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 03:23, 15 November 2008 editMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →User talk:Nomad2u001 reported by User:Mattisse: add← Previous edit Revision as of 04:49, 15 November 2008 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,218 edits →User talk:Nomad2u001 reported by User:Mattisse: 48 hoursNext edit →
Line 558: Line 558:


Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, <font face="Kristen ITC">]]</font face> 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, <font face="Kristen ITC">]]</font face> 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] == == ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==


* Warnings: , * Warnings: ,
Line 570: Line 570:


*] has been removing sourced material on the ] article. This has been going on over a time period, starting in August, 2008. ] has been removing sourced content without adequate explanation in his edit summaries and will not engage on the article talk page or his own talk page. There are several attempts at communication on ]'s talk page. Thank you, &mdash;] (]) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC) *] has been removing sourced material on the ] article. This has been going on over a time period, starting in August, 2008. ] has been removing sourced content without adequate explanation in his edit summaries and will not engage on the article talk page or his own talk page. There are several attempts at communication on ]'s talk page. Thank you, &mdash;] (]) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|48 hours}} For edit warring. ] (]) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:49, 15 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,
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

    Reports

    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


    Goodmorningworld reported by Roux (Result: warned - will block of they continue)

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

    User is removing {{essay}} tag from an article. Tag has been added by two different editors, user keeps removing. He has been asked more than once to replace it until the issue is resolved. He hasn't broken 3RR yet; I think an admin note dropped on his page would be a good idea. 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Response: I believe this is more properly a matter for the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    No vio, obviously. There are only 3 reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes.. but there isn't a separate EW noticeboard, so I put it here hoping, as I said, that an admin would drop by and explain a few things to him as efforts of myself and another user have been fruitless. 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned Just because they did not make three reverts does not mean they are not edit warring. Clearly this situation needs some administrative assistance, and simply saying "no vio, move on" is not really helpful. Tiptoety 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Semitransgenic reported by User:Milomedes (Result: cool it)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This format looks really odd with the confusing talk page inclusions, so I've omitted the links to prevent inclusion. Maybe someone should check it?

    I posted to Will Beback about this, but I don't know why he protected the article page that had no edit war, and didn't protect the talk page that did have the edit war.

    There's also no content dispute to work out as Will wanted. This isn't a content dispute.

    My 8 posts are still deleted by this 4RR violator, and I can't put them back without becoming an edit warrior like him. So how do I get them back?

    Here's the version that has my 8 missing talk posts and consolidated discussion formatting in it. Milo 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Just don't reformat other editors' comments. That is silly behavior and not useful. Rather than block you both for a lame edit war on talk, Will has intervened and protected the article to afford you and Semitransgenic some space to pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    Nonsense, minor reformatting is a routine part of talk page discussions, and this edit war deleted eight of my posts with 4RR, which is NOT lame. I know you very well, and I can just imagine how you would react if Semitransgenic had deleted eight of your posts.
    Jossi, given your non-neutral history toward me, I ought to report you to WP:AN for even suggesting that you might block me. You will never block me without losing your adminship for misuse of tools -- and as you know, you have so many WP opponents that you would never get it back. Leave. Milo 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hey, cool it, Milo. I did not suggest that I will block you, so cool it. Maybe walk away from that article for a while? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Just recording that the suggestion of "cool it" seems to have worked. Perhaps the protect of the article page helped. Who knows William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Jmanjmanjman reported by TEB728 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    —teb728 t c 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

    Harry the Dirty Dog reported by Mjroots (Result: peace has broken out)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd reveert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning

    The five reversions quoted cover a period of 20:05 on the 10 November to 21:59 on the 11 November. However, the last four reversions cover the period 16:07 to 21:59 on the 11 November. The removal of the accident to Ryanair flight 4102 have been on the grounds of non-notability and no consensus.

    Notability - the aircraft involved was substantially damaged. Ryanair have stated in a press release that both engines were affected by birdstrikes. Whilst that in itself is not all that unusual, an accident resulting from it is. The accident has been widely reported in the media, and thus meets WP:V. I believe it also meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines.

    Consensus - the addition of the accident to the article by five separate editors indicates that there is consensus that it should be included. There has been no reversion of the addition of the accident to the Rome Ciampino Airport and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles. Mjroots (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Consensus is required to add an incident. I have been working on the talk page to establish that consensus. The points that Mjroots raises have all been answered (for exam ple the fire chief on the ground says that only one engine was affected although both were struck). Mjroots has shown a lack of understanding of the incident, frequently needing to be corrected. Several editors have also removed the section and supported me on the TP, but Mjroots and another anon editor have simply gone ahead with adding the incident before waiting for consensus. I have consistently said that if notability can be shown, it should be included, so I am not blocking consensus. The other editors seem to want to add it regardless.
    As to the Rome Ciampino Airport article, I showed good faith by working with Mjroots to achieve an article that we both (and presumably others) find acceptable. It clearly states that the incident is notable as far as the airport is concerned because of the lengthy closure.
    As to the 3RR, two of my reversions were on the evening of 10 November, and three in the evening of 11 November. I at no time made more than three edits in any 24-hour period, and I stopped reverting after my third edit on 11 Novermber to avoid breaching the 3RR, even though my edit was again reverted.
    Still, if I am in the wrong here, I apologise. My only concern is to ensure that WP policies are complied with. And like the others involved, I undertake not to edit this section again until consensus is achieved one way or another. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    I wish to point out that I hadn't seen the talk page before I added the accident to the article. I have also stated that I will not re-add the accident to the article myself. The accident may not be the worst suffered by Ryanair, but I and others believe it is sufficiently serious to warrant inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Looks suspiciously like 3RR to me (contact my talk if you want the gory details) but you seem to have embarked on the novel course of talking to each other and promising not to edit war, so I see no need for any blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikiscribe reported by User:Obahliskh (result: 12h each)

    I first added a map of world skin colors on the Olive skin page here. He/she then reverted:

    • here, claiming it was not sourced. So I gave a ref.
    • However, they reverted here, arguing how a map of world skin color distribution was irrelevant to world olive skin color distribution. For obvious reasons, I reverted and warned about 3RR.
    • But yet again, they reverted, and without any comment or discussion, either in their edit summary, or on the talk page. So I tried to reach a common ground, by including the map, but taking out an unsourced sentence.
    • But then, the user reverted to the same argument of the map not being relevant , so I left a comment on their talk page asking them to discuss their changes and again warning of 3RR.
    • But, to no surprise, they broke the revert rule again.

    I do not know how to deal with this user. I tried to be lenient, assuming they did not know about the 3RR rule, but it seems that they are well aware of it, after their comment on edit warring. I hope that an admin will be able to deal with the issue, after they have now reverted 5 times. Cheers. Obahliskh (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    User Obahliskh also violated the 3rr rule and made no effort to have a disscusion on the talk page about adding a controversial addtion to the article]
    Au contraire, I raised the discussion on your talk page, and even gave warnings via edit summaries, but to no avail. Obahliskh (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    i gave summaries also you had violated the rules also two wrongs dont make a right and you just took it to my talk page right before you reported me not exactly the honorable way to do things your just trying to get people blocked in that fashion shows bad faith--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    I have certainly not assumed bad faith at any point. I even went as far as to not report you straight away because as I mentioned on your talk, I thought you may not have heard of the rule before, and allowed you to go two reverts over. It is in fact you who is in bad faith, stating openly you believe I am trying to get people blocked. Nonetheless, I am not going to continue your petty arguing here, as it is not the place, and will await the review of an admin. Obahliskh (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


    hey i know i was wrong and am propared for whatver the admin sees fit but at the same time you also know the rules and violated them but you try to play innocent by stander you did not try and resolve the issue in civil way either one more thing i never accused you of bad faith edits but trying to make it seem like you came to my talk page to resolve the issue from jumpstreet is bullocks you came to my page to give me a warrning than you proceded right to admin board to make your report look better and also i could have reported you as well being you violated rules and protocol as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    You are bickering like children. 12h each. Use the article talk page, don't edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    141.219.230.23 reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:



    Scorpion 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. This is a Featured Article that is on the main page. We'd rather defer any more protection until it's off the main page. Sorry that you have to keep reverting. Maybe you could leave center vs. centre alone for the duration. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    The editor you cited has been blocked 12 hours by User:Maxim. There is a slight problem that other IPs are continuing the nonsense. We may have to wait to deal with them; there are too many different ones. We will need to wait for the semi-protection for that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Block'em all. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours By User:Maxim. There are too many throwaway IPs to be worth blocking them all. Take it to WP:RFPP, or WP:AIV if the problem continues. The IP vandalism has dropped since the article left the main page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:208.59.112.152 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours )

    Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 208.59.112.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

    Version reverted to (more or less)

    1. 22:55, 12 November 2008
    2. 23:37, 12 November 2008
    3. 01:35, 13 November 2008
    4. 01:52, 13 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 251467239 by Martinphi (talk) this version is actually much more accurate and clear")
    5. 02:30, 13 November 2008

    Comment: All the edits add essentially the same incorrect and unsourced lead, replacing the stable (but unsourced) lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:CentralMind reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User:Russavia reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well aware of the 3rr rule, his last block lasted two weeks for herassing the same person he's been reverting now.
    Extended discussion
    • And there's more edit warring from Russavia besides the ones that broke the 3rr, you'd only have to check the article history. Apart from that he's being very hard to compromise with, more drama on the talk pages of the users
    How nice it is that I get advised of this. The 4th revert is not a revert at all, it is called copy-editing. Additionally, don't forget that both Grey-Fox and Biophys are clearly acting as a tag-team on this article, as can clearly be seen from their edits both on the talk page, and the various talk pages -- not to mention that either they are following each other's edits, or there is off-wiki communication going on. I have attempted to discuss this article with these editors, but Biophys has continued to insert WP:BLP information into the article in an non-NPOV way; in particular claims that Putin is a paedophile. Notice, I have taken discussion to the reliable source noticeboard, and also notice the thinly veiled warning given by Grey-Fox on the article talk page. Gaming the system in order to settle disputes is not the way to go, and as there is clearly tag-teaming going on here, as well as unfounded continual accusations by Biophys both here and via other linked venues (see link below), any block for 3RR clearly needs to be dished out equally, when it is evident these two editors are not acting independently of one another, and I suggest that any admin look at the entire discussion and associated articles to show that there is an unacceptable level of ownership, and any attempt to discuss or implement necessary changes to balance NPOV is called "harrassment". Anyone who is going to insert WP:BLP claims in an article can be sure that that particular edit is going to be harrassed. Note in the discussions that Biophys was adamant that the "paedophile" claims must stay in their former WP:BLP state, but as soon as a WP:NPOV version is inserted (which includes information from sources which attack the veracity of Litvinenko's claims), all of a sudden this is no longer relevant. It is clear what is happening here, and I will also pursue this at the relevant arbcom of which Biophys is involved. --Russavia 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    3rr is like an electric fence Russavia, you've clearly violated, which is unfair because another user like Biophys is also not allowed to violate 3rr. I of course deny the ridiculous accusations that I work as a "tag-team", I only participated on the talk page discussion and not in revert warring. The single edit I made was completely independent and not made by anyone else before. Grey Fox (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    3RR is not a punishment, its a rule to prevent edit wars and WP:BATTLEs, although there is a potential satisfaction of having your opponent banned, does it really solve the content disputes, it only freezes them. Again I repeat what should be done, article restored to status quo and locked, WP:DR process initiated. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    And my revision of Biophys is completely independent of revision of yours - two completely different issues at play. And I stand by my tag-team comment, or are you both going to explain how you both have managed to find not only all of my posts (such as the BLP board, the RS board , etc - who's stalking who?), and also how Biophys managed to find this post, when a quick check of both of your contribs just now shows no evidence of any notification to Biophys that this has been placed here by yourself. WP:GAME clearly comes to mind, and you are both clearly involved in this, and it has to stop. Also, it is generally regarded as courtesy to advise editors that potential administrative action against them is being requested, and I see nothing on my talk page alerting my to this fact, and it is wasn't for an editor shooting me off an email (and no, it wasn't Kuban_kazak to quell that conspiracy theory right now), I wouldn't have been aware of this sneaky attempt by yourselves to punish an opponent. --Russavia 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am afraid to disappoint you, but that is not the case, 3RR is 3 reverts max, irrespective of what is reverted and how. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Since Russavia has gone over 3RR, and the BLP situation is unclear, I propose that this case might be closed without a block if Russavia would agree *not* to edit Alexander Litvinenko for one week. All editors, including Russavia, would be invited to continue the discussion over at Misplaced Pages:BLPN#Alexander Litvinenko.2FVladimir Putin. If after discussion it is clear that any genuine BLP violations remain in the article, admins would ensure that they are removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Ed, give me an hour and bit to respond to that would you please. --Russavia 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah I know that Kuban, and I can handle the punishment on the chin, so long as it acknowledged there is Gaming and Tagteaming occurring here. One need only look at the discussion page, and other venues such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Conflict_Studies_Research_Centre_of_the_Defence_Academy_of_the_United_Kingdom_a_reliable_source.3F to see that there are such conditions here. --Russavia 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Look Russavia I don't want you to take it personal that I report you for 3rr, I've reported many people for 3rr and I've been reported for 3rr myself too in the past. It's nothing personal and I hope you won't take it as such. It has nothing to do with "punishment" but there are certain rules that we need to follow because otherwise wikipedia turns into a mess. I'd say wait for an admin to pop up and rule about the 3rr violation, and if you get temp blocked or not, I invite you to co-operate with making good articles and discuss disagreements with users as well as seek compromises. And no I really do not operate as a "tag team" or anything, I specifically tried to avoid editing that article because I saw you were already engaging in a conflict with biophys, so I tried to participate only the talk page discussion to create some sort of compromise and only made an edit after you already broke 3rr. Grey Fox (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but that was actually Russavia who repeatedly inserted a defamatory information about a living person . So, the BLP rules can not justify his 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, I think Biophys (talk · contribs) also violated 3RR in the diffs.--Caspian blue 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply. I made only one revert if any: . That was removal of a defamatory information about a living person when Russavia complained to Kirill and BLP noticeboard that I allegedly violate BLP rules. Note that I also made a self-revert. My last edit was not revert, becasue no one edited this segment for a long time). I would be reported immediately by Kazak, Russavia or others if I violated 3RR rule anywhere.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I have no idea about what's going on between you and the other users' history, but the diffs clearly are revealing more than 1 revert too. Well, those are well referenced (I was shock about Putin's kissing...as reading the contents and sources).--Caspian blue 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Response to EdJohnston: I can not agree to such a restriction, whereby it is placed on myself and myself alone. As you are an uninvolved admin here, you will be able to look at this objectively, and act accordingly based all of the available evidence. And this should be regarded as an official complaint to an admin from myself as well; the venue of the complaint should be unimportant.

    Yes, I can admit here that I inadvertantly breached WP:3RR. It was an error on my part. And now why I can not agree to such a restriction. I have acted in good faith with all of my edits relating to this particular article. For this I refer you to Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. The article in question at the time I reverted it stated the following:

    In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile. He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds. Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."

    You will note that this has been presented as fact (i.e. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia), and lacks any critical response on the subject from other sources. But the fact that this was presented as fact. The claim was only removed after consulting other venues previous to removing it. The quoted thread above was then immediately posted to the talk page, with very clear reasons as to why, and linked to policy and an ARBCOM from May with further information. And then opened it up to discussion. Whilst discussion is still going on, disregarding both the policy and arbcom decision, Biophys inserts the BLP back in, but in a different section. That's blatant BLP violation No. 1. I remove the BLP information 24 hours later with quite an apt edit summary, and I mention this to Biophys on the talk page. By this stage, we have all agreed that this information should be placed into the article, and I state that I would work on an NPOV version for discussion on the talk page. Which I did Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Neutral_rewording here and opened it up for discussion. At the same time, I also left a message on User:Ezhiki's talk page, asking him for outside opinion; I regard Ezhiki as a knowledgeable admin and editor who is neutral.

    After 2 days, and based upon Ezhiki's assessment of it being NPOV, I placed an NPOV version into the article. We all agreed remember that this claim should be in the article, but aside from presenting the claim, and Putin's denial (which was not in response to Litvinenko's accusations at all), it also included critical information from non-primary sources on the making of the accusation in the first place. And this is where the problems started. Biophys then removes said information claiming consensus on talk page was to remove it. But consensus was that we should include it (from above). That is Revert #1 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys. Please note edit summaries as well. Biophys then reverts me. That is Revert #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys again. Biophys immediately reverts me. That is Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts himself immediately after. Still on Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts his own revert, but this is an interesting edit, for if one looks at it, it isn't just Revert #4 for Biophys, but also includes the original BLP that was the problem in the first place. That BLP violation #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys' BLP violation. I then add information back into the lead which was removed previously. It should be noted that the part that removed previously read:

    He also made a wide range of other claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

    That sentence was in the lead before I got to the article, and it was unsourced. As this version from August will demonstrate. This stayed in the article for all that time, until I tweaked it as such:

    He also made a wide range of other unproven claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

    Which I added a reference to here. Biophys reverts that, to remove the entire sentence from the lead, with an edit summary of "if you tell about accusations in introduction, you should mention what the accusations were about". Why was this one sentence included in the article for months, yet I come in an put in one word, and provide a reference, and all of a sudden this has to be removed. Also, note the edit summary; this is a WP:GAME and WP:BLP attempt by Biophys to include Putin paedophile claims back into the lead of the article, as it was for some time many months ago. Additionally, this is Revert #5 for Biophys.

    Given that Biophys has reverted 5 times and nothing is mentioned for him, and because the most serious and blatant violations of BLP, which is a bannable offence, if I will not agree to not edit the article for one week, as it is evident from Biophys' own actions of reintroducing serious BLP information into the article, not once, but TWICE, after being advised what is wrong with it, if I were remove reinsertion of BLP information of what is a blockable offence, and one which an uninvolved admin needs to look at seriously as per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Blocking, I would be held to task and blocked for it. That is the primary reason why I can not in good conscience agree to such a thing. Additionally, in regards to Biophys' ridiculous accusation above, one can clearly see that I have not committed a WP:BLP violation, but have rather taken a real WP:BLP violation, and presented it in an WP:NPOV way.

    Further info on Grey-Fox and Biophys together to follow, so I would appreciate a little indulgment of time to get that ready -- I shan't be too long. --Russavia 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, I might as well print out all that and read it in bed. Anyway I'm willing to redraw the 3rr complaint, and ask an admin to just lock the article for a while, given that the reverting already started 2 days ago. Grey Fox (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected Fully protected one week. We can't take forever to close a 3RR case. Endless debates belong over at ANI, not here :-). Russavia is definitely over 3RR, Biophys is probably over 3RR (not confirmed in detail). Both editors may, or may not have BLP justification for some of their reverts. Please try to reach a consensus on the Talk page for a neutral version that doesn't violate BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Ah... well we've crossed, I just blocked R who is definitely over 3RR. Hmmm William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    No objection, since a block is formally justified, and BLP policy is pulling so many ways it's unclear that there are any 'pure reverts of defamation' to be excused. Do you have an opinion on whether Biophys also should be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    If Russiavia would just say "I follow your suggestion not to edit the article for a week", then this report would be wrapped up soon, and he would've not earned the block; quite silly decision. Biophys is also almost equally guilty of 3RR violation in the situation.--Caspian blue 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    I would revert myself to any version you tell, but the article was protected. I am ready to follow any your instructions, but I did not do four reverts during 24 hours in this article. Sorry for disruption.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Admins (EdJohnston, William?), why not to cool down Biophys too? He’s just a mirror of Russavia. Putin is absolute good vs Putin is absolute evil... Why not to eliminate these two incorrect views from WP simultaneously at least for a while? And, moreover, look, Biophys continues undoing Russavia edits just 5 minutes after this case “is closed”. Here and here. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Please see my comment at Russavia's talk page. Tiptoety 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Result. After three admins took a shot at this, we have a harmonious verdict: Russavia blocked 24 hours, Biophys warned, and the article unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Alastairward reported by User:NotAnotherAliGFan (Result: 24 hours (both) )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    This person keeps stalking my edits and stubbornly removing them - while some cases may have been semi-justified (lack of proper citation), in this case it's a sheer edit war. Although he doesn't like this particular reference, it has every right to stay as long as it does not violate any WP policies. WP isn't anyone's private property, no one can go around removing whatever he feels like - which he persistently keeps doing, much to the dismay of users (proof will be provided upon demand). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    I only counted three myself from the edit history. I'd also like to know how I've been stalking you, I mainly edit South Park articles, I've not followed you around your other edits. I explained why I removed the cite on your talk page (you left some charming comments on my own).
    Besides, the edit history seems to indicate that you you already reverted my edits three times. Here, here and here.
    I can provide my own proof if you need it on the type of editor who seems to object to my edits. Alastairward (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Again, this is not your room and you can't rearrange the furniture to your liking. Show me how I violated a policy and you can remove the cite. Otherwise, stop these annoyances at once! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hang on, while bringing me here you have reverted the article in question again. So that's four reverts for yourself, here, here, here and now here. Am I to beleive that this policy only applies to me and not you?
    As for the cite I removed, I removed it because it doesn't add anything to the article. It's a blog, that doesn't source it's own cites. A better cite, an interview with the actual writer of the episode superceeded it. We don't need the blog as it adds nothing.
    A quick check on your own talk page shows that even an admin asked you to stop adding unverified material to article pages, just so we know where you're coming from. Alastairward (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, there appear to be two edit warring going on here at the same time. One involving a IP adding a trivia section and the other involving this citation. Both users have engaged in edit warring, and as such Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours As for the IP, they have been Warned Any further "reverts" or addition of the trivia section within the next 24 hours will result in a block. Tiptoety 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    66.194.214.194 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: warned; reverted 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    IP editor, probably linked to user:ChristineCar (who commented once on article talk to request the link be added), warring to replace link to fansite (IP's own site, if IP is ChristineCar). IP does not respond to article talk or user talk. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Warning postdates last revert. Will block if reverts again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    IP re-added link minutes after your reversion and warning. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 1 week )

    User is an established editor who is aware of the 3rr rule but is edit warring (even so not the only one), pointing in his edit summaries to the Obama talk page as there where consensus, which there isn't and ignored editors who made him aware of this in their edit summary. He also is or should be fully aware of this as he is contributing to the talk page. I'm filing this report now because I've just was becoming aware of his continues reverting. I've left out previous reversions of the same since there where not within the 24 h limit. I would like to add on that a warning only and no block would be fine with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


    1. 18:45, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "per talk")
    2. 19:13, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk, this is being discussed there...")
    3. 15:12, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "rv per other Presidential bios....")
    4. 16:59, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk. This is how other Pres bios are.")


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Regretfully find the need to file a report.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    wow. I didn't expect that outcome at all. Maybe I missed something?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    What was the outcome you were hoping for? Tiptoety 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    The one I mentioned above but I didn't went to his history besides the one at the Obama article so it's not that I'm questioning your ruling. By now I also saw the block-reason on his page what explains this "harsh" decision. I'm not second-guessing your block, if that is your question.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    Dfener91 reported by Journalist 007 (Result: 24 hours )




    I've noticed edit war between Dfener91, Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills, and I have placed 3RR warning on their talk pages. When I searched through their edits, I realized Dfener91 is the only one not ready to make compromise, who violated 3RR twice. On the other hand Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills are old users who are trying to improve article and make compromise. I think this radical behaviour should be sanctioned for at least two or more days. Journalist 007 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please understand this is not a open invitation for the other involved parties who are not blocked to continue to edit war. Tiptoety 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Baseball Card Guy reported by User:Libro0 (Result:No vio)

    The image BCG is taking down was said to be a non-issue on the Mediation Cabal by TEB728. The image was declared suitable for use on Non free content review. Apoc2400 also replaced the image after BCG took it down stating that it was accepted for use.

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

    BCG was previously warned for noncompliance here.

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:Jemmy Button (result: wrong forum)

    The article is Property is Theft!, which is currently protected. This is a long-standing edit war. Previous RFC result was not to include material, however, SteveWolfer claims that "Consensus favors inclusion". SteveWolfer persists in reverting without discussion. Extensive explanation on talk page meets with no response. His position is basically demolished in the talk page; his comments there never substantively addressed those of others. Enormous effort has gone into this already, and it is now obvious (at least to any who read the talk page) that the issue will not be resolved without administrator intervention. See Libertatia's comment for a summary.

    So, please, HELP!—Jemmytc 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    No vio, wrong forum. You want WP:DR I think William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    This is the forum for edit-warring, right? Sure, there is not 3RR, but there is no non-3RR edit warring forum, and the WP:DR page makes that forum seem only less relevant to this case. We need admin assistance here. I have already put way too much work into this. I have talked too much already, writing hundreds or thousands of words to an unreceptive audience; talk has proved futile. There is no way for me to get anything done now. The only way to "make a better encyclopedia" is with administrator assistance. This is an edit-warring user. The fact can be verified with some effort, although much less effort--hour upon hour--than I have put into trying to reason with someone transparently unwilling to listen. Please, help! I can't do it! I simply don't have the power! Anything you ask me to do--short of pointing me to a forum where admins offer to intervene--is something that won't work! —Jemmytc 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    I understand your frustration, but you really are at the wrong place. Looking things over, it looks like Coren is familiar with the your case. He's a genuinely helpful admin, and reasonably harsh when harshness is the appropriate remedy. I would take your appeal directly to him, and then follow his advice about proper dispute resolution.—Kww(talk) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:EmpD++ reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:Tsourkpk

    Blocked 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    Luka Jačov reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h )

    Old version: 15 October (first 5 rv); 09 Nov, 12:10 (subsequent rv's)

    • Warning:

    Not a literal 3RR vio, but slow protracted revert-warring over many days, sterile 1+ rv/day. Note that warning was also given under WP:ARBMAC; general sanctions like revert paroles etc are possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. If this were closed as a simple (non-3RR) edit-warring case on any random article, a 24-hour block would be justified. Since the topic falls under WP:ARBMAC, I would recommend no block, but instead a one-month topic ban from all articles related to Greece or Macedonia. I notice that one-month topic bans have been previously given out to other editors, as listed at the bottom of the WP:ARBMAC page. If no other admins comment, I'll proceed with this later today. Since this is an edit-warring case we are under less time pressure, so I've notified User:Luka Jačov of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks; if I may add a (sort of involved-perspective) opinion here, maybe a revert parole might be better? This is a relatively new contributor who I have the impression has some legitimate things to say and ideas to provide, but he needs to find a way of doing so without revert-warring. Trouble is, his English is also rather poor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    This guy has been around longer than I have. While not the best of evidence; his block log contains numerous blocks for 3RR. I have gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. The reverts have been going on for a while now and he knows that he should use the talk page and not edit war. Anyone can feel free to unblock and proceed with other ways of reducing the damage though if I have been over-killing the situation. Scarian 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    XX-V-i-V-Xx reported by HairyPerry (result: 12h)

    • Warning:

    November 13: November 14: Is this edit warring or just poor judgement of genre placement and capitilization of genres. I left a short notice on this persons talk page and then told them not to edit that anymore and made one more edit (the last edit) after that. HairyPerry 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    2008-11-14T19:39:38 Nixeagle (Talk | contribs | block) blocked XX-V-i-V-Xx (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=251819878#XX-V-i-V-Xx_reported_by_HairyPerry) (Unblock) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, HairyPerry 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

    User talk:Nomad2u001 reported by User:Mattisse (Result: 48 hours)

    • Warnings: ,
    • Reverts today alone:
    November 15:
    November 15:
    November 15:
    November 15:
    November 15:
    November 15: (possible sockpuppet as this address has one edit and is removing the same material.
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    Categories: