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 16:15, 8 November 2008 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →74.248.89.84 reported by Hello Control (Result: 24 hours): Result← Previous edit Revision as of 18:38, 8 November 2008 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,011 edits →1RR broken on Canada?: comment re parole scopeNext edit →
Line 517: Line 517:
:'''Closing.''' On 1 November, Hersfold left a in which he asserted that ] falls under your 1RR restriction. However, it's true that your 02:39 edit of 6 November seems to be the first time you added the 'fact' tag to that sentence, so it is not a revert. I'm closing this report without any action against G2b. However, my own analysis of the history of ] shows four reverts by Soulscanner between 21:20 UTC on 6 November and 16:11 on 7 November so I'm '''blocking''' Soulscanner 24 hours. (I wasn't able to use G2b's tabulation above). ] (]) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) :'''Closing.''' On 1 November, Hersfold left a in which he asserted that ] falls under your 1RR restriction. However, it's true that your 02:39 edit of 6 November seems to be the first time you added the 'fact' tag to that sentence, so it is not a revert. I'm closing this report without any action against G2b. However, my own analysis of the history of ] shows four reverts by Soulscanner between 21:20 UTC on 6 November and 16:11 on 7 November so I'm '''blocking''' Soulscanner 24 hours. (I wasn't able to use G2b's tabulation above). ] (]) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::I understand that this matter is closed now, and thanks for your attention to it. However, I just want to state that my impression of Hersfold's comments (in combination with some discussion on the matter among admins on other talk pages) was that the government section of ] falls under the restrictions (as it relates to the Canadian monarchy), but not the rest of the article (or, at least, none of it that relates to monarchy); I hope I'm right in that interpretation. Of course, there was only one revert anyway, as you noted. --] (]) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ::I understand that this matter is closed now, and thanks for your attention to it. However, I just want to state that my impression of Hersfold's comments (in combination with some discussion on the matter among admins on other talk pages) was that the government section of ] falls under the restrictions (as it relates to the Canadian monarchy), but not the rest of the article (or, at least, none of it that relates to monarchy); I hope I'm right in that interpretation. Of course, there was only one revert anyway, as you noted. --] (]) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::: I read ''1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.'' That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment ] (]) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: reject) == == ] reported by ] (Result: reject) ==

Revision as of 18:38, 8 November 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)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    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:
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    The359 reported by Sennen goroshi (Result:no action taken)

    do talk pages not link on the 3RR report page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton

    the talk page is where the possible violation occurred



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

    ooops I seem to have messed up which diff to show. the fourth diff should have been:

    • 4th revert:

    the last diff was a strange one.. if I assume good faith I will assume that he only thought certain elements of my comment required removing. if I assume bad faith I will assume that he knew he had reverted me three times and decided to remove a small element in order to avoid hitting four reverts.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: not a warning to him, but a warning from him..does that count?

    oh and this is about an article talk page, does 3RR apply there? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    The fourth revert isn't a revert at all; it's him adding a comment, Metros (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting. There was no need to revert that discussion, Metros (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Except it had absolutely nothing to do with the article, which counts as off-topic discussion, and the point made by the first user was simply stated in the template that was added, that off-topic discussion didn't belong there. It's no different than vandalism not counting towards 3RR. The359 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the IP's post to remind people to stay on topic. Sometimes people need to be reminded despite that box at the top. This is in no way equivalent to reverting vandalism, Metros (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I messed up the diffs, I have edited above to show which should have been the fourth diff - should I report this? I don't want to waste peoples time as it is only a small change. Well I guess I shall wait and see if people notice it has been changed or not.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't mean to be an ass, but can someone comment on this report please? It has been here for 4 days without a result. Thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    What fun. In the future, Sennen, please avoid deliberately continuing when another user has asked you to stop. Antagonizing people never turns out well. Besides, he's right; talk page discussion should be limited to encyclopedic things. It shouldn't turn into a forum for you to express how contented you are. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed it is great fun, I find it a little ironic that an editor can blatantly ignore one wikipedia rule (3RR) just because he wants to enforce another - but hey, the world of wikipedia can be an ironic place at times. When someone nicely asks me to stop something, I will of course cease whatever action is upsetting them, but the above editor didn't exactly ask me nicely, he just reverted me and acted as if he was the be all and end all of wikipedia - that kind of attitude is never going to result in me puckering up and kissing anus. I am happy to take shit from people who have earned the right/power to give me shit - others have to use manners and treat me as an equal if they want a decent attitude from me. But whatever, I will remember in future that wikipedia is not facebook and try to keep my contented attitude well hidden. BTW thanks for taking the time to at least look at this, it was annoying to see it staring at me, doing nothing, every time I checked it Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    68.251.188.63 reported by TheFEARgod (Result:no action taken)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    TheFEARgod reported by 68.251.188.63 (Result:no action taken)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    --68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Dimitar2007 (Result:no action taken)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He repatedly reverts the sourced version, not giving precise explanation, simply commenting the other editors are not right or in his last same revert because of bad English. He also deleted the 3RR wornings on his talk page. Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    Quartus81 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 
    Ben (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Not within 24h, sorry. Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW, I think (but can't verify) that and were 2 more attempts, this time anonymous or perhaps not logged-in. DVdm (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Another anonymous attempt: , immediately following some kind of threath (): "One thing is very clear - the word "myth" IS to be removed". DVdm (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Arzel reported by 66.86.173.180 (Result: 24h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User continues to work against talk page consensus, erased multiple warnings and has broken 3RR rule countless times in the past on a variety of articles.

    What a bunch of BS. There is no consensus, and this anoyn is is not even bothering to discuss on the talk page. The section in dispute is Original Research, and undue weight for the lead. There are two editors which are currently discussing, both of which agree that the material does not have concensus. The date stamps on the vandalism by the anoyn do not fall within 24 hours, and even if that was the case the Anoyn has made the same number. I move that this bad faith submission be closed immediately. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Submission denied. 66.86.173.180 blocked for 24h for 3RR/edit warring (not 4R within 24h but close enough). I decided that A's revert of 65.246.42.2, which he marked as rv vandal, was fair enough, given the anon's edit comment, even though the edit was removing exactly the same material as was at issue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:PatGallacher reported by User:IronDuke (Result: no vio)



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert: (this edit reverts a different section than the other three, but still, of course, counts as a revert)
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    Three reverts consist of removing a quote by noted scholar Alan Dershowitz, using an imaginative reading of BLP to say that negative material can be removed as long as you disagree with the conclusions raised by the source.

    (FWIW, I have technically only reverted twice -- the first reversion I made was to undo the edit of a banned editor. I mention this only to emphasize that I like to keep reversions to a minimum.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)

    IronDuke did not inform me that he had raised this complaint here. I consider that this was a case of removing a poorly sourced claim from a BLP, where the 3RR does not apply. I am not disputing that Dershowitz said this, but his statement contained factual claims which were not and have still not been clearly sourced. I would add that BLP concerns were even greater than normal since this article was the biography of a candidate in an important election on the day the poll was taking place. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Not sure I buy the BLP stuff. For future ref: please make claims of BLP-exemption very clear in your edit summaries. However appears to be reverting anon vandalism (again, please be clearer).William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    70.248.192.203 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Please see history where Malik is likewise reverting 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:African_American_ethnicity&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Jmh649 reported by scuro (Result: no vio)

    Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There have been several long standing issues and attempts to engage this user in talk. Currently we are in a med cab but the behaviour hasn't stopped. The med cab has stalled and I have seen no post from the administrator in three days. The user continues to revert and use this as a tool to block material off of the article.--scuro (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

    I think its an excellent idea not to bother tell us which article the reverts occurred on. Its far more exciting that way - we can click through all 2M wiki articles trying to guess! (yes I know.) Or... you could actually bother to fill out the report properly William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, it's my first attempt to do this and it didn't look right in the preview.--scuro (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    OK. But thats only 3 reverts, the last of which was on the 3rd. 3RR warnings should be on the users talk page, normally, not on some medcabal page. And I can't see the warning there William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


    Ragusino reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Previous version reverted to:


    Junije Palmotić

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    House of Bunić/Bona

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

    Marin Bunić

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


    Please note, first of all, that this is a Balkans related issue that falls within the scope of the ARBMAC decision.
    Ragusino is edit warring on these three obscure articles to ensure the primacy of the Italian versions of the surnames in question. He may in addition be editing while logged out to pursue this battle, see Special:Contributions/190.21.87.162. These edit wars have been ongoing for weeks. See, for example, the revision history of House of Bunić/Bona since 23 October . Ragusino's version is the one with 4,448 bytes; the consensus version (supported by me, User:DIREKTOR, User:Pip2andahalf, User:Edward321, User:Admiral Norton, User:JdeJ and User:Ivan Štambuk) is the one with 4,225 bytes. In the case of Marin Bunić, his reverting also removes its AfD notice. Enough is enough. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For the time being I am not going to place any of the involved editors on any arbcom restrictions outlined here, as I am hoping they will not be needed. Tiptoety 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

    68.46.139.114 reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    IP that has vandalized a number of other articles ; . Boodlesthecat 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP's claim that he is reverting vandalism is not credible. In any case, edit-warring to add contentious claims to a biographical article is never wise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:96.232.251.177 reported by User:AzureFury (Result: discussed with users)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Please note that the above two users were involved in an edit war, with the IP removing another IP's supporting comment in an RFC while adding own opposing comment. See Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    I warned AzureFury against edit warring. He deleted my warning and kept edit warring. 96.232.251.177 (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    diff of warning more diffs 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

    Please note that reverting vandalism (such as deleting another user's comments) is never "edit warring" according to policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Please review your edits. While you were restoring the OTHER IP's comment, you were also DELETING 96's comment, which was not vandalism. BOTH of you were at fault. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Oh please, he deleted the other user's comments and added his own at the same time intentionally. I'm not going to bend over backwards to restore the comments of someone who can more easily restore his comments without deleting another user's. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    you deleted my comments and restored a vandals comments. you are at fault here. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
    Edit war on the talk page has ended as the IP user has stopped deleting or striking others' comments. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Who's up for a nice cup of tea? Honestly, let's all settle down and solve this maturely. I'll break it down;

    • AzureFury: Please don't be so biased against IP editors. Going into something with the intention of getting the other person blocked is highly bad faith and I wouldn't recommend it in the slightest. Also, please avoid calling other peoples' opinions useless, as every contribution is a contribution, regardless of whether you think so or not.
    • 96.232.251.177: remember that Misplaced Pages is not defaming anybody if we are just reporting on what sources have said. In this case the material you removed was sourced and therefore valid. Also, don't strike/delete/tamper with other users' comments.
    • FangedFaerie: While you have the right to politely ask users not to interact with you, please don't report them as vandals when they are not.

    I'm not going to block anyone. However, if you keep edit-warring, a trigger-happy admin could easily block you two for edit-warring. Don't give them reason to. Questions are welcome on my talk page. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    You are a very nice person. I'm glad Misplaced Pages has good people running the site. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

    User:soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 21:43, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring image
    • 2nd revert: 22:00, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
    • 3rd revert: 22:16, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "First Nation and Inuit" phrasing
    • 4th revert: 22:18, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "Europeans first arrived when the Vikings settled briefly at L'Anse aux Meadows around AD 1000" phrasing
    • 5th revert: 15:21, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image size, "The French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
    • 6th revert: a series of reverts restoring previous version of history section:
      • 15:29, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image
      • 15:32, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring position of image
      • 15:35, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements..." etc. prhasing
      • 15:43, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The English established fishing outposts..." phrasing
      • 15:47, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "However, internal unrest errupted..." etc. phrasing
      • 15:54, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The desire for responsible government..." etc. phrasing
      • 15:57, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The signing of the Oregon Treaty by Britain..." phrasing
      • 16:00, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's Conservative government..." phrasing
    • soulscanner is a well established user and is aware of 3RR; the above edits are part of a strange content dispute at that article. soulscanner also seemed to be in breach of 3RR at the same article earlier, but this was not reported.
    1. 01:16, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
    2. 01:36, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
    3. 02:26, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by WilyD
    4. 05:49, 1 November 2008 - edit that also removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino

    --G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    How about this; instead of a constant revert-then-tell-other-person-to-discuss cycle, you both actually discuss. This way you're both on the same playing field (yes, I'm aware of your previous pasts; no, those don't factor in right now). That doesn't mean that you can revert seven ways to Sunday, Bambino; nor does it mean that you can own the article, scanner. It simply means that I want you guys to discuss this as if you didn't have any previous conflicts. No veiled threats, no contempt from either of you. This way we can get some consensus.
    So, to sum up:
    • No editing the page until you've agreed on the issues above;
    • No pointlessly pushing points if there is consensus against your edits
    • No antagonizing.
    • Use common sense; just because I haven't specifically told you not to do something doesn't mean you can go ahead and do it. Please be reasonable.
    If this all goes according to plan nobody gets blocked and no pages get locked. Sound good? :D If you have any questions I'm open to replying. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    It all sounds well and good. However, there have already been attempts at discussion; in fact, the last series of edits by soulscanner undid everything that was done to address the concerns he expressed at talk. I'm at a complete loss, and I look forward to an explanation from him. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    1. I've simply asked that you gain consensus on edits before making them. Do you agree to this? --soulscanner (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    No, actually I don't agree. Not only have you not adhered to the same restriction yourself, WP:BRD allows us to be bold. If someone reverts, then we discuss. Discussing minor punctuation and wording changes seems rather a waste of time, though. --G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Okay. If you don't agree, then I can't help you. You appear to be more interested in getting your way on the edits, which were made to make a point about my saying that the article was too long. --soulscanner (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    If you feel that progress can only be made within the bounds of your own rules, then I fear that things will not go well. Making baseless accusations about points, when the person you are accusing was only trying to address your concerns, is really not very impressive, either. We will get much further if that type of behaviour ceases. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Respecting consensus is not my rule. Refraining from editing to make a point is also not my rule. You used my saying that the article was too long as an excuse to delete content. You were editing to make a point, which is against wiki civility conventions. You deleted content without gaining consensus: that is against wiki conventions. Restoring deleted consensus content is not a 3RR issue. Just agree to gain consensus on the discussion board before deleting content and we'll be fine. --soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Please either stop making accusations without merit or establish them to be true with evidence. Please also show where respecting consensus doesn't apply to you, where BRD doesn't apply to me, and where 3RR excludes restoring content, or cease claiming they do. I put a fair amount of effort into compacting the history section in order to address your concern about its length, and this is what I get in return. --G2bambino (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. Any changes should be discussed on the discussion board first and gain consensus before they are made. --soulscanner (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • information Note: Just a little side note. I have been dealing with the Roux/G2bambino conflict for a little while now. Something I have come to learn, is that simply telling G2B that he needs to stop and or take something to the talk page very rarely actually results in that. I feel at this time that there needs to be some form of administrative action taken, seeing as G2B's two editing restrictions seem to not work and I continuely see violations of said restrictions, not to mention basic en.wiki policies. Because I consider myself "involved" I will not take any action, and will leave that up to a reviewing administrator. Just my 2 cents. Tiptoety 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    G2bambino won't accept the compromise. Soulscanner has already agreed to it. I suggest that the admin who closes this issue should impose a 1RR per day on G2bambino on Canada for a one-month period, if he chooses not to sign on to the same restrictions as Soulscanner. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Ed, G2B is already on editing restrictions that limit him to 1RR, please see . Tiptoety 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    That claim is completely false; I said very clearly that MoP's proposals were fine. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm an inactive editor but I still check up on Misplaced Pages articles every now and then and checking the Canada talk page and by chance I came across these issues with Soulscanner and G2bambino. In my experience Soulscanner is an incredibly difficult person to work with and he is unwilling to compromise his position or accept other viewpoints. He reverts you like crazy and will not stop at all if he disagrees with your position. If you look at the articles I have worked on, he is extremely antagonistic against any notion of the Quebec nation and people and takes a hardline federalist approach which has a distinct anti-francophone bias. If you look at Talk:Canada you will find other editors supporting G2bambino and questioning why Soulscanner keeps reverting his otherwise legitimate edits.

    The fact that Soulscanner has broken 3RR numerous times (again check my edit history, I have reported him before, and this going back to last year!) and reverts anything G2bambino does is incredible! Admins should not place all the blame on this person. Soulscanner is a major problem and he unfortunately seems to be getting away with everything as he did last year in his opposition against me and User:Mathieugp.

    BTW this is all coming from someone who disagrees strongly with G2bambino's politics! Laval (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    And had a grudge against me. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Soulscanner has also used sockpuppets for malicious purposes: Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Soul scanner. Again this is from last year. His behaviour has not changed incredibly enough. Laval (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    This is false. Those are my IP servers. Please retract this statement. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    1RR broken on Canada?

    • Comment by EdJohnston. I'm seeing a violation of 1RR by G2B with the following edits:
    He repeatedly adds a 'fact' tag to the statement:
    The Canada Act 1982 refers only to 'Canada', and, as such, this is currently the only legal (and bilingual) name
    This tag is a frequent subject of dispute. G2b wants it but other editors revert it.
    • G2b restored the 'fact' tag in his edit of 02:39, 6 November 2008
    • G2b next restored the 'fact' tag in his edit of 13:46 on 6 November.
    • The above two reverts are on the same day, so they break 1RR.
    This is not the first time G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has broken the 1RR limit on Canada. There is a previous block by Hersfold dated 1 November, 'Edit warring: violation of 1RR restriction at Canada - see talk page.'
    If other editors agree this violation is real, then I think a block should be discussed. (Worthwhile attempts at diplomacy, tried above by other admins, seem to go in circles). G2b won't agree to Soulscanner's proposal: I've simply asked that you gain consensus on edits before making them. Do you agree to this? (see above). If we can't get any progress by negotiations, then maybe we can go forward by carefully counting reverts and giving out escalating blocks.
    Please give me your thoughts, so we can close this complaint. If another admin wants to close it, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    The first edit highlighted above (02:39, 6 November 2008) placed the maintenance tag for the first time. The second edit (13:46, 6 November 2008) did not replace it; that was done at 13:16, 6 November 2008 - one revert of the tag within a broader edit. The unsourced statement was later removed by another editor . Even still, 1RR refers only to Canadian monarchy and related subject matter; the Canada Act and its relation to the country's official name does not fall within that scope. Lastly, soulscanner's request is lopsided in his favour (noted as such by others), and to a request like that I feel I must disagree. What I approved of was the recommendations of MasterOfPuppets, an uninvolved admin. --G2bambino (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Closing. On 1 November, Hersfold left a block notice in which he asserted that Canada falls under your 1RR restriction. However, it's true that your 02:39 edit of 6 November seems to be the first time you added the 'fact' tag to that sentence, so it is not a revert. I'm closing this report without any action against G2b. However, my own analysis of the history of Canada shows four reverts by Soulscanner between 21:20 UTC on 6 November and 16:11 on 7 November so I'm blocking Soulscanner 24 hours. (I wasn't able to use G2b's tabulation above). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    I understand that this matter is closed now, and thanks for your attention to it. However, I just want to state that my impression of Hersfold's comments (in combination with some discussion on the matter among admins on other talk pages) was that the government section of Canada falls under the restrictions (as it relates to the Canadian monarchy), but not the rest of the article (or, at least, none of it that relates to monarchy); I hope I'm right in that interpretation. Of course, there was only one revert anyway, as you noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    I read 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed. That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Arcayne reported by 75.49.223.52 (Result: reject)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    Strangely this began after I agreed with Arcayne. This user is exceptionally abusive. The matter has been discussed and has Community Consensus., that Community Consensus can be overturned is of course true - but it must first be discussed and overturned before the changes are made. Not exactly a contentious point on my part.75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, Arcayne here. Perhaps the anon (who has been blocked numerous times before as an abusive IP farm gaing the system and stalking my edits) should have pointed out that after disregarding current consensus, (s)he decided to edit-war and remove cited information from the article that both meets our standards for inclusion and enjoys a current consensus amongst the editors working the article. What the anon also failed to mention is that after being appraised of their 3RR limit for the day, they disruptively ported out of six-month old archives a prior consensus and posted it as a defense. They do not listen to discussion, and seem unwilling to actually listen to anyone but themselves.
    Oh, and reverts 1-3 are simply my reverting the removal of cited information from the article itself. Reverts 4-5 are removal of the multi-line posts from April, 2008, inserted into article discussion. No 3RR was actually committed.
    If I seem "exceptionally abusive", it might be due to the fact that I have to deal with this particular user once or twice a month, and they usually file baseless ANI, 3RR and wikiquette alerts (this is #10, and all the prior attempts were dismissed out of hand). I have my own personal Grawp with this anon user, and I am bored of having them toss mud whenever they want, praying that something sticks. Can someone just ban the anon's particular range and be done with it? - Arcayne () 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    The IP account should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    Note that this is but a new account, the old one being 75.49.223.52 (talk · contribs). Note the SPA nature of the accounts. I can present almost two dozen of the prior IPs used. The user specifically uses anons so as to be able to claim that they did not see a warning, or that any misbehavior is the first such occurrence. Of course, this is pretty much old news to anyone having interacted with the user before. - Arcayne () 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    That I have a dynamic IP does not make me a "sock farm", Arcaynes Wikilawyering notwithstanding. My edit was honest and clear, it defended consensus and agreed with Arcayne's position at that time to not label the film as propaganda. I have edited this article for nearly a year, never have I pretended to be more than one editor - ever. My edits in this article precede Arcayne's. He followed me to it after I made an edit to one of his pet articles, I had merely hyperlinked his project to this article.75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    There's a way for you to avoid such suspicions IP. You should create an account. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    GD, (s)he's been told that about two dozen times, as well. The anon pointedly refuses to. If they were out and out egregious, I would ask for a checkuser, to check if they are an actual banned user (which is what their past behavior and familiarity with wiki procedure would suggest).
    Here's a better suggestion: since range-blocking would remove the rest of the folk unfortunate to live in their proximity, maybe just ban them from posting to articles I contribute to. There are millions of articles to choose from; they can simply avoid the 2-3 dozen that I am active in. I certainly don't go seeking out the user. The solution neatly resolves the wiki-stalking and conflict. - Arcayne () 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    It's up to the Administrators, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Reject, obviously. There are only three reverts. The talk page is a different page. 3RR applies, as it sez, to *one* page. If you (A) care to provide evidence of vexatious litigation on the part of this anon, please do. Anon: you are advised to get an account William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Masonfamily reported by John Smith's (Result: 1 week)




    This user clearly has broken the 3RR rule and has tried to hide his last reversions as not being reversions, even though he is still reverting by removing material and replacing it with the same thing/similar text. He knows the rules, having been blocked twice in the last few months. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, and he has now reverted for a fourth time on the Kumdo article. John Smith's (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    Previous block log and deliberately deceptive edit comments; 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: (with minor changes)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: - reverting parts of this edit, with edit summary to match.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User was blocked for 3RR a couple of days ago, made first revert here 3 hours after block expired. Fourth revert isn't the same material as the first three, but WP:3RR doesn't seem to require that and the edit summary puts it clearly in the spirit of 3RR. Orpheus (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

    74.248.89.84 reported by Hello Control (Result: 24 hours)

    IP continually replaces non-notable names in list, falsely characterizing my edits as vandalism. Claims to be supported by Misplaced Pages guidelines but declines to provide the specific guideline. —Hello, Control 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hello Control has been removing sourced material from the Latin Hip Hop article, and engaging in an edit war. There's no justification for the removal of cited material, and he refuses to produce a link to any Misplaced Pages policy that supports his deletions. 74.248.89.84 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP reverted four times in 24 hours, but Hello Control did not. For the future, I suggest that someone open up a discussion on the article talk page as to whether bands with no Misplaced Pages articles should be included. I'm aware of many articles that don't allow that. Of course entities with no articles can always be mentioned in regular text, if editors agree, but this was in a section of the article that looks like a list. EdJohnston (talk)
    Categories: