Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive98

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Fanoftheworld reported by Alexrexpvt (Result: 72h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]
  • 6th revert: [7]
  • 7th revert: [8]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]


User was blocked before for the same reason. Many of the above reverts were of edits made by someone called in to give a third opinion. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 72h this time. Black Kite 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:74.206.24.96 reported by User:Offliner (Result:Protected )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [10]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

Offliner (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP has changed, so I have protected for a week. Kevin (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FreddyPickle reported by BOZ (Result: Warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [18]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

New admin here, looking for some guidance. This user has been posting that the subject was insane based on his own suppositions. He reverted before I insisted he bring it to talk, reverted me, and after a warning from myself and another admin he reverted yet again without further discussion. BOZ (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't receive an adequate final warning. I have left him one now. Let's see if he continues to revert. This is both edit warring and BLP nonsense, so he shouldn't get much slack. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I don't have my warnings down yet and was looking for the templates when I stumbled across this page. :) Fortunately it is not actually a BLP since the subject is deceased, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to make bald assertions about a person without any verifiable sources to reference. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning removed, but so far no further vandalism (unless you count an IP who did something different). BOZ (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action for now. Consider a block if the 'insane' comment is restored again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Harrelson (result: warned)[edit]

Edit war between an anon and a User whose User name is the same as that of a person who the subject is accused of having murdered. The anon may be the same as Loonjustice (talk · contribs) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war, no vio, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ltpas2009 reported by hellswesties (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • User Ltpas2009 is a well-known cyber-bully, who is adept at starting and prolonging flame wars on several internet sites with several users. User Ltpas2009 has also engaged Mr. Pascal in a documented argument on his official site (adampascalmusic.COM Note the similarities in URL to the flame site), and has gone so far as to impersonate Mr. Pascal on Twitter.
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan reported by 87.69.176.81 (Result: No violation)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [24]


Please notice that while I've been trying to engage this user in a constructive dialogue, all they have done in return was to either try and dismiss my points as "ridiculous nonsense" or outright spew as many insults at me as they could (see below in "reaction to the {{3RR}} template"), not to mention several reverts with empty edit summaries on other pages...

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

I'd like to point out this user's reaction to my {{3RR}} template, which can be found here. I've reported it to the main admin board – figured you guys here could give it a glance or two. Thank you so much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): This specific reversion just says that 87.69.176.81 is the vandal. ESpublic013 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really. If you look closely, it was KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs) who reversed "unit" to "until," because I simply made a typo in my initial addition and fixed it right afterward. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Result - The information that the IP editor is warring to insert is:

In the South Park episode More Crap, her name is used to create a fictional measure unit for weighing fecal matter.

Obviously our article on Couric will be seriously incomplete without this important information. Sorry for the sarcasm, but there are only three reverts here, so WP:3RR is not violated. You've managed to submit the same complaint at two different noticeboards, ANI and AN3. See WP:FORUMSHOP. You've not made any effort at Talk:Katie Couric to get support for including this key fact, which I imagine will not be easy to get. No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
...and obviously, adding this information will utterly ruin the article and Wikipedia in whole. Better hide your internets 'cuz it will burn all your hard drives and rape your goldfish... alright, enough with the sarcasm, you catch my drift. Obviously, you have not been particularly helpful. There was no WP:FORUMSHOPPING because I have two separate issues with this user: edit warring with mostly empty edit summaries (which I've reported here) and particularly aggressive personal attacks (which I've reported on WP:ANI). You have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to some facts here, so I am requesting a review by another admin. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As another uninvolved administrator - No, sorry, this is junk, and if you keep trying to add it you'll be blocked. Don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for what exactly? Please remember to be wp:civil. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Olahus reported by Squash Racket (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [30]



User disregarding others' edits, views, edit warring, POV pushing. Read also Talk:Central Europe#Recent Changes for another editor's opinion on his overall behavior at that article (BTW Olahus reverted his edit too). I've made a single revert in the past two days, otherwise only introduced new material that he too frequently changed. Squash Racket (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kasaalan reported by Enigma (Result: no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: link



  • Diff of 3RR warning: link

If that's not enough, see contributions. [31], [32]. Said editor also edit-warred against the result of an AfD, refusing to allow the article to be redirected. Instead, editor created yet another new page by moving it in direct violation of the AfD discussion. Enigmamsg 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio; 1st revert is well out of 24h. Also I don't see talk from Nudve justifying his reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:71.233.122.127 reported by Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: link



Users Eleland, Decltype and Sherurcij have reverted the above reversions, and left various warnings on his user page, but he continues. Now his blind reverts are undoing recent grammar fixes, etc., as well. This editor also has a slow revert-war going on the Jonny Gomes article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Flipper9 reported by Abecedare (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flipper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:10, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Adding inappropriate tag: Wikipedia is not a news source")
  2. 16:21, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287073733 by ThaddeusB (talk) While this is notable, it contains unverifiable information")
  3. 18:12, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287092906 by PigFlu Oink (talk) Article contains unverifiable info. Stop removing tag")
  4. 18:24, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "This article is unencyclopedic because it includes non-noteworthy AND non-veriafiable information. Suspected and unconfirmed information is both unencyclopedic and non-verifiable.")
  5. 18:41, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "I am merly adding a tag that disputes whether this article is encyclopedic. Threatening me on my talk page is inappropriate.")
  6. 19:00, 30 April 2009 (edit summary: "This is not a disruptive edit. It is an appropriate tag for an article with unencyclopedic information, and should be properly addressed in the discussion page, not squelched as you see fit.")
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

Repeated addition of inappropriate tags against consensus on this and other high-profile articles on the 20009 swine flu outbreak. Note that he is also edit-warring at 2009_swine_flu_outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), {{2009 US swine flu outbreak table}} and {{2009 US swine flu outbreak table}}. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours and removed tag. --auburnpilot talk 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Npovshark reported by Piotrus (Result: No action)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39] (left just know)

Please note that the image from last diff is identical (but has a different name) to the images from the previous three reverts. Compare: File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG and File:German language in 1910.png. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • While the user in question has not reverted since the warning was issued, its editing behavior stinks like a sock. I will note that what they are re-adding to the article is a image uploaded by a now banned Rex Germanus (talk · contribs). That said, I am not sure that calling a user a Nazi in a edit summary is the best way to go about things either Piotrus (see this RFAR remedy). Tiptoety talk 05:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Piotrus or anyone else called the user a Nazi, rather just noted that the map that is being discussed was 1) used as Nazi propaganda and 2) (this one by me) was uploaded by a user who, in my understanding, got blocked for pushing Nazi POV. It may very well have been that Npovshark was not aware of the history of the map and the edit summaries were meant to explain that (of course this is assuming that this user is not independently aware of the history of the map here). Still, he kept going.radek (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Radek, I was referring to a map, not an editor, who btw shows no signs of remorse, and responded to the 3rr warning with a personal attack/"I am innocent, you are bad" claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I find your attitude towards this map and the way you went about raising an objection to it repuslive. "Oh, I don't like it, I'll just delete it without conversation" As for reverting three times, that is a lie. You deleted pictoral content on the site without a discussion, and that is vandalism. Editing vandalism does not count as 3RR. Then, after finding out what your problem was with the map, which took two vandalism reverts (you made no mention of the problem with a vague statement like "it is nazi propaganda/user was banned") I went and found the original map, which gives a source -- Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka - and changed the subtitle to reflect that this was not a map of 1925, but 1910. It also appears that the "work" of Rex Germanicus, the banned user, is not his work at all. He only made a copy of the file, which comes from a Dutch user, HP1740-B. So it appears you did not do your homework. Then, I added the map that was uploaded by HP1740, not the banned user. I have contacted the original creator of the map for clarification on the file, such as its source, validity, etc.
Thanks for telling me this discussion was going on, too. Nothing you are doing is right here, so you better believe I will come here with the "I am innocent, you are bad claim".--Npovshark (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, this is completely unacceptable: [40]. You remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate, and an article about bombings during world war II has false information. Good job.
Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Don't you dare cry to me about me pushing pov with this kind of garbage.
Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise. Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks, month by month.
Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them.
For you to run here and complain about me trying to get down to the bottom of things regarding this map is completely absurd.--Npovshark (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In history article about strategic bombing in WW2 the above user Npovshark removes information about nazi atrocities and presents Germany as being attacked first by Britain: [41] --Gwinndeith (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwinndeith...I explained my reversion of "your" edits. I say "your" because you have merely taken the recent edit attempts of Piotus (see here for Piotus' edits [42] and here for Gwinndeith's [43], which I have commented on in the edit summary MORE THAN ONCE and also done here on this Administration discussion (see above). I also asked that you explain your changes on the page's talk [44] and you never responded. I have left you a message on your page [45] and you have not responded. Your edits are all to push a POV and you have had little consideration for facts, how your edits fit into the article (not just because they are unsourced, but also because they include bad English, show little consideration for the flow of the article and change previously sourced statements so that they say something that they actually do not source, such as is the case in your version of the intro).--Npovshark (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No action - Npovshark did go over 3RR but he has stopped reverting this article. His last edit was 22 hours hours ago, and someone else has undone his last change. In such a case it is quite uncommon to issue a 3RR block. Some people have been making a case that he is a POV warrior, but the present discussion is not for that. If you want to continue discussing this, do so either in the current ANI thread about Npovshark or on a talk page. But if Npovshark comes back to revert this article again it's a whole new ball game and he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hellboy10 reported by Sottolacqua (Result: 24h )[edit]

  • Version prior to reverts: [46]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [52]

User continues to revert article and similar articles with no rational reason or explanation. Additionally, this user has engaged in previous edit wars with Push Over, a related article. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reporter warned for also edit warring, whilst reportee blocked for obvious edit warring and borderline vandalism edits/edit summaries. Nja247 08:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Miasnikov reported by Motopu (Result: Warned )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [53]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

Miasnikov has been continuously rejecting consensus and editing in bad faith, replacing cited material with non-sourced POV pushing . He has also vandalized the talk page, removing my posts entirely. He has been constantly warned, and even appealed to in the hope he might edit in good faith. Links to other sites this user has been banned from for similar behavior available upon request. Motopu (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Motopu (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User seems to have moved to talk pages after finally receiving a warning on their talk page about edit warring. Re-report if discussion breaks down and edit warring continues. Be sure to reference this report if needed. Nja247 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Satyashodak reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Final warning )[edit]

  • 1st revert: [59] Reverted, as he admits, three months of edits
  • 2nd revert: [60] Undid previous edit
  • 3rd revert: [61] Undid previous edit
  • 4th revert: [62] Undid previous edit

The user has also accused me of being a "Sinhalese nationalist and Buddhist chauvinist from Sri Lanka." I am none of those things. He then did four reverts in an hour and a half. Mitsube (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User given a last and final warning on their talk page. They have not edited since then, thus there's no reason to block to prevent further disruption at this time. If behaviour continues contact the admin who gave the warning, or report at appropriate noticeboard (ie for edit war here, for vandalism WP:AIV, etc). Nja247 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pink-thunderbolt reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Warn )[edit]

Jon & Kate Plus 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pink-thunderbolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:21, 2 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Gosselins */")
  2. 20:42, 2 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287510467 by Thirteen squared (talk)")
  3. 05:33, 3 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287520138 by Thirteen squared. Stop whitewashing. It is actually multiple reliable sources, and it is about the show, it's also in the Vancouver Sun now.")
  4. 06:04, 3 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 287591996 by Scjessey (talk) Check my sources, I'")
  • Diff of warning: here

This user is edit-warring some pretty serious BLP violations into the article - basically unreferenced controversial information about a living person. The user was warned for edit-warring, but he/she deleted the warning and reverted again. — Scjessey (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is sourced on CNN, MSNBC, People Magazine, E!, US Weekly, and the Vancouver Sun, and there are pictures. Those sources are neutral, the assertions verifiable, and the research is not my own. The page in question has been drawing criticism for several months for the horrendous amount of whitewashing that has gone on there.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should also point out that Scjessey has previously been blocked for an edit war, I have not, that he intimated a legal threat by "warning" me that my edit was defamatory, and that all previous attempts to include information deemed in any way critical of the subject of the article has been summarily reverted by a small group of people. The article in question is for some reason being treated differently than any other reality tv family show article, and unless the serial deletion of this information is halted, the quality of the article will continue to suffer. Also, one of the alleged reverts is actually the initial addition to the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is edit warring, and to have a proper dispute there needs to be two parties. Both the reporter and reportee are advised to discuss their content dispute on talk pages or seek dispute resolution. Continuation of disruptive editing by either of them will result in blocks. Nja247 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Warning scjessey looks like a bad call - Scjessey and one other editor are reverting poorly sourced material on BLP grounds, and Scjessey has taken the dispute here for resolution. Pink-thunderbolt broke 3RR trying to insert it. The proper content resolution is that the material stays out unless and until there is both consensus for inclusion, and a reasonable determination that it isn't a BLP violation. Wikidemon (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
PT only appears to have 3R: the first edit isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is that PT inserted controversial information about a living person into an article without any referencing, and then thrice restored it despite being warned after the second revert. Whether it was 3 or 4 reversions isn't really important - it was still edit-warring BLP violations into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I referenced it, anyone who looks at the disputed text will see that. There is a consensus for inclusion, many people over a long period of time have proposed that there be a section on criticism of the show, or that at least, information like the information provided by CNN, MSNBC, E!, US Weekly, and People Magazine be included, and over and over again, Scjessey has tried to weasel around it, sometimes by saying that the article is about the show, not the family, even though it is a show about a family, or that things are poorly sourced when they are not. I have been to the page twice, once several months ago, and both times I came looking for information on the reports of serious unhappiness of Jon or controlling behavior by Kate, because I saw something about it on Television, and in a magazine, and both times there was nothing here. So I added the information. When I was at the page several months ago, I mentioned that I would be putting in the information if more news sources began to cover the issue, and they did, so I did.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I count 4RR for Pink Thunderbolt - the first edit[65] re-inserted this claim,[66] albeit in different words, that Jon Gosselin was partying in clubs with other women. Pink Thunderbolt was clearly edit warring and, with two editors objecting, there was not a clear consensus for it. Content changes that are not accepted should be discussed on the talk page, not edit warred. So even though the question is now moot -- the report is resolved with a warning rather than block and the editors are no longer reverting each other -- I raised this only to point out that Scjessey was not doing the same thing. He was joining a second editor in making a BLP reversion to the newly added material - if another party tries to add it again, I don't want this report to have a chilling effect on watchful editors who would otherwise correctly remove it again pending a full discussion. Scandalous rumors cited to gossip columns is a classic and frequently misunderstood BLP situation. That the rumors form the WP:PLOT of a reality show is a less common twist best discussed at WP:BLP/N. Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I will also throw in that, while I haven't been around for the bulk of this warring, I went to pink's talkpage and saw pink has replaced all warnings with a rant that starts with this: "Some fruitcake from the Jon and Kate Plus 8 fanclub made a comment here about me putting gossip on the page for the show." They have also said several things like we're "whitewashing" the page of negative material. At the very least, the user is not assuming good faith and is acting in a less than civil manner. It is disruptive to the project. Before Pink came back to the page, we were having a decent discussion about the issue on the talk page (which included finding decent sources and we started to discuss its merits for inclusion). Now it's turned back into a rant-fest by Pink. --132 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lynskeyium reported by Edokter (Result: 24h each)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [67]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]

Persistend adding of non-information after having been warned several times on editor's talk page. EdokterTalk 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NiciVampireHeart reported by Josephjames21| (Result: No action )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [77]


  • 1st revert: [78]
  • 2nd revert: [79]
  • 3rd revert: [80]
  • 4th revert: [link]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

NiciVampireHeart does not believe proper names should be bolded if the proper name doesn't have an article

  • I believe that Nici is right from my reading of MOS on bold text. Regardless the other party has been blocked for disruptive editing by another admin and therefore no need to block to protect from further disruption. Nja247 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sardath reported by Xhienne (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [82]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

Now that this article is protected, I believe it can improve, especially the "Critical reviews" section which does not meet WP quality guidelines. Sardath refuses to abide by those guidelines and doesn't accept that others rewrite this section in order to lessen the number of quotes and their length. As soon as someone edits the section, this (seemingly) single purpose account pops up and reverts their edit. He doesn't even agree with the {{Quotefarm}} banner that merely reflects an undeniable fact. Despite my warning on his talk page, he has just made his fourth revert in less than 24h. — Xavier, 14:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

StuporesMundi reported by Arnoutf (result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [88]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [94]

This editor wants to split of large parts of the history of Alitalia from the main article; as this is the case on the Italian Wikipedia. This has been discussed before and there was no consensus to do so. The user however places the Italian situation/ point of view, without any discussion beyond the international point of view.
In spite of my urging not to remove this information the user has done so anyway, and called my reverts "vandalism" from the start (although I actively defended the user from accusations that his removal was vandalism e.g. here). The editor instead repeatedly calls my (talk page supported edits) vandalism and reverts as such. It seems clear to me this editor is not even trying to listen to others. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theo789 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: No action )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [95]


Note that the above edits only deal with one specific paragraph that Theo789 has been adding while 3 other users have deleted it. This is the specific violation of 3RR, but there are many other issues on which he(?) has been edit warring. For example, deleting sourced material [101], adding specious NPOV tags [102], adding poorly sourced info - he sourced a Facebook discussion here: [103]. Generally POV pushing, while claiming that the well sourced consensus version is POV. Also note that anonymous user user:63.215.27.57 was warned for making very similar edits, but seems to have gone away since Theo789 showed up - it's likely the same person. See the anon edits here: [104], [105], [106], etc.

Also note that Theo789 has been engaging in the same type of edit warring at Caylee Anthony homicide - changing sourced material [107], [108], [109], adding poorly sourced or irrelevant material to push a POV [110].



  • No action - While the user in question did violate WP:3RR, they have since ceased edit warring after they were warned and taken to discussing the issue on the talk page. Should they continue to edit war, a block will be necessary. Tiptoety talk 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Falastine fee Qalby reported by User:Lanternix (no vio)[edit]

  • In addition, the user is harassing me on my talk page: [116] I attempted to initiate a respectful discussion with him/her here [117] and all I got was more harassment on my talk page. --Lanternix (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As you can see, Lanternix (talk · contribs) changed the link to a redirect (to Arab invasion of Egypt), and I am reverting his edit to avoid a redirect (back to Muslim conquest of Egypt). That edit of Lanternix is part of a series of edits that show his hostility towards Arabs. Here he deletes a large amount of text from Arab Christians with the edit summary (Egyptians / Copts are NOT Arabs and have nothing to do with an article called "Arab Christians") Here is another series of edits in which he replaces words like Abu Bakr and Rashidun with Arabs [118]. If it was one or two edits, I would not have mind, but it appears to be the same with the majority of his recent edits. I don't see any other purpose to his editing than to incite. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Azazilsgoat (talk · contribs), who registered just a few hours ago, reverted my edit on that page back to Lanternix's really useless change. That was Azazilsgoat's second of only two edits. Could this be Lanternix (talk · contribs) trying to get the version he wants without appearing to be edit warring? Or could this be Lanternix trying to get me to make a 4th revert, thus violating 3rr? I don't see why this 'newly' registered editor would undo my revert as you all can note, Lanternix changed the link to a redirect for POV reasons. It is highly likely that this user is Lanternix, do I have to open an SPI, or can someone do a checkuser now? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, his first edit was uploading a map whose author is Lanternix.[119] -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Blocked A as a sock of L William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

209.244.187.134 reported by ChaosMaster16 (Result: talk)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [120]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


This user has been causing disruption and unneccesarily removing and placing certain information. *UPDATE* The User is not only editing Ghost Whisperer now, he is now removing and changing references on the list of episodes. The references he is putting are way out of date. User:ChaosMaster16|ChaosMaster16]] (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Doesn't look like a formal vio to me. However, *no-one* is discussing this on the article talk page - why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone looks on the talk page anymore. The last comment is pretty far back. I'll fix that though ;]ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Badagnani reported by User:Redheylin (Result: warning)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [124]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

This behaviour extends to several related pages. Redheylin (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned; see article talk William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

63.3.22.3 reported by Age Happens (Result: 48h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [129]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [137]

User 63.3.22.3 continues to make the same revert since receiving the 3RR warning. The 3RR warning was given after the 3rd revert (4th edit). Has made 7 total reverts in addition to the initial edit which was removed as possible vandalism.

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine Reported by User:Mashkin (Result: 24h)[edit]

User:Izzedine has been edit warring in Syrian Desert and violated 3RR

Before his 4th revert I warned him not to do so: [142]

In addition he keeps calling deletion of his edits as "vandalism" (see e.g. the edit summary here [143]). Let me also mention that he feels confident enough of his knowledge of Wikipedia to issue these "warnings" [144], [145], [146]. Mashkin (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Anthony on Stilts Reported by User:Ht686rg90 (Result: 24 and 12h)[edit]

  • Prior version partially reverted to: [147]

Massive, large-scale reverts to a very old version long after merge to another page. Not even the version before the merge but to material from another one much earlier. Refuses to discuss his claims or provide any sources for them.[153] Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony on Stilts thinks that theodicy is a more general subject than an answer to the problem of evil and thus should have a separate article from the problem of evil. He has presented no sources for this claim and refuses to discuss it. Instead preferring to edit war in order to get his OR text. He is also now making many other massive other large scale edits to both "theodicy" and "problem of evil" without discussion, moving material, deleting sourced material, and inserting unsourced OR. But that is a content dispute and not relevant for the 3RR. He clearly broken the rule and continued edit warring as seen in the diffs presented by me above after being warned.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The way you delete an article is by complying with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Restoring an article whose deletion did not comply with said policy, and then re-arranging it into a better article, does not require pre-agreement. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
Furthermore, you'll notice that none of the four edits listed above is remotely identical. Here are comparative diffs - edit 1 to edit 2, edit 2 to edit 3, edit 3 to edit 4.
I believe that Ht686rg90 seems to be trying to delete an article ([154], [155], [156], [157]) without going through the proper policy requirements. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have made no attempt to delete the theodicy article. Several months ago I removed unsourced material and merged the rest with problem of evil article after discussing this on the talk page with no opposition.[158] Anthony on Stilts today restored much old, unsourced material without discussing this and has made massive, large-scale changes to both articles without discussing this on talk. Even after I asked him on his talk page to do so in order to avoid an edit war, explain his reasons, and give sources for his claims. But the content dispute is not relevant here. He has clearly broken the rule, even after I warned him, also informing him that the reverts do not have to be completely identical. That he seems to think that he if free to ignore the rule if he does not make identical reverts only makes violation worse. Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not so much 'no opposition' as 'no comment'. Perhaps you should have waited for longer before merging, and, at the very least, put a 'merge proposal' notice on the article.
The point I am making with the diffs above (edit 1 to edit 2, edit 2 to edit 3, edit 3 to edit 4) is that they are not reverts, they are normal edits. You (Ht686rg90) are the one making reverts ([159], [160], [161], all reverting to this version).
Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a merge proposal notice on both articles and I presented it on talk with no opposition.[162] But again, content dispute. All your four reverts reverted the redirect as clearly seen in my diffs above. Again, that you think that you can violate the spirit of the 3RR, can avoiding citing sources, can refuse to try to resolve an issue by discussion as I asked for, and instead edit war if you do not make identical reverts only make the situation worse.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aos clearly broke 3RR. But H is also edit warring. 24 and 12h respectively William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [163]



Emptymountains (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Mangojuicetalk 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Twelfth Doctor reported by Frickative (Result: 48h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [170]

Editor has been continually adding an irrelevant category to the article multiple times over the past week, despite talk page discussions with 3 separate editors explaining why WP:CAT opposes this. Has continued to revert despite being alerted to the 3RR and receiving no support for his addition.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [175]

Frickative 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

48h for harassment or stupidity or something William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)