Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:18, 19 September 2008 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →Michael Friedrich reported by 121.135.161.242 (Result: ): c← Previous edit Revision as of 15:21, 19 September 2008 edit undoMichael Friedrich~enwiki (talk | contribs)1,151 edits →Michael Friedrich reported by 121.135.161.242 (Result: )Next edit →
Line 506: Line 506:
::::Why do I have to be blocked by discussion on talk page? BlueSalo talks as if opposing to him is vandalism. This is a "content dispute," not vandalism. Every piece of the information listed in the article was sourced. I call removing it without consensus is vandalism. Reverting your edit cannot be the reason for blocking.--] (]) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Why do I have to be blocked by discussion on talk page? BlueSalo talks as if opposing to him is vandalism. This is a "content dispute," not vandalism. Every piece of the information listed in the article was sourced. I call removing it without consensus is vandalism. Reverting your edit cannot be the reason for blocking.--] (]) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is a malformed 3RR report, and the anon obviously does not understand 3RR policy. Michael should've added <nowiki><small></nowiki> not to make admins confused when they read the report. However, well, the anon and Michale both violated 3RR and here is the report. Even if the reverts are not identical, Micheal reverted 4 times, so I think '''both are responsible for the edit warring.'''--] (]) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC) *'''Comment''' This is a malformed 3RR report, and the anon obviously does not understand 3RR policy. Michael should've added <nowiki><small></nowiki> not to make admins confused when they read the report. However, well, the anon and Michale both violated 3RR and here is the report. Even if the reverts are not identical, Micheal reverted 4 times, so I think '''both are responsible for the edit warring.'''--] (]) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
⚫ :::::Blue Salo cannot accuse me of reverting because his/her edit was too big. I think s/he went a bit too far to removing the whole list without consensus. S/he says s/he did it per the discussion on the talk page, but it was only 24 hours since s/he posted his idea. It cannot be said there was consensus. S/he talks as if the information on the list were not sourced, but actually they are. S/he talks as if I edited the article, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but the discussion was started by him/her and closed by him/her within a day. Reverting his/her edit cannot be the reason for blocking me. The discussion page cannot be the reason for blocking me either. I did no vandalism or no 3rr violation.--] (]) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
⚫ ::::::Yes, however there is no consensus to keep the list either. Actually, if the article is cleaned up, well, the article would not be accused for ] like this. You reverted 4 times along with the anon but BlueSalo did two times (his first edit is regarded a revert based on the article history). The anon and BlueSalo's removals are content dispute, not vandalism. I'm just saying about fairness and equality since the one side is blocked.--] (]) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to *Previous version reverted to
Line 514: Line 516:
*4th revert *4th revert


*:This is an arbitary interpretation. The 1st edit the 2nd edit are not the same and I made the article grammartical. The 3rd and the 4th are the same but different from the 1st and the 2nd. The 3rd and 4th are made because the whole list was removed. They are actually like this.
⚫ :::::Blue Salo cannot accuse me of reverting because his/her edit was too big. I think s/he went a bit too far to removing the whole list without consensus. S/he says s/he did it per the discussion on the talk page, but it was only 24 hours since s/he posted his idea. It cannot be said there was consensus. S/he talks as if the information on the list were not sourced, but actually they are. S/he talks as if I edited the article, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but the discussion was started by him/her and closed by him/her within a day. Reverting his/her edit cannot be the reason for blocking me. The discussion page cannot be the reason for blocking me either. I did no vandalism or no 3rr violation.--] (]) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
*1st edit
⚫ ::::::Yes, however there is no consensus to keep the list either. Actually, if the article is cleaned up, well, the article would not be accused for ] like this. You reverted 4 times along with the anon but BlueSalo did two times (his first edit is regarded a revert based on the article history). The anon and BlueSalo's removals are content dispute, not vandalism. I'm just saying about fairness and equality since the one side is blocked.--] (]) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
*1nd revert
*'''1st''' revert
*'''2nd''' revert
I am not violating 3rr.--] (]) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:21, 19 September 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    71.239.229.11 reported by UtherSRG (Result: Already blocked)




    This anon appears to be well intentioned, but doesn't yet know how to play well with others. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) They have also engaged in similar practices on multiple articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked 24 hours by Tiptoety. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    69.110.68.30 reported by Tbsdy lives (talk) (Result: 48 hours)



    The user believes that the section is trivia, I have taken the article to RFC to bring this to the wider attention of the Misplaced Pages community. Please note that the anon has reverted another editor as well as myself. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring; aggressive language in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    IP 68.204.214.55 reported by Blaxthos (Result: no blocks )


    • Previous version reverted to: 03:02



    There is a section on the talk page that already explains why the wording is used, along with a consensus to do so. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined The 3RR warning was left over two hours after the fourth revert, and the IP hasn't made any further edits to the page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Collectonian reported by Hexhand (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: link


    These are edit-warring efforts to hamper the improvement of the article, as the editor had repeatedly deleted the article (1, 2, 3, 4 itself a 3RR violation), seeking to redirect it back to the main article as non-notable, and has since sought to have it deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(Pilot)_Fringe 4). Clearly, Collectonian doesn't think the article is notable, though many others appear to disagree with him. He appears to be gaming the system to get the article removed.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is a long-time user with thousands of edits (and a previous block for edit-warring). It appears that the block did not have the desired effect on Collectonian's behavior; she continues to edit-war in articles, going right up to - and in this case, past - the electric fence that 3RR represents, and the rules for BRD that guide them. - Hexhand (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    - Hexhand (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    The first set isn't reverting at all, its call cleaning up after a merge Hexhand himself did, with another major contributer agreed with. Hexhand, however, reverted everyone's edits seeming to feel that only his are good. As for the second "set" Hexhand himself merged the article and asked for the AfD to be closed as such (which I did with #s 1 and 4 that he put above, out of order and falsely claiming the four were done BEFORE the AfD, when only two were), yet HE is now blocking the redirecting of his badly named article to the properly named one that he himself merged his article too despite his saying to do it??? How the hell is that 3RR? I closed the AfD on good faith that he would actually allow this to happen,] (] · ]) 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    (ec x2) Actually, I didn't ask for the AfD to be closed. I did merge the content, as the other article was older than mine, but that was independent of the AfD, which you closed yourself when you saw it was about to fail. People thought the content was notable.
    And this isn't about liking you - before yesterday, I didn't even know you existed. 3RR is a guiding principle for all of us, and can only be carefully performed in the removal of vandalism and such. It doesn't matter what you were reverting - you don't get to do it more than three times in a day; if you think it is an abortion and wrong, trust that one of the other thousands of editors will come along and catch it. Your behavior is edit-warring. You were asked to stop and you chose to derisively ignore it. This is what happens afterward. - Hexhand (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Can you speak the truth for a bit? Direct quote: "As per Justen's comments, I have moved the content from the (Pilot) Fringe article over to the Pilot (Fringe) article. I did title mine wrong, and the subsequent de facto merged article is better off for it. As the merge is essentially complete, might we finish this AfD?" You did ask for it to be ended. I ended it as the articles had been merged, not because "I saw it was about to fail" and the renominated the single merged article. -- ] (] · ]) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    I asked for the AfD/gaming the system nonsense to be concluded. Removing the different articles from the equation didn't conclude the AfD but delineated the actual problem you seem to have with episodic articles. As the AfD had four different editors suggesting merge (and keep) to your lone voice seeking deletion, I would say that your closure of the AfD was premature and a fairly clear attempt to reframe the question more to your liking.
    Either way, 3RR is still 3RR - are you arguing that you were fighting vandalism or some such? If you were not, you broke 3RR. It seems pretty clear that you were edit-warring your preferences against the article led you to 3RR. Maybe you are better off walking away for a bit? - Hexhand (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    To the reviewing admin, this same editor claiming I "broke" 3RR is refusing to allow anyone to edit Pilot (Fringe), quickly reverting anyone's edits to the page to his own version. I'm not the one with edit warring issues here: reverting edits from two different editors (including myself) and reverting multiple edits from three editors (again including me) - these edits he reverted without reason included sourcing, clean up of wording, etc. His second revert also inappropriately changed the AfD template to the old one not the current one. -- ] (] · ]) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Um, fairly nice job at trying yet again to reframe the question, Collectonian - 'I know I am worng, but they are wrong too?' You've been here long enough to know that we trust the other editors to fix problems - we don't break 3RR to do it. I am unclear why your behavior is so abrasive, but it is mightily disruptive. Requests to discuss your repetitive edits failed, and reminding you of 3RR didn't work. Thus, the complaint. - Hexhand (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    No, I wasn't wrong. I didn't break 3RR despite your false claims. -- ] (] · ]) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, since you are unwilling to admit you were wrong, how about simmering down and allow an admin to sift through the diffs? I'll reorder them to reflect the proper chronological order. - Hexhand (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    No violation The listed reverts were not tabulated correctly. A group of successive edits counts as at most a single revert. In any case I don't perceive a continuing edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    71.239.229.11 reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: and here

    Also edit warring on Kebara Cave and falsely claimed consensus on last revert; Dating methodology (archaeology),Human evolution,Recent African origin of modern humans, Rhodesian Manaccused me of racism on my talk page and insults others in edit summaries. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sgroupace reported by User:Phpulse (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: DELETED


    • 1st revert: DELETED
    • 2nd revert: DELETED
    • 3rd revert: DELETED
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Am new to wikipedia. Was adding my MVC framework to other listings of MVC frameworks. Users spotted it and started removing it and removed my page. I reverted it and asked him not to do that as he marked me as a spammer, he did it again and asked 'what is MVC?' and then before I had a chance to revert, he deleted it entirely. He has been actively wiping all changes I have been making and targeting me and my changes.

    I have done nothing wrong. My changes accurately reflect a project on Sourceforge.net active since 2001 (and on Google code) and I was merely making sure that it was represented alongside other MVC frameworks in Misplaced Pages.

    This guy is being a total dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    No action. Since the article you were working on, PHPulse, has been speedy deleted as a G11 there is not much we can review here. If you believe this topic is notable enough for a real article, try starting work on a new version of it in your user space. For instance, User:Phpulse/PHPulse. To avoid criticism of your user name, consider starting over with a new account. To create an article that will be kept, it is essential for you to include reliable sources that have commented on the importance of the topic. There were none in the article that was deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    78.49.72.245 reported by Maxschmelling (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:
    note the IP editor's style is typically to add a series of short edits in quick succession, so, by necessity, the diffs below are mostly the combination of a series of small edits by the same user.
    • 1st revert:
    • 2st revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    The fourth and fifth are not identical to the first three, but are fundamentally the same project by the IP editor

    • 4th revert: all intermediate revisions are by the same user + again a sequence of small edits by one editor
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    The IP user is most likely the same person as User:Eurominuteman who was blocked a year ago for very similar edit warring on the same Translation page. maxsch (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected Article is being disrupted by probable socks of Eurominuteman (six different IP addresses). Semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Gutza reported by Xasha (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 20:27
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 2nd revert: 21:30
    • 3rd revert: 21:43
    • 4th revert: 22:11
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is admin, so I suppose warning is not needed.
    Gutza tries to impose his POV on readers through a non-sequitur, by mixing facts that, while individually factual, presented in the fashion he does direct the reader to a certain interpretation not supported by sources (i.e. a violation of WP:SYNTH). His last revert was of a template that requested external input on the subject. He contends he is supported by a source, but this is not the case, as you can see in his message on my talk page .Xasha (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected Both editors seem well-intentioned, but they are revert-warring. Protected two days. I don't see any discussion of the contested issue on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    Please see User talk:Xasha#Romania foreign relations section. --Gutza 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:68.33.170.109 reported by User:Husond (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Good faith yet persistent insertion of false info. Húsönd 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Dodo bird reported by DanielEng (Result: Page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: (after warning)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Repeatedly reverting and adding unsourced information/BLP vio to article, despite being warned and alerted to specific concerns. Simply blanked 3RR warning with a snarky comment. DanielEng (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I'm not altogether convinced that the material constitutes a BLP violation — non-English sources are acceptable — but I've protected the page to de-escalate the edit war. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Mokele reported by Papa Lima Whiskey (Result: 8 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:77.101.64.48 reported by User:Ipinkbear (Result: article protected )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Hi.

    I'm taking care about FIFA 09 article and i have a problem with anonymous user 77.101.64.48, who make edits to the article.

    He changes the Italian football league name, which is not correct and that's why:

    • Full league name is "Lega Calcio Serie A TIM", while it has a page name Serie A in Wiki and this name is also used everywhere in the world.
    • When he changes the league name - it breaks the link to the Serie A article.
    • There is no need to use "Serie A Italia", because we use flags in the article to identify the coutry.

    I'm also offended by the way of dicussion this user hold. He does not respond to my warnings on his talk page, while use offensive language the article. Ipinkbear (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Article was protected in the interim. Locking thisoffensive ip out of the article is a better outcome anyway. Spartaz 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Onelifefreak2007 and OLTL2002 reported by TAnthony (Result: Both Blocked)

    • I believe the first change was here, and the info was reverted back and forth numerous times over several days.


    The most recent (last 24 hours):

    • 1st revert (OLTL2002):
    • 1st revert (Onelifefreak2007):
    • 2nd revert (OLTL2002):
    • 2nd revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
    • 3rd revert (OLTL2002):
    • 3rd revert: (Onelifefreak2007):

    More warring after this report:

    • 4th revert (OLTL2002):
    • 4th revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
    • 5th revert (OLTL2002):
    • 5th revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
    • Diff of previous 3RR warning (to each individual): and


    These two users have been involved in a slow edit war in One Life to Live for a while now over this same small fact; I am not sure who started it or who is "correct," but the bulk of recent changes to the article (spanning days) involve this item. They have had similar disagreements on similar articles, and Onelifefreak2007 was even blocked for edit-warring with OLTL2002 here and here. As a longtime observer of this rivalry, in my opinion OLTL2002 edits in good faith and has a better understanding of policy and convention, but allows him/herself to get caught up in these "battles." Not quite a new editor any longer, Onelifefreak2007 remains slow to acknowledge advice, warnings and policy, often flatly refusing to follow rules. — TAnthony 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    • As you say, slow edit war. Breeching the spirit of the 3RR if not the actual word. I think a coiple of the reverts are outside 24 hours but the intetent to disrupt wikipedia by edit warring is there and clearly they both need a firm message. I have left Onelifefreak2007 a fairly stark warning about the future. Spartaz 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    ] reported by ] (Result: Malformed report)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    There is someone who keeps putting erroneous information about the site, a lawsuit and other information that is not neutral in any way. For instance, the case was dismissed the second time, but the person who keeps changing the page wants to make people believe it was not. There is an order from a judge concerning this dismissal. I'd like the editors to look at this one for the neutrality, and erroneous information.

    Whenever the information is corrected, the person at IP - 209.213.203.235 keeps reverting it back and posting the same erroneous information. If it's going to be an editing war, then the information should simply be deleted.

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Sign your comments. We can't tell who you are or what article you're trying to report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Astutescholar reported by Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Newbie is likely a sockpuppet of User:PigeonPiece or User:Obscuredata and likely knows how this is supposed to work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR on Oxford Round Table, COI editing, possible sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    121.135.161.242 reported by Michael Friedrich (Result: Warned all editors)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper wikipedian.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    malformed report. and, technically, it is not a 3rr rule violation, It is a atricle development. anyone can fix article many times. i'm not revert same edit again and again. however, YOU revert same edit gain and again. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think this is a place for a quarrel, but I never reverted the same edit... (see ) 121.135.161.242 seems not to have even read my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Result. I had previously blocked the IP cited here 24 hours for edit warring on a different article. If an admin believes that other participants in the dispute should be blocked as well, please add your decision here. Protection might be the best option for this article, but it is undergoing an AfD discussion, so that's unwise. I'll leave a warning on the article Talk that further violations of 3RR will lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    Michael Friedrich reported by 121.135.161.242 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: (This is a diff. 121.135.161.242 doen't understand the rule. And this edit is very reasonable, removing youtube link and added information from a more reliable source (Weekly Shincho). This edit cannot be any reason for me to be accused of anything.)



    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He is a POV user. S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper wikipedian.121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    It seems like 121.135.161.242 does not understand what 3rr is. This one is not a revert but a normal edit. This one is not a revert either but a normal edit. This one isn't either. This one is a revert but I reverted vandalism. You can see that if you read it carefully. This one] is not a revert at all. Information I added is sourced and information 121.135.161.242 is not sourced. 121.135.161.242 is only imitating me without the knowledge of the rules of wikipedia.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Even if you explain your edits on the talk page, Michael Friedrich is quick to revert them, claiming that there are either vandalism and that there is no consensus - please block as this user who apparently does not understand how content disputes are resolved, that is by discussion on the talk page and not by reverting. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    You did the same act(quick to revert),too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propastop (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Why do I have to be blocked by discussion on talk page? BlueSalo talks as if opposing to him is vandalism. This is a "content dispute," not vandalism. Every piece of the information listed in the article was sourced. I call removing it without consensus is vandalism. Reverting your edit cannot be the reason for blocking.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a malformed 3RR report, and the anon obviously does not understand 3RR policy. Michael should've added <small> not to make admins confused when they read the report. However, well, the anon and Michale both violated 3RR and here is the report. Even if the reverts are not identical, Micheal reverted 4 times, so I think both are responsible for the edit warring.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Blue Salo cannot accuse me of reverting because his/her edit was too big. I think s/he went a bit too far to removing the whole list without consensus. S/he says s/he did it per the discussion on the talk page, but it was only 24 hours since s/he posted his idea. It cannot be said there was consensus. S/he talks as if the information on the list were not sourced, but actually they are. S/he talks as if I edited the article, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but the discussion was started by him/her and closed by him/her within a day. Reverting his/her edit cannot be the reason for blocking me. The discussion page cannot be the reason for blocking me either. I did no vandalism or no 3rr violation.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, however there is no consensus to keep the list either. Actually, if the article is cleaned up, well, the article would not be accused for WP:SYNTHESIS like this. You reverted 4 times along with the anon but BlueSalo did two times (his first edit is regarded a revert based on the article history). The anon and BlueSalo's removals are content dispute, not vandalism. I'm just saying about fairness and equality since the one side is blocked.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Previous version reverted to
    • This is an arbitary interpretation. The 1st edit the 2nd edit are not the same and I made the article grammartical. The 3rd and the 4th are the same but different from the 1st and the 2nd. The 3rd and 4th are made because the whole list was removed. They are actually like this.
    • 1st edit 2008-09-19T12:32:49
    • 1nd revert 2008-09-19T12:42:25
    • 1st revert 2008-09-19T13:57:35
    • 2nd revert 2008-09-19T14:07:20

    I am not violating 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    Categories: