Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
| Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
|---|---|---|
|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
User:Singhboi89 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result:24 h )
Page: Jatt Sikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Singhboi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
There is a suspicion that this user is the blocked vandal IP: 86.136.213.236, which has caused much disruption to many articles. Note I am not the only one who has reverted his edits. He has made suspected disruptive edits here. He has totally vandalised this article as well as this article. He is a suspected sockpuppet of this blocked user (this will need further investigation. The behaviour on many articles on surnames seems to be like a bot and needs a more advanced user than me to investigate.
User:Japheth the Warlock reported by Vidkun (talk) (Result:Stale )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Warlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Japheth the Warlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 17:08, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
- 18:54, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "still exists or I wouldn't link to it")
- 18:59, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "So? It's better than no link, and it provides useful information.")
- 19:42, 16 December 2009 (edit summary: "")
Discussed on article talk page, no resolution Link to User Talk page and another, user is refusing to engage in discussion.--Vidkun (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Stale case, warned, will block if he reverts the page again. Secret account 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, not stale: he did it again. Drmies (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, user continued a couple of times, received another final warning, now blocked for a week. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:M i k e y 86 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Brisbane Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:43, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I rearranged the page to make it more suitable, as the other layout did not flow. this is more aesthetically pleasing")
- 14:45, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 14:47, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Airlines and destinations */ Removed Destination picture it is not current as per the destinations create a new picture with the correct destinations and update it when new destinations come online")
- 23:32, 16 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "undo edit, we all know what the point of an airport is but the layout of the page is not flowing and makes for an un pleasant read! Please leave it. consult on talk page if you dont like the change")
- 03:43, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop changing the layout, discuss on talk page before changing! The layout you have constructed is unpleasing to read it lacks structure!!")
- 12:45, 18 December 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 332440016 by Bidgee (talk)Please discuss with me before changing!")
- Diff of warning: here
- Comment: This editor refuses to take the problem to the talk page and the latest revert by the editor clearly shows they have an ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
—Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not a formal 3RR, but this editor does seem to have his own special preference for how an airport article should look. I don't notice him waiting to find consensus, and I see that he restores his preference numerous times after it's reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the comment that this is primarily a content dispute. The content guidelines at WP:Airports are very clear on the layout and hierarchy of airport articles. Jasepl (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Jasepl on this. Jasepl clearly pointed at the guidelines set by the Airports project however the editor didn't take the advice and continued to push their view and lay-out, hardly a content dispute. Bidgee (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the comment that this is primarily a content dispute. The content guidelines at WP:Airports are very clear on the layout and hierarchy of airport articles. Jasepl (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm essentially now gone for a week, but get together your facts and consensus at make a request at Wikipedia:PER. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Echidna2007 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: 24h both)
Page: Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Echidna2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [The problem is with one user]
Comments:
User is also trying to insert secondary and arguable information into header ("Transparency International" is a think tank, and therefore only purveys opinions), when the point is already given lengthy treatment in Economy section. Membership in G-20, though, is matter of record, and can be found in the intros of almost all other G-20 country articles.
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Pantherskin reported by User:Martintg (Result: Being discussed)
Page: Lia Looveer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
- 1st revert: 11:02, 18 December 2009
- 2nd revert: 13:27, 18 December 2009
- 3rd revert: 05:22, 19 December 2009
- 4th revert: 05:36, 19 December 2009
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Comments:
User:Pantherskin has previously edit warred this page and now is blindly reverting a synthesis tag, the issue has not been adequately resolved on talk. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to see that you did not even notify me - the 3RR bogus link you provided above is not a warning, and is from December 2. What could shed light on the situation is this ongoing Arbcom case, see [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Disruption_7] where Martin has been found to have participated in tag team edit-warring organized on a secret mailing list. The other editor who reverted one of my edits, Miacek was also part of this mailing list. See also this proposed decision (which almost surely will pass) [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Editors_under_revert_restriction] which would include Miacek and Martin.
- I removed the synthesis tag three times, the first revert in this report is an edit that restored content removed by an account registered on December 2, with exactly one edit under the belt at the time of the edit (see [17]). Only amazed at how quickly this new account found exactly this sentence in this obscure article. Note that there was a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard that brought one involved editor, User:The Four Deuces, to the article. He agreed with the inclusion of the material, as did implicitly the uninvolved admin User:Alex Bakharev, who originally added the information about her work at the radio station [[18]]. Since the article and the talk page is filibustered by Martin, with repeated removal, taggings and claims of synthesis. Pantherskin (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but other editors also have issues with synthesis, removal of the tag or personally attacking myself does not make that issue go away, nor does it entitle you to edit war either.. --Martin (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
*
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, you both need to just sort this spat out and be done with it. If you're having trouble, see WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- EdJohnston states that 3RR has been breached here. The first is a revert with the edit summary: "Undid revision 332472269 by Bobwikwiki (talk)". The 3 others are reverts too. --Martin (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment I strike my previous comment, sorry, yes there was a 3RR. However it does appear the issue is being discussed. Thus the disruption issue isn't currently a threat, however if edit warring were to continue please re-report for a block. NJA (t/c) 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I wasnt aware of three-revert-rule before I was reported here, I should have at least received a warning by Martintg. There was none. It seems that this report is not about preventing a revert war but about getting me blocked and about winning a content dispute. Note that Martintg fully participated in this revert war, and he only stayed below three reverts because Miacek also participated, what strongly reminds me of the revert wars coordinated by the Eastern European mailing list. I know by now that I need to be more careful with reverts, but my point stays that this is a bad faith report. I will refrain from editing at this article for some time, as the stonewalling of the EEML members makes normal editing and article improvement discussions almost impossible. Pantherskin (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- [[19]] so much for Martintg being concerned about preventing an edit war.... Pantherskin (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that whilst a warning that you violated 3RR and you've been reported here is preferred, not doing so doesn't excuse someone from breaking the rule, nor does it preclude a block for breach. NJA (t/c) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- [[19]] so much for Martintg being concerned about preventing an edit war.... Pantherskin (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:60.48.191.73 reported by User:jasepl (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Hong Kong International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 60.48.191.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]
Comments:
The IP insists on reverting to their own version of things, despite several explanations from three experienced editors. In addition, IP's comments on my talk page are re-added, every time I remove them. 3RR violated on my talk page as well.
- Attempts to explain, or to warn the IP resulted in IP blanking their talk page.
- A courtesy that this report had been filed also resulted in the talk page being blanked.
- An explantion on the article talk page was also reverted by the IP.
Jasepl (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- This editor Jasepl (talk), The IP editor is asking the editor to provide the actual link to support his word, but the editor Jasepl (talk) didn't. The editor is ignore the message instead of keep on revert the Talk Page and others. The editor Jasepl (talk) also breaking the 3RR rule.
Hope admin can investigate it. Thanks! 60.48.191.73 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Reverting (more then three times) Jasepl's removal and calling them a vandal is rather disruptive, as the user (infact any user) has the right to remove comments and warnings from their user talk page whether it was in good faith or not. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Result Blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Blanchardb reported by User:Qikr (Result: 24h)
Page: Queer Fist
User being reported: Blanchardb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&oldid=332668948
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=332697613&oldid=332697581
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332697813
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332698166
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queer_Fist&diff=next&oldid=332699626
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlanchardb&action=historysubmit&diff=332701425&oldid=332698271
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queer_Fist
- Didn't see that. Anyway, as stated on my talk page, I've already moved on to other issues. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you also didn't see the messages Nancy Meyer left on your talk page? Sure. You called me a vandal which is not constructive. Saying you've moved on doesn't change what you've already done, it just means you refuse to apologize or take responsibility. If you get away with it this time then you'll know you can do it again to someone else. Qikr (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am taking responsibility for the fact my anti-vandal software went directly to a Level 2 warning without asking me, because of a past mistake of another editor gave you a level 1 warning which mentions nothing about vandalism. And I do apologize for that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- So it's ok to toss out warnings when people make edits you disagree with? Since when? Qikr (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am taking responsibility for the fact my anti-vandal software went directly to a Level 2 warning without asking me, because of a past mistake of another editor gave you a level 1 warning which mentions nothing about vandalism. And I do apologize for that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you also didn't see the messages Nancy Meyer left on your talk page? Sure. You called me a vandal which is not constructive. Saying you've moved on doesn't change what you've already done, it just means you refuse to apologize or take responsibility. If you get away with it this time then you'll know you can do it again to someone else. Qikr (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
He tossed out fake warnings to intimidate me and I think he succeeded in intimidating Nancy Meier! Qikr (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation, not accidental warnings on talk pages. NJA (t/c) 19:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
83.242.88.168 reported by Lucek (Result: 31h)
Page: Katowice
User being reported: LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&oldid=332491767
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332699031&oldid=332491984
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332700653&oldid=332700050
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332713577&oldid=332708343
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katowice&action=historysubmit&diff=332717905&oldid=332714382
All registrations are with only 19 December 2009 (UTC+1). LUCPOL (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of hours Not a clear 3RR today, but close enough and the page edit history shows a lot of similar reversions by same user. Thus clearly some behavioural and disruption issues. NJA (t/c) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Mrandsl reported by User:Dodo19 (Result: No violation)
Page: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mrandsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [28]
- 2nd revert: [29]
- 3rd revert: [30]
- 4th revert: [31]
- 5th revert: [32]
- 6th revert: [33]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]
Comments:
Looking at the history, User:Mrandsl has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours. I will also note that he has been removing very serious allegations, including about living persons, which may or may not be properly sourced or unsourced altogether. In view of this, the material should remain deleted from the article until consensus is reached for its inclusion. The request for comment is a good start. --Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Vryadly reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 31 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vryadly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
- 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
- 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk)")
- 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
- 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments:
The same material was first introduced by IP 89.176.112.74 (see diff). After it was reverted, the IP added it again (see diff). Then the page was semi-protected to prevent further additions. The subsequent edits by User:Vryadly sought to restore the same material. A brief analysis of the contribs for Vryadly and the IP seem to indicate that they are almost certainly the same individual. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that the evidence shows that 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs) and Vryadly (talk · contribs) are the same accounts. Both accounts were previously warned about edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a clear violation when reverts from both accounts are shown together:
- 23:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
- 23:49, 19 December 2009(edit summary: "→Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003")
- 00:15, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Jones email of 2 Feb 2005 */")
- 00:16, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "/* Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003 */")
- 00:26, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332765058 by Tony Sidaway (talk)")
- 00:33, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332766325 by ChrisO (talk) partisan deletion undone. claim that wall street journal is "bad sourcing" is ridiculous")
- 00:44, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332767002 by Scjessey (talk) A partisan deletion with unsupported vandalism claim undone again")
- 'Comment': Yes, it was me. I had to log in after the article had been protected from unregistered users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you are basically admitting that because semi-protection prevented you from edit warring as an IP, you were forced to log in so that you could continue the edit war? That's unbelievable, quite frankly. And then you have the audacity to file a (malformed) 3RR complaint against me? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Scjessey, there's enough evidence for a clear block. No need to continue this. Both accounts were warned, yet continued to edit war. We simply need an administrator to review this. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quite a strong language. I was editing the page adding new emails relevant to the article. Right after I corrected the reference that had been pointed wrong to me, I found that the page was closed for unregistered users. So, yes, I had to recall my password and log in in order to continue editing the article. Then I found that a group of people is deleting my edits without bothering to give any reasonable explanations, and notwithstanding my wiliness to correct the issues I had been informed of. Right after I corrected the reasons you cited for deleting the emails, you deleted them again. So, yes, I have the "audacity" to report you on editing war.
- So you are basically admitting that because semi-protection prevented you from edit warring as an IP, you were forced to log in so that you could continue the edit war? That's unbelievable, quite frankly. And then you have the audacity to file a (malformed) 3RR complaint against me? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Besides, if you took your time to look into first four edits, you would find that they were exactly edits, not reverts Vryadly (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Scjessey, User:Tony Sidaway reported by Vryadly (talk) (Result: No violation )
- Three-revert rule violation on
- 23:39, 19 December 2009(edit summary: rv to 23:21, 19 December 2009 89.176.112.74 . Can't find any ref to WIgley in reference given.)
- 23:56, 19 December 2009 "Reverted 2 edits by 89.176.112.74; Remove synthesis. using TW")
- 00:22, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv. Poor sourcing. BLP problems.")
- 00:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv per WP:BLP - bad sourcing, cherry-picked, no context")
- 00:34, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Vryadly identified as vandalism to last revision by ChrisO. using TW")
- 00:44, 20 December 2009(edit summary: (Reverted edits by [User:Vryadly] to last revision by [User:Scjessey] (HG)))
Comments:
Taking into account the timing and the similarity of action (no attempts to edit the article, no attempt for meaningful discussion, just deletion of information relevant to the article), the actions of users User:Scjessey,User:Tony Sidaway,User:ChrisO and User:P Carn have been probably coordinated.
Moreover, due to the fact that the first time the reason cited for the deletion was wrong reference, but even after the reference (WSJ) was corrected, the deletion continued, the deletions were caused apparently not by Wikipedia rules but by a partisan agenda.
- Comment: I believe this has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and the user is required to discuss their proposed changes on talk and join the discussion, no matter how many accounts they use. See report immediately above this one. Vryadly is using multiple accounts (including 89.176.112.74 (talk · contribs)) to edit war. Recommend that this report is closed with prejudice and that both Vryadly and 89.176.112.74 are blocked for intentional disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - this is obviously a bad faith retaliation, and the diffs provided clearly show that neither the letter, nor the spirit of WP:3RR have been violated by me. The edits were conducted under the auspices of WP:BLP, with proper warnings given. The malformed report above actually combines the edits of four separate editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, it was me from the IP, though I was not "using multiple accounts for editing wars". Right in the middle of an edit I was doing, the page was closed for unregistered editing, so I had to log in to continue editing it - only to found my previous edits deleted. Vryadly (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting departure. An edit warrior and probable sock puppet files a complaint against the multiple editors who reverted his nonsense, on the grounds that their edits must have been coordinated and therefore must be sanctionable. --TS 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Would you please specify what exactly you call "nonsense" and on what grounds? Vryadly (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Declined No violation of 3RR here. Having multiple editors "coordinate" their opposition to one's edits is not a violation, but may be an indication that one is acting against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Kalphiter reported by Sole Soul (talk) (Result: 31h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Blockland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kalphiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:20, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332707805 by Ephialtes42 (talk)")
- 18:27, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332708457 by Ephialtes42 (talk) Deleting reference for an invalid reason")
- 18:37, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332710270 by Ephialtes42 (talk) Jealousy is not tolerated")
- 18:53, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332711552 by Ephialtes42 (talk) I never added my own website")
- 19:03, 19 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332713222 by Ephialtes42 (talk)")
- 01:48, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332714875 by 98.27.129.104 (talk)")
- 03:08, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332787863 by 188.222.0.45 (talk)")
- 03:30, 20 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332789139 by 188.222.0.45 (talk)")
The user is adding a reference with a link to his site.
—Sole Soul (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 31h)
Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BruceGrubb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 19 December 2009
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Bruce has been blocked for 3rr before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:BruceGrubb_reported_by_User:Slakr_.28Result:_8_hours.29. Current warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Comments:
--Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The 2007 edit-warring case seems old, but the behavior of BruceGrubb in the current dispute is worrisome. It is plausible that he may be using 67.42.65.214 to revert in favor of his point of view. (How likely is it that both the IP and BruceGrubb would support including Remsburg's work in the article?) I left a message on BruceGrubb's Talk page and asked him to respond here. BruceGrubb appears to be in a minority on the talk page, since no-one else supports including Remsburg, but he reverts anyway. A conciliatory response from him might be enough to avoid admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please compare Special:Contributions/67.42.65.214 and Special:Contributions/BruceGrubb. Both have edited Christ myth theory, Psystar Corporation, Jack T. Chick, Time Travel, and Rorschach test--it's pretty unlikely that this is coincidence. I linked to the edit warring case from 2007 simply to show that BruceGrubb is aware of the 3RR rule. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Result - 31 hours, edit-warring to force Remsburg's theories into the article with no support from others, and use of a sock in an edit war. Block may be lifted early if the user will commit to an acceptable style of dispute resolution regarding this article and related ones. If Bruce will agree to an RfC about Remsburg I trust the other editors will be ready to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Radical-Dreamer reported by User:Atlan (Result: 24h)
Page: Siemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [42]
All reverts within the last few hours.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]
Comments:
I've had no prior involvement in this dispute before this ANI report.--Atlan (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - relatively new user - but with possible problems relating to POV issues (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Radical-Dreamer) I have explained to this editor the various issues involved (see link), but they are not really taking that much notice. There is a wider POV problem beyond breaking the 3RR which is explained on the incidents page. The last edit shows them ignoring other editors, yet clearly aware of the problem. [49]Shortfatlad (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by J.delanoy--Atlan (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Kostja reported by User:Athenean (Result: Protected)
Page: Bulgarisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kostja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] [56]
Comments:User displays hostile and combative attitude, as evidenced by this message [57] he left on my talkpage. Same goes at Talk:Bulgarisation#POV_edits [58]. Note that it was I who started the discussion. Prior to that, the user contented themselves with sterile reverts (using his rollback tool to do so, no less). Although he participates in the discussion, he shows no intent to stop edit-warring. A block is warranted, as is a suspension of his rollback rights. --Athenean (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only 107 can be regarded as a revert as the other two edits didn't return to my previous version.
- I don't understand what is meant by hostile and combative. I was just arguing against the idea that I was POV pushing.
- I've defended my recent edits on the talk page and tried to accomodate the opinion of the other editors. It can hardky be said that I intend to continue edit warring.
- Kostja (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." 106, 107 are in whole, 108, 109 are in part. And you do show you have every intention to continue edit-warring, because you reverted even after you joined the discussion. --Athenean (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't revert an action in part but added additional information.
- I didn't revert after joining as I've explained above.
- Kostja (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." 106, 107 are in whole, 108, 109 are in part. And you do show you have every intention to continue edit-warring, because you reverted even after you joined the discussion. --Athenean (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only "additional" information you "added" was to replace "Most" with "Part". Hardly a substantial change. The spirit of the last two diffs is identical to your first two reverts, and as such, is a rather straightforward breach of 3RR. --Athenean (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Result - Article protected 3 days. I don't see a clear violation of WP:3RR by Kostja, but he did misuse rollback in a content dispute. This happened at 11:31 and 13:44 on 20 December, so his rollback is suspended. He may apply at WP:PERM to have it restored after a reasonable time. All parties are warned against continuing to revert the language about previous Bulgarian ownership of the territory invaded in 1941, without first getting a consensus on the talk page as to what to say. Blocks are possible if that dispute continues after protection expires. An explanation of WP:DIGWUREN is hopefully not needed here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:59.120.72.94 reported by User:Materialscientist (Result:Protected )
Page: Copper indium gallium selenide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 59.120.72.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
The user was reportedly pointed to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, yet continues to ignore. Materialscientist (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Heqwm2 reported by User:Dr.enh (Result: )
Page: Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Heqwm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Removing a reference.
Refuses to disucss [69]
These reverts are the same as Heqwm2's reverts before his/her last ban
except that Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]
Comments:
Dr.enh (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Dr.enh is engaging in edit warring while claiming to be the victim. He has absolutely refused to discuss the issues on the talk page. Despite me starting a section on the discussion page to discuss the issue, he repeatedly reverted my edits without responding. When I put an edit war warning on his talk page, he retaliated by putting one on my talk page. Just to be clear: the edit war warning that he put on my talk page was in response to reverts that I made after he gave ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER to the talk page section that I created to discuss the issue. He did finally give a "response" that did not address my points at all, and six minutes later (and without any intervening edits on my part) put the edit war warning on my page. He has repeatedly removed a {{fact}) tag without giving a valid reference. After removing the invalid reference once, I simply put in the [citation needed] tag. His statement "Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference" is false. I am simply re-adding a [citation needed] tag that he insists on removing without giving a valid reference. Also, his labeling of the first diff a "revert" is dishonest. He reverted my edit, claiming that I needed a cite, so I made a new edit including a source (which he then reverted). My edit was not a revert.
Dr.enh has made it clear that he has no intention of editing with good faith, and I ask that he be blocked.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:HJ_Mitchell reported by 86.12.24.209 (talk) (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Eleventh night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 19:34, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by Ulster15rugby")
- 19:43, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by P Carn")
- 19:55, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by HJ Mitchell")
—86.12.24.209 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
A violation of 3RR occurs when more than three reverts are made, which haven't been made yet by HJ_Mitchell (though it still doesn't exclude the situation from being an edit war).
Also, just to point it out, 86.12.24.209 has violated the 3RR:
~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, so it's somewhat backward (and rather comical) that I should be reported by the violator! I've reverted edits that appear to be unconstructive while patrolling the recent changes. The IP editor has responded to warnings, made with an assumption of good faith (and later no faith assumption) with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I informed him (assuming, sorry) that the simple use of an edit summary would solve the problem and was greeted with abuse. For context, at least one other editor has reverted seemingly unconstructive edits by this IP on the same article and issued the relevant level warning. I'm tempted to report 86.12.24.209 to WQA, though I haven't decided on that yet. HJMitchell You rang? 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Several changes are involved in that edit/revert. At least one of 86.12's changes was uncontroversially constructive: turning multiple duplicate refs into one ref with a refname thereafter invoked for later cites. Why was this change not left in place, rather than being repeatedly reverted? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because the edit appeared to be vandalism. It was a sizeable removal of content with no explanation in any of the edit summaries or personal attacks and it was flagged up by an abuse filter. I checked the history, 86.12.24.209 is not a regular contributor to the article and so I reverted and issues a {{uw-delete1}} which makes an assumption of good faith and suggests the use of an edit summary if the change was constructive (as opposed to issuing {{uw-vandal1}} which appears to assume bad faith). Instead of removing the warning, re-doing the change and noting the mistake in an edit summary, 86.12.24.209 met it with confrontation but that's a matter for another noticeboard. HJMitchell You rang? 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell clearly meant well, but that does not excuse either party from reverting each other's edits with a nonconstructive result. In terms of edit warring alone, neither anon. user and HJ are excused from edit warring. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- For an IP user to edit without a summary does not, in itself, constitute "vandalism". Your own edit summaries "Reverted edits by... to last version by..." state what you did but not why. "Removing" content, by combining multiple duplicate refs into one ref-with-refname, does not in fact remove any information; it only reduces needless repetition of the same information. There seems to be a need to study WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism; note that "Failing to use the edit summary" is not vandalism. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am well aware of what is and is not vandalism. I'm an experienced rollbacker and recent changes patroller. As for my own edit summaries, they are automatically generated by the rollback feature. Look at this from my perspective:
- I know nothing about the article or its history and, while patrolling recent changes, I come across an IP who had never edited the article before and appeared (we can thrash that out in another venue if you really want) to be removing a large amount of text from an article, triggering an abuse filter. Now, if you were in my position, you wouldn't think that suspect at least?
- Further to my reversion, I left a warning on the IP's talk page which explained, in a way that assumes good faith, about removal of content not vandalism.
- You can imagine my surprise to find that, within minutes, another editor has reverted exactly the same edit and issued the next level warning
- You can imagine my further surprise to find myself being called an "officious bureaucrat" on my talk page by said IP and to see said IP reverting the second reverter without attempting to engage either in discussion or explanation in the edit summary despite the condescending comments which show he knows how to use it.
- I made another 2 reverts (taking me up to 3), each time explaining very clearly on his talk page why I reverted to be met with a report here only for the IP to revert me again, thus taking his total to 4- a violation of 3RR.
- Because the edit appeared to be vandalism. It was a sizeable removal of content with no explanation in any of the edit summaries or personal attacks and it was flagged up by an abuse filter. I checked the history, 86.12.24.209 is not a regular contributor to the article and so I reverted and issues a {{uw-delete1}} which makes an assumption of good faith and suggests the use of an edit summary if the change was constructive (as opposed to issuing {{uw-vandal1}} which appears to assume bad faith). Instead of removing the warning, re-doing the change and noting the mistake in an edit summary, 86.12.24.209 met it with confrontation but that's a matter for another noticeboard. HJMitchell You rang? 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
However, the edit war that he started, in which he violated the 3RR and in which he made the last revert but only after reporting me for doing what he was about to do is not the issue. If he had simply gone with a "undid revision by HJ Mitchell.... I'm replacing a duplicate ref with a refname" or some such, I would have left it but reverting and reverting that fast only reinforced my conception that it was vandalism. It has since been pointed out to me that the edit was constructive and I apologise unreservedly for my misconception. However, I hope 86.12.24.209 can take from this that people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly an that the attitude he displayed in reverting and attacking those reverting seemingly unconstructive edits is not the way to go.
Now will someone please close this so I can get on with building the encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note to SuperHamster: I'm sure everyone knows that the number of reverts isn't particularly adhered to, on either side of the figure three - it seems instead to be judged usually by a closing admin. I do appreciate though, that you recognise this in your bracketed remark. Also, by publishing this report, obviously I am not trying to hide the fact that I made reverts myself. Any and all interested or involved parties can and will clearly see the edit history of the article and will notice my own reverts. However, in making this report I am representing myself.
- I would like to point out to HJ Mitchell that I have not violated anything.. apart from 3RR, which wouldn't have occurred had you used common sense with regard to the issue. You attempt to point out that it is "backward and comical" that I should report you based simply on the number of reverts made by each party. "Oh he did it more than me, so he's the more guilty". The fact is that the person adding the initial information is ALWAYS the loser when it comes to this numbers game. I have witnessed people gaming the system in this way. As an aside - I am NOT suggesting you are trying to game the system here. However, my point remains.
- While you may think it comical, I have a similar opinion with regard to your actions relating to the article itself: you saw it having been tagged by a bot, presumably noticed a difference in the size of the article, and assumed I had indulged in some vandalism, as you admit. I have never given a warning template to another editor of Wikipedia based solely on assumption, that I can remember. I certainly haven't done it repeatedly with the same edit. If I see something I think might be amiss, I do a little investigation: "maybe there's a logical reason behind this apparently strange edit". I don't mind wasting my own time, but I hate others wasting my time.. and I try to consider other editors in respect of that.
- The other editor did indeed revert my edit shortly after you had, and I had reverted the article back. I included an edit summary advising you (and the other editor) of the situation. While that summary may have been trite, there is a limited space available and I was quite incredulous at having been reverted in the first place, for no good reason other than that you took the word of a bot. All this does really, is show the limitations of an over-abundance of over enthusiastic bureaucracy and the limitations of a bot (which is probably, otherwise, a perfectly well written and useful bot).
- As for alleged personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, let me remind you that your tone was rather patronising, as well as not assuming good faith. Protocol, or guidelines, suggest that at that point I should report you, rather than continue in dialogue with you. However, I didn't think it was necessary to bother anyone else. I had actually assumed you would see sense. I can't actually see that I have made any personal attacks. I believe I merely made statements of fact, albeit rather bluntly. I did employ sarcasm, truth be told, when I said "have a nice day", of course. Nor can I see where I have not assumed good faith - I basically hit your problem on the head like the proverbial nail. I explained as much in my edit summary after your revert (in which there was no edit summary either, by the way.. although you did leave a nice 'warning' on the talk page of this IP).
- Now, possibly because you won't admit your error in judgement or lack of pre-investigation, you are considering opening up yet another report, based on etiquette apparently. Sizzle Flambé was right when they suggested you threw the baby out with the bathwater and now, to add in another metaphor, you are considering throwing good money after bad - wasting more of both your time and my time.
- There is far too much of this crap on Wikipedia, which means that hard work seldom gets done. It is one of the principle reasons I am no longer a regular contributor. Well, good luck if you do decide to make a case for bad etiquette. Who knows - I might even show up for comment.
- Let me try to end this on a more positive note: I know you probably meant well HJ, but you .. messed up. I'd like to try to be fair and attempt to share some of the blame with you but, really, all I tried to do was improve an article at the end of the day. I guess that'll teach me, huh? --86.12.24.209 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see I have been writing while another response has been made. Firstly, I resent the accusation that I am male. Let's go into list format for the remainder of my responses:
- You might need to brush up on what is and what is not vandalism, because you clearly got it wrong on this occasion.
- My edit summaries, with my reverts, were also automatically generated, yet I managed to include - at your request, I believe - an additional manual input.
- "I know nothing about the article or its history" .. perhaps this points out another flaw of Wikipedia, frankly.
- I did indeed remove an amount of unnecessary text from the article. However - and this is where you and I apparently differ - what I would do is check the article itself for actual vandalism, instead of merely suspected vandalism. Then, if nothing was clear to me, I would have performed an edit history comparison: "compare selected revisions".
- Officious bureaucrat may not be the most flattering way to describe someone, but I feel it was apt.
- My first comment to you was in the edit summary, and clearly defined your problem: "stop listening to bots! No information was removed - info was ADDED!" I don't quite understand why you didn't accept what I had said at that point. It was at exactly this point that I believed you had initiated an edit war, by the way. However, I didn't report you then because I thought a clearer message on your talk page might end the dispute.
- That you made only a third revert, and I made four, is due to the fact that another editor made the same mistake you had.
- As far as "people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly" goes.. let me remind you that people don't necessarily give up their spare time to edit this encyclopaedia lightly. You are not the only one who is building an encyclopaedia.
- I accept your apology and echo your sentiment regarding moving on.
--86.12.24.209 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll take most of that as fair comment. Now, I'd much rather be editing in the mainspace than project space so can we agree to disagree and get back to what we're really here for? HJMitchell You rang? 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Truth Transparency reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: indef)
Page: Leib Tropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Truth Transparency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [74]
- 2nd revert: [75]
- 3rd revert: [76]
- 4th revert: [77]
- 5th revert: [78]
- 6th revert: [79]
- 7th revert: [80]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
Here is the diff of where I offered him the opportunity to revert his edit.
Comments:
User been repeatedly reinserting a link that other users have removed as unreliable. These edit are all since this afternoon. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- He was blocked for twenty four hours for repeatedly adding the same content on the 18th of this month. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:98.240.184.20 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: )
Page: 2009 American League Division Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.240.184.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [82]
- 1st revert: [83] (reflects 4 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
- 2nd revert: [84] (reflects 3 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
- 3rd revert: [85]
- 4th revert: [86]
98.240.184.20 has made several other similar edits to this page as evidenced in his/her contribution history since 15 October 2009. The most recent have been [87] and [88].
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90] (reflects my last contribution to the talk page)
Comments:
At issue here is the wording of a controversial baseball call. Felyza (talk · contribs) gave 98.240.184.20 an opportunity to explain his/her position on the article talk page, and consensus went against him/her. He/she has continued to make the same or similar edits against consensus and despite the edit warring warning linked above. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User:78.32.143.113 reported by Letdorf (talk) (Result: )
Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent edit warring regarding nomenclature used to refer to Volkswagen Group and Volkswagen AG.
Previous version reverted to: [91]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 19:37, 6 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv editorial opinion")
- 15:37, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331615769 by Letdorf (talk) the English language name is "Volkswagen Group"")
- 19:33, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "fixed redirects, tweaks, clarity, corrections, "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" are an identical company, re-inserted previous vandalism to remove official acronyms")
- 11:07, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "MOS compliance for abbreviations, rv editorial opinion")
- 21:33, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 333354586 by Gr1st (talk) it IS an editorial opinion - otherwise cite your source!")
Also reverting what appear to be good faith edits, claiming "possible vandalism":
- 10:59, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332571237 by 118.92.113.82 (talk) possible vandalism - blanked section")
- 11:01, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332570573 by 118.92.113.82 (talk) possible vandalism")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]
Comments:
The user at this IP address has a history of engaging in edit warring in various articles including ETKA (history), List of Volkswagen Group factories (history - 6 reverts in total, plus unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism) and Unit Injector (history). In addition the user has already received a warning from an Administrator about edit warring [94] and was reported by another user on WP:RFAR [95] (although that was not an appropriate action at that time).
—Letdorf (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, I WILL reply to this in good time - but I MUST immediately raise the issue that Letdorf has blatantly LIED in this citation - not to mention the numerous personal attacks he places on my own talk page! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Lanternix reported by User:Tiamut (Result: )
Page: Arab Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [96]
In each of the diffs presented, Lanternix removes the listing of Egypt and its Christian population.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101], though Lanternix is well aware of what 3RR is.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section I opened to deal with the reverting
Please note that Lanternix has been edit-warring at Arab Christian over the same content for over a year now (sample diffs from October 2008: [102], [103], [104], [105]). It is very difficult to reason with this editor given their refusal to entertain POVs oither than their own and their tendency to edit-war to impose their POV. I have left many an article out of fear of being dragged into an edit war and was dragged into one here (I reverted twice myself). I stopped though when I noticed what was happening. When an IP added similar information and Lanternix deleted it again, I warned him/her to give a chance for self-reversion. With none forthcoming, an with this message on my talk page noting s/he will not self-revert, I decided to file this report. Tiamuttalk 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
User:Tiamut reported by User:Lanternix (Result: )
Page: Arab Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In each of the diffs presented, Tiamut insists on including Egyptian Copts in the article, in spite of the various references I provided him/her with, which state that Egyptian Copts are not Arabs. I even tried to reach a compromise with the user by finding a middle ground and renaming the article "Arabic-speaking Christians" or "Middle Eastern Christians", but the user has declined this offer. There are also IP addresses involved in reverting my edits (IP 86.108.40.104 and IP 84.109.85.121), and I am hereby requesting an investigation as to the relationship between the user Tiamut and these IP addresses. I had already reached a compromise on the issue during the previous year here and again here, but user Tiamut was not content in spite of the efforts made by everyone else to find a middle ground, and thus the article was reverted back to be called Arab Christians, which did not initially include the Egyptians. I have no problem with finding a compromise, as long as it actually agrees with history and with the self-determined identity of the Copts as Egyptians and not Arabs.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106], though Tiamut is well aware of what 3RR is.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page by reaching a compromise and a middle ground for the dispute: [107]
Comments:
- I don't know if you've actually read WP:3RR, but it takes more than three reversions to be in violation.
- If you want somebody to check whether Tiamut is related to those IPs, the appropriate page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've actually read the tile of this page, but it is not just about 3RR, but about edit warring, and the firs line says "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors."
When you go to WP:3RR, you will see it clearly syays "any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached."
- It takes some nerve to report an editor for 4 reversions, when you have made 3 reversions on the same page. Both should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see. In that case, I will undo my own reverts on Arab Christians then. Thanks for the help. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)