with with that, but I don't really understand why Evenmoremotor feels he needs to remove the in-text citations. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
He's also reverted my edits to Ike Bloom and Johnny Spanish so I've stopped editing until this can be resolved. 71.184.49.28 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

EMM seems to have got carried away by an excess of zeal. But you have been edit warring too. So 24h all round William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I wasn't edit warring. At first I didn't understand his edits and when I reverted back to my version I carefully explained my reasoning. He wasn't so considerate in his edit summeries ("not needed" / "Undid sockpupet 71.184.49.28 / 72.74.209.246"). When he continued to revert my edits, I stopped editing altogether and brought the issue here. Another editor interveaned prior to this and was more than happy to discuss it with Evenmoremotor. I waited almost a day for him to respond and when he didn't I assumed he didn't have a problem. I think it's unfair to block me when I've gone out of my way to settle this and not be disruptive. 72.74.198.46 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

70.24.233.37 reported by Scjessey (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [28]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]

There are actually more of these in the last 24 hours, but I figured 6 would be more than sufficient. Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:141.154.12.116 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [36]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

This user has gone on to argue with at least five editors who have reverted his removal and changing of content both on their talk pages and on the talk page for the article making claims of obstructionism. He's edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

63.3.1.2 reported by Aktsu (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

--aktsu (t / c) 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: blocked 72h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [48]



User:Vexorg was blocked for 3RR violation on this page just two days ago, after defiantly refusing to revert himself following his fourth revert inserting disputed material. He asked to be unblocked, stating OK, I will not breach 3RR and refer back to the talk page of that article Since his return, he has continued to try to edit-war in the disputed material. On the Talk: page he continually claims there is "no consensus" to remove the material, and on the Talk: page and in edit summaries that "NO rationale for removal has been given for this properly sourced relevent section". This is despite the fact that copious, policy based-rationales have been provided for its removal. In the past two days his insertion has been reverted by four separate editors, all of whom have explained at length why the material is not appropriate. Despite this, his edit summaries indicate he fully intends to continue edit-warring this material into the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MrSpammy reported by Grsz11 (Result: blocked 72 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [52]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [57]

Also see terms of article probation. Grsz11 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I was in the process of reporting this same fellow, but Grsz11 got the formatting right the first time and, importantly, noted the article probation--so I've removed my own report, which was essentially a duplicate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring, incivility. CIreland (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mrnhghts reported by happy138 (Result: Page protected for a week)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [62]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [63]

Happy138 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-11T17:09:42 SoWhy (talk | contribs | block) m (3,698 bytes) (Protected Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:69.118.72.18 reported by User:Boston (Result: Result: 1 week semi, 1 sock blocked)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [64]


Essentially, there is a traditional view that Asian rice was introduced to the Americas by colonial Spain and Portugal. But more recent scholarship indicated that Africans may have introduced African rice first, shortly after, and/or as importantly. You can see discussion of this revisionism here and here. I am trying to express both trends in scholarship in the article per this edit but user prefers this edit. NB -Explaining both views is very important because the scholarship of the African rice deals only with its introduction to the Southern United States while the article is mostly about Latin America and the Carribean. In giving 3RR warning I assured the editor that the scholarship he/she wishes to highlight will be included. The intent seems to be to exclude the bulk of scholarship in favor of the newer scholarship which might not even be applicable to Latin America and the Carribean. The newer scholarship doesn't seem to dispute the old as much as it adds to it. Rather than allow these two (possibly complementary, possibly conflicting) understandings to be referenced user has chosen to template me for vandalism. I want to discuss both rices further but don't want to edit war. Even unrelated edits (i.e. additions to the "see also" section) are being undone by this editor's revisions.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [69] (by me) and [70] (by another editor)


Seems to have gone away. Let me know if the trouble recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem hasn't gone away it is just dormant because I let User:69.118.72.18's edit stand rather than break the 3RR myself. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

This is easier to read with bullet points:

As seen here, User:jheiv has likewise been trying to restore the cited material but is opposed by User:Nillarse. Thanks - --Boston (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

N blocked as a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dalej78 reported by Grsz11 (Result: 24h block)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [75]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

Edit warring a sourced statement off the page. Also note article subject to terms addressed by article probation. Grsz11 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked The first revert is the same as the "version reverted to" so this is, being pedantic, 1 edit and 3 reverts and thus not a strict violation of the three-revert-rule. However, because the article is on probation and Dalej78 has been previously notified of this, I am blocking him for 24 hours for disruptive edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Foam takeout container (result: 24h all round)[edit]

4RR at Foam takeout container:

Badagnani (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

24h for both of you. Gosh, this just has to be the most boring thing to edit war over. What on earth convinced you that it was vital, today, now, with no delay, to re-insert "Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarely recycled."? Couldn't it have waited until tomorrow? Or at least until you could discuss it on talk? Still, at least I get a blog posting out of this mess: [81] if you're interested William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Should this be on WP:LAME? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle and 74.4.222.208 reported by Headbomb (Result: block+semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

Check the article history, the case is too complex to be summed up.

  • Diff of 3RR warning:

Numerous places on Talk:Frank J. Tipler.


I acknowledge I am myself 3RRing, but reading the comments will show that while the letter of 3RR is indeed violated, the spirit is not.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this now? We're at 45RR and going strong.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle was blocked by William M. Connolley for 24 hours. Ruslik (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And User:Peripitus semi'd the page. HB probably gets a mild rebuke for breaking 3RR, or maybe not, I can't be bothered to work it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I read on Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Request for third opinion I extended the block to one week (personal attacks). Ruslik (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BigbossSNK reported by Herr_Gruber (Result: 24 hour 2x )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [82]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

Previous report for the same thing on the same page: [88] Herr Gruber (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Result - Both were edit warring; blocked both for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ks64q2 reported by User:9Nak (Result: 1 block, 1 direction to continue disengagement)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [89]


There is lots (and lots) of acrimonious history here across multiple forums and pages, but seven (and counting) reverts in less than 24 hours does rather take the cake, I think. 9Nak (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No problem. This was a completely new edit, and I would be happy for any admins to review that. Furthermore, I put details on the talk pages, and messaged the editors who made changes to especially ensure it fit the intent of their edits in. Please feel free to check that. I'm afraid this is all smoke and mirrors trying to take attention away from the behavior of some of these users in the AfD of this article. Please feel free to review my Wikipedia editing history in it's entireity, I'm certain you will see there is no problem here. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Full disclosure -- I'm deeply involved on this from the other side of Ks6 and when i saw this report i checked my own self out. There's a good chance that I'm over the line (though there may be an argument for leniency that i was involved in reverting BLP issues). At any rate, for the moment have disengaged over there and am alowing Ks6 to own the article and add unsourced/poorly sourced information about living people as he sees fit.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ks65q2 blocked for 12 hours - Bali ultimate told to stay away from article for duration of block, since user already disengaged. Remember, WP:3RR does not require that the version reverted to be exactly the same every time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7 reported by Tony1 (Result: prot)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [97]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]
  • There have been attempts by three regulars to protect long-standing wording during this 24-hour period, using conciliatory edit summaries. The matter, inter alia, is the subject of an RfC for which the proposal wording has apparently been agreed to by all (Questions 1 and 2).
  • This comes straight after a strong warning by an admin for abusing User:HWV258 on the talk page of the guideline ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") and referring to the edits of two other users as "nonsense" in edit summaries.
  • This exasperated comment by the experienced and typically cautious Kotniski, a regular at the guideline page, sums up Kendrick7's behaviour.
  • I appreciate that Kendrick7 has clearly worked him/herself up into a state of anger; I think I speak for all regulars at the page in saying that we are concerned on a personal level. However, his/her behaviour is becoming uncontrollable. Tony (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is precisely the sort of personal attacks ("I am sorry for your parents for giving birth to a retarded child.") that causes many editors to just throw up their hands and say that contributing to Wikipedia just isn’t worth the pain. No editor should be able to make deeply cutting insults on the intelligence of another as a tactic to beat them down. A strong warning is, IMO, insufficient. Kendrick has clearly gotten spun up too far with his editwarring and personal attacks; an imposed cooling off period is in order. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-18T14:44:53 CIreland (talk | contribs | block) m (29,040 bytes) (Protected Wikipedia:Linking: Edit warring / Content dispute: Protected until end of ArbCom case on Date delinking. ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Another mistaken prot (IMHO) but it's done William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The result was a 48-hour block. The Result of "prot." is incorrect. The page was protected before this report was made. Tony (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mydarkglobe reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: peace?)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [103]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [108]


Seems to be a single purpose account too, as well as a conflict of interest, as evident here [109]. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No reverts since warning. Let me know if it recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: prot)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [110]


  • Comment: Continuing revert warring by the same user. He simply hasn't learned his lesson. He was blocked a few days ago as 76.202.195.129, and several more as his main account. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    this kid (rouge penguin) is vandalizing. he has yet to give me a decent reason for blanking content, except for "RV". this is unacceptable, he cannot be reasoned with. i think he needs a suspension Jeremie Belpois (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Also revert warring on my talk page to enforce his inaccurate "test" warning. Past 3RR on that, too. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


not inaccurate, kid Jeremie Belpois (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-18T20:03:23 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs | block) m (22,398 bytes) (Protected Code Lyoko: Edit warring / Content dispute: indefinite protection until the dispute is resolved, PLEASE use the discussion page, it's there for a reason ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Personally I prefer blocking people to prot, but others disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina reported by Bizso (Result: 24h each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [115]



  • Comment: User edited page and I added extra information precisely sourced from Britannica, and corrected text according to sources already cited by user (Bellamy p 39.). I kept his initial edit. User then reverted my edits 5 times.--Bizso (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rouge Penguin reported by Jeremie Belpois Result:[edit]

no 3rr or anything yet, but he is clearly starting one on Odd Della Robbia and Aelita Hopper. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Following the Code Lyoko article getting protected, this is just ridiculous. Jeremie already fought tooth and nail to try to revive these articles once before and failed. He was told in no uncertain terms to discuss instead of recreating them elsewhere. 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

you're starting this, penguin. you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. Jeremie Belpois (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is ridiculous behavior on both sides. It's simply not worth fighting over. The article does seem to have changed some. Why not just let it be recreated and nominate it for AfD again. Then see what the consensus of the community is - that will get a definitive answer without the "he said she said". If enough people think it has not changed significantly from the last AfD it can be snowballed into a speedy. All these accusations and reversions are not addressing the supposed issue about the merits of the article. Mfield (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll take your advice. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)[edit]

Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Slow moving edit war at Anderson, Indiana (result: semi)[edit]

75.50.45.104 (talk · contribs) 71.98.106.197 (talk · contribs)

Two IPs, who I suspect are each from two competing news sources, have been engaged in a slow moving edit war for the last week on the article Anderson, Indiana. One IP will remove a link to the Herald Times, [121], and replace it with a link to the so called Anderson Free Press, [122]. Anderson free press appears to be a managed and hosted by a single person, likely the person who keeps inserting it, and I think it may qualify as link spam. I would like an admin to semi-protect the page please. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week or two to see if they get bored. Rv to you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Charles Edward (Talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thewanderer reported by PRODUCER (Result: warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [123]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [127]

Don't be so hasty with the warnings. In four years I have never broken 3RR, and I certainly wouldn't simply to teach someone such as yourself a lesson. If you'd like to involve administrators, I think that would be more than welcome. My viewpoint in this mini-edit war - that ethnic group infoboxes should not contain census data nearly three decades old from a country that no longer exists and whose successor nations are already represented in the infobox - will surely be supported by admins, and other sensible users. You are clearly attempting to inflate the number of declared Yugoslavs by citing duplicated statistics (Yugoslavia in 1981 + Croatia, Serbia, etc. in 1990s and 2000s).--Thewanderer (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite your clean slate you've clearly breached 3rr. There is no rule explicitly stating that infoboxes must be current. Even if they must, this ethnic group can clearly be a special exception because of its type. By not adding the amount of Yugoslavs declared at the time Yugoslavia existed, the article loses a very historically crucial point. Anyone with half a brain can put two and two together and realize why its there. As for the accusation for inflation, I'm not trying to fool anyone, the years are clearly given. Ive never touched the total population figure. PRODUCER (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you thought I actually breached 3RR? 3RR states you cannot perform more than three reverts in a 24-hour period (even I know that, and I think two and two is seven, apparently). Anyways, every ethnic group has historically relevant population figures, and populations are always changing. The infobox is clearly present to provide current data, as up to date as possible. I think pre-Holocaust Jewish populations, pre-expulsion German populations in Eastern Europe, etc. are important. But that doesn't mean we report these figures in the related infoboxes. The point is, these reported "Yugoslavs" in '81 (who atill lived in a country called Yugoslavia) no longer report themselves as such. It's an interesting historical piece of information, but not a relevant modern statistic to be included with (and confused for) modern census data.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are both warned re edit warring. Any further reverts without using the talk page will get you a block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ashley kennedy3 reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: These are complex reverts, a diff will be provided for each


  • 1st revert: [128] - restores "the intellectuals such as Judah Leon Magnes of Brit Shalom", reverting back to this version, and undoing my own edits here
  • 2nd revert: [129] restores "with reservations as Golda Meir expressed it when meeting the press at just after the announcement of the UN Partition plan vote; "We have no alternative." - reverting back to this version and undoing edit by Canadian Monkey
  • 3rd revert: [130] restores "occupied" and "earmarked", reverts this edit by GHcool
  • 4th revert: [131] same as 3rd revert, labeled as a revert in the edit summary


  • Diff of 3RR warning: has been warned about and blocked for 3RR numerous times

I reverted separate parts to reflect the wording of the separate references quoted on the separated content disputes involved...PS no warning has been given on any of the separate individual issues....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the 3RR details to administrative oversight. But it should be remarked that NoCal100 (a wikistalker and POV warrior), seems to exercise an avocational passion for going after AK, as his record shows. He is going for his scalp, one more time.
(1)Any checking of what AK was doing will show that, in a 3 to 1 editing context, AK was correcting bad edits . NoCal's bad edit, eliding the mention of Judah Magnes as opposed to partition, says the source refers to Biltwater, not to 1947. Well, he is not familiar, as is AK, with sources. It is well known Judah Magnes was consistently opposed to any partition plan, from 1937 to 1947. Had NoCal100 been interested in the article rather than in creating problems for AK, he would have either put a courtesy [citation needed] note on Ashley's edit, or checked for himself, and he would have found that historically AK's remark was spot-on (William M. Brinner, Moses Rischin, Like All the Nations? The Life and Legacy of Judah L. Magnes, SUNY Press, 1987 p.36). What NoCal100's edit does is fudge up the impression Jewish opposition to Partition was from commies and fringe lunatics by cancelling AK's legitimate point that there was serious opposition by mainstream Zionist figures like Judah Magnes.
(2)AK's edit on the Benny Morris quotation, replacing GHCool's (a precise editor normally), is word-perfect with Morris's text, which is the source for the passage (‘the previous Jewish occupation of Arab-earmarked territory’. Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 p.149)' One should add that GHcool's elision of words taken directly, verbatim, from the sourced page dismisses them in his edit-summary as 'removing POV'. Since when is editing strictly to source (and one of high historical quality) a matter of inserting a POV? This cannot be counted.
(3)I cannot analyse the Gold Meir piece because I am unfamiliar with it.
NoCal is counting as reverts edits of one editor against three others. AK's edits correct wrongly removed information, or restore the precise wording of the source. This is editorial responsibility to the texts and history, not reverts, though in NoCal100's world, it would appear, any challenge to what he alone apparently thinks of as a truth-team tag effort, is mustered as a 3RR violation. This is a disgraceful piece of gamnesmanship again, a farce. Since when is editing to sources against poor users of sources reverting? Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For just how poorly informed NoCal100 is about the history of the events described on the page he is editing, predominantly against AK, see the exchanges at the end of this section Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AK is banned from the article for 24h, and until he learns how to use the "preview" button William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

user_talk:96.224.128.15 (result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [132]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [138]

Has been warned several times about it and has ignored warns.  rdunnPLIB  10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Laveol reported by MatriX (Result: 1RR imposed)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [139]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [143]


I decided to report user Laveol because, although he didn't violated 3RR to the end, he blatantly and repeatedly removed sourced material from the Miladinov Brothers article. I