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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:28, 15 September 2009 editJuliancolton (talk \| contribs)Administrators130,415 edits →User:Ziggymacho reported by User:ArcAngel (Result: ): cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:52, 15 September 2009 edit undoLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits unrelatedNext edit →
Line 1,082:		Line 1,082:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />		<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			As he did yesterday, Noroton has again successfully identified 4 unrelated edits by me to the ACORN page. I suspect that once this report is ruled "no violation", he'll file a third, fourth and fifth 3RR report against me, in the hope that someone will block me. Indeed, it seems clear that ''Noroton doesn't like me'', I ''do'' think he's managed to demonstrate that fact above. Maybe in subsequent reports, he can just randomly collect all my edits to all articles, and hope that a 3RR violation magically emerges. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->		<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Revision as of 21:52, 15 September 2009

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:WebHamster (Result - declined, frivolous complaint)

This user is attacking an article on a school Shenyang_International_School in the knowledge that this article is read and contributed to by its children. Is it therefore appropiate to allow this persons user page to be visible to children with such imagery, foul language and links to what appears to be this persons websites ( i stumbled upon User_talk:125.162.161.172 ) With a name that has been copied from disneys site for children do you not feel uncomfortable that this editor could be using wikipedia to groom or trap young children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.255.25 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This troll is most likely a sock of Yiwentang (talk · contribs). Arguments and style are the same and is most probably taking time out from an Asian holiday to show that he still cares about me. --WebHamster 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Declined Frivolous complaint. Manning (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:69.210.133.130 reported by User:CyberGhostface (Result: template semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Since two other editors disagree with him (User:Jmj713 and I) he was asked to bring it to the discussion page, which he ignored.

For the record, while these are in the last 24 hours, he's been edit warring since the 7th. So technically he hasn't broken the 3RR yet (I think).--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned As this user hasn't edited in over 12 hours, I've placed a warning on his talk page and placed this template on my watchlist - this should do for the time being, although obviously he's in a different timezone so this should be one for another admin to keep an eye on. Hopefully he'll engage in the discussion on the talk page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected After I warned this user, he made another revert under another IP (check the template history - the same reversion with a similar edit summary as before). I don't think blocking will solve this so I'm semi-protecting this template for a week. If anyone feels this is too harsh / lenient, please feel free to amend this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP user which kept reverting the template continues to do so under the username Cartoon_Boy. Jmj713 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Jaakobou (Result: prot)

1st revert: 09:34, 9 September 2009, removing, "nine terror attacks between March 2-5", originally in article between June 2008-August 2009, removed repeatedly --sans explanation -- by IP (sample 1, 2, 3), reinserted in 02:55 by Jaakobou.
- Comment: IP requested Tiamut edit-war for them and has made no attempt at discussion on the article talk page.
2nd revert: 16:02, 9 September 2009, revert Jalapenos do exist.
3rd revert: 19:59, 9 September 2009, large edit - sample re-insertions without discussion: (a) "According to" in aftermath, (b) "unequivocal victory", as well as (c) controversial ' Cheryl Rubenberg ' source. Corrections and concerns were made by Jaakobou.
4th revert: 17:02, 10 September 2009, large "undo all of Jaakobou's (edit)" revert - sample issues: (a) "According to", (b) "unequivocal victory" (used 2 times in the same paragraph), (c) removal of "Israeli success" (Jenin and Bethlehem surrendered.), (d) reinsertion of controversial Cheryl Rubenberg source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , - She's also been blocked for edit-warring before and edit warred recently on Battle of Jenin, a sub-article of Operation Defensive Shield (warned by Black Kite).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits

Comments:
Tiamut is not a new user, and a combative approach supplemented by 4 reverts to the work of others in approx. 30 hours are not okay, especially when just recently she violated 3RR on a sub-article of the same article (see above note). Tiamut has been recently warned to avoid adversarial behavior by 3 separate admins.

- I don't think I'm following you either. Jim likes your edit so it's correct to make no matter what Jaakobou says? What kind of dispute resolution is that? Jaakobou made a fairly strong argument about the dispute surrounding the UN fact-finding mission. Do you have a response to the argument, or will you just continue with the "I am right, you are wrong" line? —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) static link
- Edit Warring - I looked at the report about you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and though I declined to block based on that report, it is clear that you may need to seek a less adversarial way of editing on controversial articles. I understand that it takes two to edit-war, but it would be better not to allow yourself to be sucked into blindly reverting. Thanks, Black Kite 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Decorum - I noticed a post that you had made, and I hoped that you would think about striking parts of it to help preserve the civil atmosphere and decorum of Misplaced Pages. Phrases like "So please take your supposedly "warm regards" Jaakobou, and stuff them" and this don't really help, although I do understand that you and Jaakobou have a history. I really want to echo Black Kite's words here; it would be great if you could continue the excellent work you are doing on Misplaced Pages without edit warring as much; try to voluntarily restrict yourself to 1RR and discuss calmly on the talk page (giving yourself at least 10 minutes between each reply) before undoing an edit. NW (Talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

2009-09-10T21:14:03 Skomorokh (talk | contribs | block) m (28,708 bytes) (Protected Operation Defensive Shield: Full protection: dispute. using TW ( (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Paweł5586 reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User talk:Paweł5586 keeps removing citation and ref improve tags from article see here User talk:Paweł5586#Palikrowy massacre for earlier this month when User:Paweł5586 was asked not to remove tags etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale Nja 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.138.10.158 and user:68.9.22.155 reported by - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } (Result: semi)

Three-revert rule violation on Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.138.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:

09:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
07:58, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
08:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
13:15, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:27, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:35, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:45, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:48, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:51, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
13:54, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
14:07, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
14:23, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
14:25, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
14:28, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
14:31, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:

02:11, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
02:17, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
00:33, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:01, 8 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
20:54, 9 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
01:25, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "input poems")
14:15, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "seven trees")
15:16, 10 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
13:08, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
13:24, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:29, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:36, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:47, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:50, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:53, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
13:55, 11 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.

More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.

The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Hesperian reported by User:Jay L09 (Result: no vio)

note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

Previous version reverted to: The page was deleted without any chance for discussion, together with the history page. Unless an administrator can resurrect it, its content is lost.

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.

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

The complaint has nothing to do with WP:3RR, but with immediate deletion of content and other unbecoming conduct.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I suspect that the password of this experienced user (administrator?) may have been hacked (see OPTIONAL below). Warning the hacker that we may be on to the crime may not be a good idea.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The article was deleted, not simply blanked, making the talk page an orphan. By this means, "Hesperian" prevented me from trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page.

Comments:

The subject category page had significant introductory text, as well as several links. The subject editor (administrator?), or perhaps someone who had hacked his account deleted the category less than one minute after deleting the last page ("Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium") linking it, using as an excuse ": Empty category" which requires that the category be empty for four days. Although I know no way to provide diffs for the deleted pages (no history page) unless an administrator resurrects them, the following lines have come from my watchlist page

(Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Subgenera" (C1: Empty category: subcategories upmerged during nomenclatural fixes)
(Deletion log); 03:07 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium" (C2: Speedy renaming: now Category:Epidendrum subg. Amphiglotium)

The other links were removed by the same user only shortly before:

(Deletion log); 02:06 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Hormidium" (C1: Empty category: accompanying text copied to article Epidendrum subg. Hormidium with attribution)
(Deletion log); 02:01 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Spathium" (a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum subg. Spathium)
A similar page:"Category:Epidendrum Amphiglottium" (I may have misspelled it as Amphiglotium) which I was not yet watching, but whose subcategories were also removed by "Hesperian":
(Deletion log); 03:00 . . Hesperian (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Epidendrum Amphiglotium Schistochila" (C2: Speedy renaming: a nomenclatural disaster; moved to Category:Epidendrum sect. Schistochila; accompanying text moved to Epidendrum sect. Schistochila with attribution)
Another linking category (to the best of my memory) which I was not yet watching, concerning section Polycladia. Because it was deleted, I have no diff.

An additional link was removed from the article Encyclia, which I was not yet watching. The line from the history was:

01:47, 10 September 2009 Hesperian (talk | contribs) (10,137 bytes) (not a subgenus) (undo)

The diffs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Encyclia&diff=312621953&oldid=311052765 (before) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Encyclia&diff=312928532&oldid=312621953 (after)

When, in good faith, I looked for any improvements I could make in other articles edited by "Hesperian", I found an error I had made in Epidendrum cornutum and corrected my error with the note "The error was in the taxobox,according to Rchb.f. Fixed taxobox." Less than an hour later, "Hesperian" reverted my correction of my own error with the notation "I would prefer that you thanked me for cleaning up your nomenclatural mess, rather than reverting me in ignorance." The diffs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312977864&oldid=312928985 (my change)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312983462&oldid=312977864 (response by "Hesperian")

Requested Actions:

If possible, return the deleted material. (This was not page blanking, but deletion, making the content unrecoverable by the usual means, and carrying the threat of sanctions for re-creating it because of the assumption that at least four days of due process had been carried out during the minute of 03:07, September 10, 2009).
Remove any record in the returned articles of their deletion. They have not been deleted using Misplaced Pages due process.
Block the "Hesperian" account until the rightful owner can re-take control of it. It seems incredible that an experienced user (administrator?) would behave in this manner. Alternatively, if Hesperian has indeed been behaving in this reprehensible manner, try to educate Hesperian that summarily deleting pages for no other justification than a false claim about the passage of time is not acceptable, and that ignorantly reverting pages with bombastic ignorant claims of ignorant reversions is not conducive to the goals of Misplaced Pages.

"Hesperian"'s view, as best I understand it "Hesperian" did deposit a belittling comment on my talk page, (after I tried to fix some of the damage) complaining that I was not following the most recent style guide published by an organization external to Misplaced Pages:

Hi,

You don't understand nomenclature yet. That's okay, you'll learn. Meanwhile, please restrain yourself from reverting the people who do.

Racemosi may well be a section of subgenus Spathium, but in accordance with Article 21.1 of the International Convention on Botanical Nomenclature, "The name of a subdivision of a genus is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet. A connecting term (subgenus, sectio, series, etc.) is used to denote the rank." That means that section names takes the form "Genus sect. Section", and the subgenus doesn't get a mention. Those are the rules. I didn't write them.

If "Hesperian" was acting in good faith, we must conclude that "Hesperian" believes that this quotation from "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" not only outlaws certain content (saying that a subsection is a subsection of a section instead of a genus, or that a section is a section of a subgenus instead of a genus) , but also justifies page deletions that violate Misplaced Pages policy. "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature" is powerful, indeed!
Jay L09 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I left a note on Hesperian's talk suggesting some ways this might be resolved. I suggest we should wait for him to respond before making any decision on this report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment From what I can tell Hesperian has responded appropriately to a situation where incorrect information on Wiki needed to be replaced with correct info - something we deal with all the time - and he has indeed outlined his rationale for making such changes per a reliable source (although the person who has brought it here has not accepted it). Per WP:BURO this does not require a standing committee or a drawn-out process to achieve. Additionally, what is it doing at AN3? There is no suggestion at all that he has edit warred (let alone broken the 3-revert rule!) and the only things offered by the initiator of this claim are unsupported bad faith allegations against Hesperian (along with suggestions his account has been hijacked and demands that he be blocked!). Disputes like this, if they lead to poor quality content surviving rather than being dealt with appropriately, decrease our efficacy amongst those who are aware of the true details. Orderinchaos 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio. can't quite see why this is here. Did you mean WP:ANI? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What actually happened here is I speedily renamed a cluster of categories that followed neither botanical nomenclature nor our conventions nor common sense. The text of these categories contained articles with taxoboxes, so I copied that text into their own articles before deleting the replaced categories. Then I cleaned up the nomenclature of all the articles contained in the categories. I took great care that all the information posted was retained. There was a case, and it would have saved a lot of time, for me to simply declare the category tree unsalvageable, and upmerge to Category:Epidendrum. But I didn't. I spent two hours carefully copying and correcting information. In the process a single block of text slipped through: I failed to find a home for the text on Category:Epidendrum Subgenera. That is half the cause of this complaint. Jay then undid several of my fixes, reintroducing the incorrect nomenclature; and I restored them, leaving the above message on his user talk page. That is the other half of the cause of this complaint. Hesperian 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

What actually happened here is that Hesperian deleted several pages (categories) and much content without any discussion on the talk pages, simply because he did not approve of the formatting of the correct information, and not because of any objection to the information itself. By deleting rather than simply editing or page blanking, Hesperian also removed the talk pages and history pages, thereby preventing the possibility for any discussion, reversion or even quotation of diffs. That is the cause for my suspicion that a respected user like Hesperian could not have performed the actions, and that his account had been hacked. The second half (unbecoming behavior) stems not from "restoring" pages which I had "restored" to their previous condition, (one man's reversion is another man's restoration) but from reverting my own correction of my own error and then ignorantly accusing me of ignorance for reverting what he perceived as a corerction, simply because he chose to ignore what the change was that I had made.

By the way, a note on "common sense". As everyone should know, "common sense" is what everyone understands. If I believed that the categories followed common sense, then they could not possibly defy common sense.

Not quite - common sense is what everyone *should* understand. The old saying goes "the unfortunate thing about common sense is it is not that common". As for the issue of having to delete rather than redirect categories, you should raise that one with the MediaWiki developers - it's been an issue of mine for a long time too. Hesperian's action was sadly necessary as category redirects are not possible in the software, and empty categories are a speedy deletable ground in our encyclopaedia so can't be maintained purely to keep history, etc. Templates, main space, user space, WP space etc it would have been feasible to simply move and a redirect would be preserved as would the history. Orderinchaos 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"No vio. can't quite see why this is here. Did you mean..." —William M. Connolley

It was here because I could not find a better place to raise my suspicions that an account had been hacked. Is there a better place? Where should suspicions that an account has been hacked be raised?

"note - no diffs provided, no 3rr / edit warring alleged. question appears to be about a series of category deletions the nominator believes were unwise.

"The diffs are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Encyclia&diff=312621953&oldid=311052765 (before) and

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Encyclia&diff=312928532&oldid=312621953 (after) "

"The diffs are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312977864&oldid=312928985 (my change)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Epidendrum_cornutum&diff=312983462&oldid=312977864 (response by "Hesperian")"

— version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=313231402&oldid=313228454 of this page, before the note that no diffs were provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay L09 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I did see those diffs, but simply posting "a diff" of someone making an edit you disagree with doesn't actually help an edit warring complaint. The two diffs above are not evidence of edit warring or 3RR breach, which is what this noticeboard is here to address. Your claim (although one I don't believe can be upheld) is a different domain regarding use of admin tools. He's placed a reasonable explanation here as to why he took the actions he did, and it appears to me (and did from an early stage) that he was acting both in good faith and in the encyclopaedia's best interests, so it seems fair to close it at this point. You would have been better in the first instance to try and engage with him directly rather than drag him here and demand he be blocked, which, seriously, was never going to happen. You have to understand this board is a busy place dealing with a lot of stuff, and there is a lot of stuff it needs to deal with, so placing stuff here which doesn't belong here is a supreme waste of your time in preparing and posting it, and everyone else's in declining it with rationale. As someone suggested you could have taken it to AN/I, but my opinion is it would have failed there too as you've failed to demonstrate that there was any abuse - it seems that an admin took appropriate action to ensure Misplaced Pages conformed with the appropriate scientific convention (and it seems there are tight rules on these things). I'm not a biologist (I last did it in 10th grade at school then had to teach a room of kids in it a few years ago during a prac - quite a crazy experience!) but I know chemistry well enough (I did a minor in it at uni) to understand both the reasons for these conventions in the scientific field and their enforcement in literature in the real world, eg for publishing works or findings. Orderinchaos 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I have trouble seeing how you could have come to the conclusion his account had been hacked. I read the diffs involved and was in no doubt it was the originator of the account. Orderinchaos 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cody7777777 reported by Martin Raybourne (talk) (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): , , : [History page

User in question has been adding challenged material to Byzantine Empire, a Featured Article. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond. He has been warned multiple times that he is edit warring, but asserts that he didn't "start it" and is thus in the right. Reverting him again will obviously not help things but he refuses to discuss on the talk page, so Im at a loss as sto what to do.

—Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale Nja 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ASOTMKX reported by User:Dustin Howett (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: ASOTMKX's modifications
Proper version (community-sourced:)

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multiple members of the community have tried to mitigate ASOTMKX's efforts to insert this improper information.

Dustin Howett (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale Nja 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Psantora reported by VMAsNYC (talk) (Result: no vio)

Edit Warring violation on

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

Revision as of 20:16, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
Revisions as of 21:03, September 9, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"
Revision as of 16:09, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"
Revisions as of 18:03, September 11, 2009 Deletion of portions of quoted/cited reviews in section "Performances and reviews"; Deletion of section: "Discography"

The above is the tip of a very large iceberg. As background, on September 8 I questioned this editor's revisions to citation form (without even reverting him; see ). He immediately began to edit vigorously (almost exclusively) articles I had edited recently, with special emphasis on the one I had created (The Shells), and those I later created.

Often his edits were simply revisions to format that were of no substantive effect. But more recently he has begun to delete properly sourced portions of the article (see above).

He has also begun deleting any mention of this particular band (whose article I created) in other articles -- even when sourced (see and .

Efforts to communicate both in edit summaries and on his talk page, requesting that he desist disruptive edits and instead leave the page as-is, have been to no avail.

I have left him the appropriate notice as directed on this page.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that I reported VMAsNYC above. (Correctly I might add... it seems that {{AN3|novioexplain}} applies here.) I have tried other avenues to engage in a discussion with him, including other dispute resolution actions such as involving third parties and asking about policy. In each case he has been defiant-even butting heads with other editors that come to the same conclusions I have. The accusations of "wikistalking" that are littered throughout their contributions border on personal attacks as my edits have been to uphold existing policy almost exclusively. I have consistently gotten the feeling that User:VMAsNYC is a single purpose account as the vast majority of their edits have been about The Shells; either directly to related articles (The Shells, WeThreeRecords, Written Roads, Jessi Rae Waltz, Carrie Welling, Melanie Klaja, Best Breakout New York City Artist Award) or linking to such articles in order to drive traffic to them (this is just a small subset). They have made other edits, but in terms of the actual volume of content anything of substance has been exclusively about this band and promoting their VMA appearance (or, incidentally, debating WP policy). Regardless of the outcome of this request, I would like some time to put together a solid WP:AN/I report about this as I have a strong suspicion (but no proof without someone actually coming in and doing a check user) that VMAsNYC is either somehow employed by a media PR firm for The Shells or has some other WP:COI with this article (such as writing one of the reviews, either the Seventeen one or the blog that doesn't pass WP:RS). ~ Paul/_C 00:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a glance at Psantora's edits since I first encountered him on September 8 will amply demonstrate that the vast majority of his torrent of edits since then have been to pages that I had edited, and that he has paid special attention to reverting any of the few pages that I started (most notably, The Shells). Why he has made these many hundreds of edits since the date that I encountered him almost exclusively to pages that I edited (or began) first is something that only he can answer. But the record is stark in this regard.

As to his complaint of edit warring at an earlier entry above on this page, as I indicate above, it was in fact he who violated the language of the guidance. He now, I believe understands that, as he is no longer edit warring to insert that particular prohibited date format in all articles that I have touched.

A review of my record will show that I am not a single purpose account. When I created one page (The Shells), Psantora edit warred over inlining the band members' names, etc., insisting on doing so even though he could not maintain that they were notable. I only even sought to make the band members and the like into pages because of that -- because he himself inlined them (which calls for an article to be created). At the end of the day, the band members' articles were (reasonably) taken down as non-notable by another editor, and redirected to the band page. What edits I have made to the Shells page after its creation have almost entirely been in an effort to undo the damage he has done to that page -- I would be happy for it to look the way it did days ago.

Psantora has in fact made many more edits to The Shells page in the past four days than I have. Apart from reacting to his entries, as you will see my edits have been spread about among a number of interests that I have (bands, trios, the VMAs, people performing in the VMAs, and NYC music primarily). I have no conflict of interest (other than as a fan of those subjects). I am not and have never been employed by any company with any connection to any of the subjects of my articles (or even any company in or in any way connected to the music industry), I am not and have never met anyone who wrote any of the articles mentioned, and I have never worked in the music, media, or blog worlds and have never written a blog myself or even responded to one.

I really wish someone would look at Psantora's edits, query him as to whether he happened to make the vast majority of his many edits in the past 4 days to articles that I had edited only by chance or if rather he chose those articles specifically by looking at what articles I had edited. And if the latter is the case, why he has done so. The torrent of edits have been disruptive, as I had hoped to put more work in on the VMA articles prior to Sunday, but that has been neglected by the need to look at and (often) react to his many edits.

Finally, as I pointed out above, the disruptive edits cited above are just the tip of the iceberg. But I must say, many of his reversions have been odd to me -- of no substantive effect whatsoever, though they do result in reversions of my edits, and pop up on my watch screen, and make me scratch my head. As examples, he:

changed my edit Trio to Trio.
He then changed my entry of all-female to all-female.
He then changed "publisher= Seventeen Magazine" to "work= Seventeen Magazine".
And then, he responded to my request at that he "pls stop edit warring; if you want to explain why your edits are mandatory please continue the discussion on your talk pg where we have been discussing, leaving the article as-is" by plastering a WP:3RR warning on my page at , and writing (incorrectly) "Note, you are in violation of the there revert rule on The Shells. You might want to revert your own last revert on that page lest you be blocked from editing."

I repeatedly asked him to stop, and to discuss the matter while leaving the articles intact. His response, as here where he simply deleted my request, was not to do as I had suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMAsNYC (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is he doing this? Why the non-substantive edits, why the wikistalking, why the substantive disruptive deletions of sourced material? What will it take for him to disengage?

I'm not seeking to have him punished in any way. I bear him no personal animus. It's just clear that for some reason my comments to him on September 8 triggered hours of work by him focusing on looking up all my edits and reverting them in the hundreds, in edits both meaningless and (as in deletion of sourced statements above) disruptive and harmful. I just wish he would stop, go away, stop hounding me and engaging in these senseless reversions, and let me be to continue in my efforts to improve Misplaced Pages articles. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I haven’t read through the provided diffs to ascertain the true facts. However, wikistalking is without-a-doubt prohibited behavior on Misplaced Pages—and for good reason. It seems perfectly reasonable that an admin around here could click a few links to ascertain the facts of that issue and probably (hopefully) resolve this whole dispute with a to-the-point warning on the talk page of the offender, Psantora. Judging from his user page, he is experienced enough to know better. This may simply be a case where there is a highly experienced editor who likes getting his way and knows how to go to the edge without going over. No conscientious and well-meaning editor should have to put up with being stalked in order to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just like the report above but the other way round, this is a no vio. The issues of possible stalking are out of scope for this board. You want WP:ANI for that I think William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Greg L, I take offense to any accusations of wikistalking. (BTW, according to WP:HOUND the accepted term is "wikihounding" as "stalk"ing carries an unintended (I assume) legal connotation that is inappropriate.) There have been a few admins that have looked into this, the first being User:Mazca by the request of User:VMAsNYC. You can read the result of that inquiry on his talk page, and he did not see any evidence of malicious behavior. Quote:

I remain unconvinced that anyone is doing anything malicious here - by my interpretation, some of the edits you've made are incorrect as far as our policies go, and I don't view people making good-faith changes to them to be in any way stalking or harrassing you.

According to WP:HOUND there is nothing wrong with fixing policy violations that occur on multiple articles from the same editor. Quote:

Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.

I think the bottom line here is that VMAsNYC feels some ownership of the article in question and has some bias against my contributions. Regardless, as William M. Connolley stated, this is not the proper venue for this discussion.

William M. Connolley, I just want to point out that my earlier report technically was a violation but was declined since it was "not a serious pattern". As I explained above, I have tried other dispute resolutions to come to a consensus as suggested but so far VMAsNYC reverts pretty much any contribution I make to the article. ~ Paul/_C 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly your right to “take offense” to what I and others write. Since you addressed your above post to me, it is perfectly my right to point out three things I wrote above: I haven’t read through the provided diffs to ascertain the true facts, and It seems perfectly reasonable that an admin around here could click a few links to ascertain the facts, and (hopefully) resolve this whole dispute with a to-the-point warning.
Mind you that if the allegation is true, (take note of the “if” qualifier) that you are following VMAsNYC from article to article by tracking his or her edits via the contributions link, that would still constitute wikistalking—even if you are strongly of the opinion VMAsNYC has “ownership” issues. The litmus test for whether wikistalking is occurring hinges on whether the varying nature of the many articles you and VMAsNYC are conflicting on make it exceedingly improbable that it could have occurred purely by chance.
Now is probably a good time to actually go out of your way to avoid VMAsNYC, and vice versa. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment above wasn't intended to inflame, but to inform. I saw your note that you did not read through the diffs so I thought I should present some examples of steps that have been taken to resolve this dispute-including investigating VMAsNYC's assertion that I'm wikistalking. I also see your "if" qualifier, but wouldn't you feel the need to respond if it were your name being referred to as an "offender" in a dispute where you haven't done anything wrong? If it were your name that was being referred to as a "stalker" all over Misplaced Pages (even after apologizing and explaining your actions), how would you respond? Thanks for the advice. (Also note, the only reason I "named" you specifically was because I wanted to respond to you and Mr. Connolley and addressing you each individually seemed like the easiest way to accomplish that.) ~ Paul/_C 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Dak reported by User:HalJor (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fisting&oldid=312688823

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313137246
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=313104839
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312905851
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fisting&diff=prev&oldid=312677274

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADak&diff=313297067&oldid=241059218

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFisting&diff=313137913&oldid=312287308

Comments:

This edit war has continued for the last month. User:Dak is alone in the discussion believing a certin image should be included in the article. Three other editors (including myself) has explicitly asked that the image not be included. Reasons have been stated repeatedly by both sides. HalJor (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Delicious carbuncle (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Neutralhomer is adding a WHOIS template to the talk page of an IP. This IP is a static IP and is known to be used by Izzedine (talk · contribs). This is a repeat of an episode in August that ended up in blocks and admin apologies to the IP for the repeated placement of the same template. See talk page discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine and the anon in question are vandalizing an anon talk page, 3RR is moot in vandalism and this is clear vandalism. DC is doing nothing but stiring the pot and doing a little harrassment. For the full ANI post, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really the appropriate form for this dispute—it's not so much an edit war as a disagreement over technical things. I would suggest withdrawing this report and dealing with things at the ANI thread that is already open; there's no need to spread this out over multiple noticeboards. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  - I will not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours just so I don't go over 3RR as I am currently sitting on it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    - Regardless of the ANI thread, this is a recurrence of a situation which has already been dealt with and discussed on the talk page. Neutralhomer restarted an edit war. Cutting to the chase, this comment on the talk page sums it up. Neutralhomer has already been told that he is in the wrong. The ANI thread will eventually end with the same conclusion. There's nothing technical about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      - From the edit-warred-over talk page: "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sixth revert after stating above that he will "not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours". Care to revisit this one? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he is allowed to continue to vandalize? Come on. By the way, weren't you supposed to have had your last word on all this? Wikistalking anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have marked the ANI thread in question resolved (admins don't care, why should I?), removed the WhoIs template in question, posted replies to both Izzedine and DC (even though I am not required) and am now retiring. Block me, I really don't care anymore. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. This is all mindbogglingly stupid. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason in principle whether the whois gets to go or stay. But 3RR is perfectly clear, and NH has broken it (the accusations of vandalism didn't help either). Given the previous block log this could have been longer; but the is just so stupid I don't feel like it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:68.81.70.80 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I strongly object to this characterization of my actions. Other "editors" repeatedly and summarily deleted my additions to the slavery page. At least the first three times, they provided absolutely no cause for doing so. I have time and again justified not only my restorations of my edits but the edits themselves, which are all factually correct and reflect a consensus among modern-day historians of the South. I am sick and tired of the revert-first mentality of altogether too many Misplaced Pages administrators, especially in areas in which they do not have sufficient knowledge. What happened to editing edits to make them better? What's with the wholesale deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Str8cash reported by User:-5- (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user is repeatedly changing the format of the article to one that goes against the one that was approved for featured article status, as shown here. Reverts of this user's edits have been done in an attempt to maintain the article's featured article format.-5- (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. You too have broken 3RR. Just for once I'm going to forgive you but don't do this again William M. Connolley (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:NE2 reported by User:TimberWolf Railz (Result: no vio / stale)

List of Florida railroads: Previous version reverted to:
Reporting mark: Previous version reverted to:
Illinois Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to:
Monticello Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to:
List of reporting marks: I Previous version reverted to:

List of Florida railroads

1st revert:
2nd revert:

Reporting mark

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Illinois Railway Museum

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

Monticello Railway Museum

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

List of reporting marks: I

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Illinois Railway Museum

Previous version as of July 14, 2009 (2009-07-14):
Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10):

Monticello Railway Museum

Previous version as of August 13, 2009 (2009-08-13):
Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10):

List of reporting marks: I

Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Various attempts at Dispute resolution and discussion of the matters took place within the appropriate talk pages:

Inquiries addressed at user talk page:
Notification of the immediate conflict:
Discussion to resolve the current dispute:
Discussion to resolve the current dispute:

Comments:

After performing some rather basic maintenance tasks on several articles using good faith, user User:NE2 without my expectations engaged in a content dispute without discussion, including the assumption of very little good faith on his half over the revisions and later leading to an unneeded conflict out of the matter; even despite the fact I started two discussions related to minor improvements prior to these events. After being informed of his actions via an administrator, I stepped in to correct some of these reverts due to initial violations of the WP:OWN rule, though NE2 has again reverted all these revisions without formal discussion on the topics at hand, including edit summaries that suggest lack of good faith and the unexplained removal of relevant WP:COI templates and respective comments added afterwards aimed at improving the article.

NE2's pending conflict was immediately addressed on multiple talk pages of the respective articles using WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy, and eventually I provided my solutions and feedback in good faith, though NE2 has dismissed most of these inquiries without acknowledging the subjects provided. I've since decided to drop completely out of the discussion to focus on other aspects of Misplaced Pages. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio / stale. 4R have to be on one article and within 24h. Further, you appear to have decided this issue is over . This board is not a way of "winning" the issue that you should be discussing at Misplaced Pages:CNB#Reporting_marks William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'd never want to stretch anything, it is my apologies for posting this within the wrong section.

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Valkyrie Red reported by WebHamster (Result: 72h, and other new disruptive accounts blocked )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

12:40, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Marketing */ Added Frog/Toad section")
12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* The Frog/Toad Incident */ Moving Toad Section")
12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Colas */")
16:08, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313370080 by WebHamster (talk)")
21:47, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313399210 by WebHamster (talk)")

—WebHamster 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:68.58.213.54 reported by User:Dirtlawyer1 (result: 1 week)

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

Diff of 1st edit war warning: Diff of 2nd edit war warning:

I request help with the above situation involving multiple deletions and reversions of properly sourced and footnoted NPOV text by an anonymous IP user. The anonymous IP user has engaged in multiple deletions of the same text over the past two weeks, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and has already been warned twice. Please help us in resolving this matter; it is becoming a huge waste of constructive editors' time and efforts. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1 week. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd appears to apply William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of new at this edit warring resolution thing . . . does that mean that the anonymous IP user is blocked for "1 week," or is that shorthand for something else? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, the anonymous IP user has reverted the change again in the last last hour. Is the IP user supposed to already be blocked? Is there some further action that I and the other editors on the Steve Spurrier article are supposed to take? Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it means I blocked User:129.252.69.41 instead. Ah well, this one too and I'll semi-protect the page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I was about to say the same thing. I've blocked the original IP for 1 week as per WMC already. Black Kite 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we clashed along the way. Anyway, we agree so all is well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen. Maybe this will bring our anonymous friend out into the sunlight of the article discussion page. Kind of weird actually, but I'm sure you see a lot of this sort of thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yeago reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

06:02, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Removed synthesis and original research. There is no evidence that Wilson's outburst was about those passages which those sources address")
17:42, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Remove NPOV synthesis. Wilson's motivations for his outburst are only speculated about, they are not explained.")
23:01, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Illegal immigrant controversy */ The illegal immigrant controversy is well chronicled in related articles and not appropriate for further analysis here. This is about a specific speech.")
01:53, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: ""Reception" is vague and sounds like post-speech media analysis.")
07:46, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: "I'm sorry, I still can't see how an interruption to a speech can be grouped with critical reception. one was a spurious event, the other is normal fallout. It _was_ part of the speech.")

Diff of 1st edit war warning: Diff of 2nd edit war warning:

Comments:

In the above diffs, Yeago has reverted the edits of at least three editors: User:Jatkins, myself, and User:DePiep. Yeago has been repeatedly asked to stop and refuses. Yeago has received at least two warnings about his edit warring. In response to these warnings, Yeago said: "You are free to report whatever you want. If you think your "last warning" means anything to me, you're wrong."

—Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Typhoon2009 reported by User:Jason Rees (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This may seem stupid but the JMA BT has not been released yet and he is citing a map which is supposedly the BT but isnt and is also not a reliable source> Also at the time of the regeneration i double checked and so did another 2 editors checked that they were the same system and we all agreed that they were.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale Nja 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa (Result: 31h )

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The entirety of the following sections on the talk page have dealt with the current problem:

Comments:

I concur with Lisa's report here. Pico's edits involve the elimination of sources in favor of a singular POV, and he is not willing to work toward a consensus. His arguments lately have been that since he does not agree, there is no consensus, and therefore the edits should go his way to the exclusion of two other editors who disagree. Rather than engage in content dispute here, the edit warring needs to stop so that collaboration can return to the article in question.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that PiCo was warned about this on another article only a few weeks ago (). -Lisa (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unfair - an edit war is only possible if two sides are involved, and Lisa and Tim have certainly been involved.

The article attracts very little attention from editors. When I stated editing it, it had no reliable sources and presented what Tim would call "a singular point of view", namely that the Bible is true in every word. This is not to say it had no sources at all: it quoted a mystical Jewish rabbi from the 19th century, a Creationist Christian, and the Seder Olam, a Jewish text from (I think) the 6th century AD. It did NOT quote any modern scholarship. I replaced this with a version that relied on current biblical scholarship. Lisa doesn't like it because it offends her religious sensibilities, and Tim hasn't been very clear as to why he doesn't like it. Neither of them have given good reasons.

But, there has indeed been an edit war between the three of us. If you look at the talk page you'll see that I've suggested ways of avoiding this, but Lisa and Tim insist on wholesale reversion. I'd still like to find a reasonable way forward, and so I'd be grateful if the admins could suggest what we do next. PiCo (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pico, we need to avoid bogging down this page with content issues. My preference is for an NPOV article that reflects all notable and verifiable POVs. The modern scholastic POV must certainly be included, as well as older and fundamentalist ones -- because of their notability on this subject. I've only reverted to restore content that you deleted. I have no objection to content you want to add. Just, please add it without deleting other work. Since I didn't write the earlier work, I can't go back and rewrite it to include it as easily as you can simply weave your own additions into the existing article. We are WRITING an encyclopedia, not deleting or replacing one. There are times for deletion, but this isn't it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Though other editors should try in future to intervene (report here or at WP:RFPP) earlier to avoid edit warring themselves, though the only person to violate 3RR is the blocked user, who has been blocked for 3RR in the past on the same article. Nja 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Megistias reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: Stale)

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

User engaged in blatant edit warring.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Epirus (region) not Epirus.Numbered user was reported and page protected i think twice history.Megistias (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You also mistakenly linked Megistias the Spartan soothsayer to me above.15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale Re-report if resumes after recent semi-protection added by another admin. Cheers, Nja 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Validbanks 34 reported by User:Terrillja (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently at 3rr, they are fighting over phrasing of whether the OS is Unix-based or not.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Validbanks 34 Gu1dry (Gu1dry removed their warning and did a 3rd revert)

--Terrillja _talk 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

(Taken from WP:ANI) I think the question now is regardless of whatever his intention maybe, but rather, it is his action that speaks volume of his personal standing when the two of them lost their cool conducting edits on the article page of Mac OS X, and ended up edit warring between themselves. However, the temporary block template which User:gu1dry had placed on User:Validbanks 34's talk page is in itself a wilful act of imposting as an Administrator of Misplaced Pages to give the Validbanks 34 a wrong impression and that in itself is liable for immediate Block for disruptive editing. You do not do something on Misplaced Pages just to prove a point to a fellow editor, no matter what your viewpoint is! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Agreed, though 3RR has been broken here and thus they should get a block. I edit the article a bit too much for my comfort to issue the block myself however. Other editor should be warned about behaviour so they can do better next time. Nja 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned Good report, but the problem has subsided for now, and both editors warned in one way or another, further it was discussed to some extent at ANI. Re-report edit warring by either user please. Nja 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud reported by User:Verbal (Result: 2 weeks for IP)

Jackiestud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
201.6.43.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Latinaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

02:23, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
08:47, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313773827 by Verbal (talk)")
11:58, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313798299 by Verbal (talk)")
12:45, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313834267 by Verbal (talk)")
18:40, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313925446 by 2over0 (talk)")
19:27, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "tehre is no discussion. verbal doesnÂ´t knowanything on simone. pls leave it the way it is so i can continue to edit")

Comments: User Jackiestud is blocked for legal threats and editwarring, amongst other problematic behaviour. Today we have two clear sockpuppets: 201.6.43.204 (talk · contribs) and Latinaf (talk · contribs). These both pass (fail?) the WP:DUCK test, making 6 reverts today (the first edit is a revert). This is also a WP:BLP issue, as the user is inserting unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. An SPI report has also been filed. User indicates unwillingness to discuss their edits in last ES above, but is banned anyway. Verbal chat 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved: 2 weeks for IP, account blocked. Verbal chat 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Luliche reported by User:Raistolo (Result: blocked 1 week)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: and subsequent (reverted changes one by one)
2nd revert: reverted changes completely, w/o motivating, explaining, or using the talk page in spite of my message on his talk
3rd revert: in spite of warnings posted on his talk

etc. etc.

You can basically look at his user history actually:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

I realize I should have tried also to use the talk page, but since the user ignored even a direct message, I didn't think it was particularly useful. I accept in advance your call on how to deal with this situation, and will help in any way. --Raistlin (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Appears to be a single-purpose POV account that inserts unsourced statements critical of the university in question. First block against user. Manning (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Systemizer reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: 2 week block)

Version from before first revert here

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: McSly Warns and Systemizer blanks warning. I warn and Systemizer blanks warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted resolution on involved editor talk page

Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

7th revert
8th revert

Just as an update.Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He is also editwarring on Holographic principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is inserting material "copied verbatim" from New Scientist. Verbal chat 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

9th revert I have now used my 3 and will have to bow out of further reverting as I don't intend to violate 3RR myself. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of his 'New Scientist' material is from comments on the article. I reverted him because of that and he reverted me immediately. He's had three blocks already for similar edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (Several previous blocks for similar behaviours.) Ckatz_spy 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Noroton (Result: No vio)

Previous version reverted to: It's too complex for this. I think the list of reverts below, with explanations, is clear.

1st revert: 06:21 Sep 14 (reverted passage on 13 underage Central Americans which was originally added with this edit, as far as I can tell
2nd revert: 18:42 Sep 14 (this is a diff of the edit that was reverted: )
3rd revert: 19:11 Sep 14 (the previous edit is the one reverted) Uncivil edit summary characterizing good faith, factual edit (The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN.) sourced to a daily newspaper: (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS)
4th revert: 20:11 Sep 14 (this edit did not just remove a reference but removed part of an edit as well -- "immediately")
Please see the four bulleted items in my comment below. Now that I look at them closer, they seem to be Reverts 5-8, all from Sep 14 (today). --Noroton (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not a good idea. It wouldn't do any good. I've had too many difficulties with Lulu in the distant past. Best to resolve this problem here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable: not all of this involves me. The part that did involve me was resolved by me in edit summaries (it was just that obvious), and my edits and edit summaries responded to the objections of Lulu and another editor, so a discussion did in fact take place -- on the "history" page here and didn't need to go to the discussion page.

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is a longtime editor who knows better than to edit war and better than to be uncivil in edit summaries (check out the edit summaries in the diffs cited above; check out the history page of the ACORN article, here (just over the past 24 hours will do, but you can quickly find more if you keep looking); these fit the definition of not just 3+ reverting but of edit warring. Warning Lulu is useless. I'm notifying him of this report. All the edits were part of a POV conflict on that page, with Lulu defending ACORN and casting a negative light on those who the article states are opposed to ACORN. Let's just say Lulu's actions and comments are not conducive to a civil working out of consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Noroton is frustrated that a number of editors have reverted contentious content he recently introduced to the article in question. He also correctly list 4 unrelated edits (or very loosely related) I made to that same article in the last day or so. Looking at his diffs shows that none of them are reverts, and only two of the four address vaguely the same topic, but through different edits. This report is a childish attempt at "revenge" for his WP:SOAPBOX not going the way he likes (and for the fact, I suspect, that the article became semi-protected, making it harder for lots of anonymous or SPA editors to insert rants). LotLE×talk 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please compare the tone of my language with LuLu's, both within the article and everywhere else. Does adding facts, such as The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN. constitute some kind of WP:SOAPBOX behavior? (LuLu's edit summary in reverting this: remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS.) Did I stoop to calling LuLu anything equivalent to "childish" or "revenge"-seeking? And why would I need vengeance when the sentence I first put in has been kept in the article, even as other parts of the article have been disputed? Didn't I just get exactly what I wanted in that exchange? Notice that when LuLu removed the sentence, saying in the edit summary that the problem was "RS" (reliable source), he kept in that same "unreliable" source. So what was the rational reason for removing the sentence but not the source? Here are some other recent comments from LuLu at various spots, and let's see who is not just uncivil, but WP:SOAPBOXING as he edit wars and creates WP:BATTLEground conflict rather than consensus (all from today, 14 September):

Edit summary: WP:SOAPBOX/rant/slander doesn't belong in lead) Look at the material removed: whether or not anyone thinks it should be in the lead, LuLu's description was uncivil
Edit summary: this is obviously more appropriate in section where it was before ranting anon moved it Even if the anon editor was ranting, this language doesn't belong in the edit summary.
Edit summary (and another revert today): remove lots more extraneous and ranting material introduced by anons None of the material removed could be described as "ranting"
Edit summary: these anons sure are going crazy with unencyclopedic additions Here was the language removed: A couple days later, another video was released showing the film team in Brooklyn, recieving the same advice on tax-cheating and trafficing as they had in Washington and Baltimore. Why a difference of opinion is "crazy" or "unencyclopedic" is not explained, and that's not the way to characterize good-faith edits by editors who could make a reasonable case if they weren't summarily discouraged from contributing by incivility from an experienced editor

I'd show you LuLu's edits from the talk page, but he hasn't made any comments there since July 18, which is too bad, because they're worse than the examples above. I think it's obvious who's doing the edit warring here. -- Noroton (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I have to say that I don't see how these four edits constitute an edit-war. They really have nothing to do with each other. 3RR doesn't say that you can't spend your entire day editing an article (especially when the article appears to be under attack based on recent events). Also, it should be noted that the reporting editor is heavily involved, having made 3 reverts in a short period of time on the same article. This sounds more like a situation where everyone needs to chill (and perhaps the semi-protection should be extended to full for a day). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From the "Definition of the three revert rule" at the top of this page: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Loonymonkey, like Lulu, is an editor who has been involved in disputes over political topics on Misplaced Pages, including at least one with me a year or two ago. -- Noroton (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No obvious vio, further seems to have subsided for now. Re-report if needed in future. Nja 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 3 days)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

18:43, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "not supported by the soruce")
19:54, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "removed portion of statement not supported by the sources.")
20:03, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "there is no evidence that Goodman is a classical liberal. Putting his name there instead.")
20:37, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "sometimes called "traditional liberalism" ..with two sources")
21:50, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Expanding on what the source says on what the early liberals believed")

Diff of warning: here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:
Introman has made 5 non-sequential edits to Classical liberalism in just over 3 hours, all of which have been reverted by other editors. In each case Introman has made a different edit to the lead. He has stated that he believes that different edits do not count for 3rr However it is disruptive edit-warring. Introman even posted a Wikiquette alert against one of the editors for deleting one of his earlier edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman also made three reverts on Sept. 13, all of which were reverted by other editors. Even if Introman's last two edits on Sept. 14 were ignored, he still would have exceeded 3rr for a 24 hour period.

17:35, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "no evidence that the source is a "follower" of classical liberalism")
21:27, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Not the editor, the SOURCE. You are claiming that the source is a follower of classical liberalism.")
21:49, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "source doesnt specify "in the latter sense." Classical is classical liberalism. There is not multiple meanings.")

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To the administrators: Please look at this carefully. I did not edit war. I was making different kinds of changes, rather than doing the same thing over and over. I think I also gave good descriptions of my edits in the edit summaries, sourced my additions, and had been discussing things on the talk page. Simply doing more than 3 things to an article that The Four Deuces doesn't like doesn't constitute edit warring. Four Deuces tried to pull a fast one like this here before, and apparently an administrator didn't look closely enough and blocked me. However, I appealed and the block was removed. I had to explicitly and exhaustively prove that I wasn't edit warring in the appeal, as if one is presumed guilty before proven innocent. You can read about it on my talk page. Hopefully someone here will take the time to look at it closely this time so I don't have to go through the same hassle. Thanks. Introman (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 days Making several changes to push to same point that obviously isn't supported by consensus without discussing the issue on talk pages is edit warring, for which you've been blocked. This wasn't a 3RR vio block. Nja 06:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:YMB29 reported by User:Biophys (Result: Both blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: his block history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments: He just came back from a block for edit warring in the same article. In all four edits he is trying to modify the same paragraph that begins from "The Soviet conception of human rights was very different".

Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Both blocked)

history

This is getting out of control. Biophys thinks he owns the article and can revert anyone's edits at will.

I already reported him for edit warring, but it seems no one cares. In June all the changes in that article that were made from 3 Nov. 2008 to 15 June 2009 were reverted by him. Look here you can see that the versions are exactly the same!

Once in a while he pretends to try to discuss, but ends up not replying and then removing all changes that he does not like.

He also tag teams against me with User:Bobanni, who might even be his sock. Can an admin run checkuser on them? With Bobanni he avoids getting in trouble for 3RR.

I have tried to talk to him multiple times on the talk page, but it just turns out to be a waste of time.

You can see here that other users have the same problem with him.

-YMB29 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Epw7889 at Press TV (Result: User blocked for 1 week)

Article is nothing but a long-term edit war. I know I'm not formatting this properly, but do have a look. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Format fixed Manning (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the actions of both parties involved and elected to block User:Epw7889 on the grounds of being a single purpose POV account. Subsequent offending will result in a permanent block. I could have also taken action against User:Copyedeye but elected to leave a warning instead, as their actions seemed in good faith.

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Single purpose POV account. Manning (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:UweBayern reported by User:Jacurek (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated offender, warned before] reverts with false edit summaries calling people "Polish vandals"], removes all attempts of discussion and warnings from his talk page.]] Please also see his recent edit] for bigger picture of this user characteristics (nominating Holocaust survivors category for deletion).--Jacurek (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:חכמביום (Result:No Violation)

This user has been deleting the same sourced information over and over for the last few weeks on the grounds that he/she thinks it is promoting someone's book and he/she doesn't like the theories expounded in it. User:חכמביום has edited only this page, Yehuda Amichai, and seems to be a sockpuppet for some earlier user who consistently removed the same material. Is there anything that can be done? Messages to this person, from me and others, have not helped. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not an accusation of 3RR. It was an accusation of persistently removing sourced information on POV grounds. If you can't help, please let me know who can.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would bring it up at ANI, for lack of a better location. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have dismissed the case too quickly. A little while ago, User:חכמביום reverted the material in question for the third time today. --Gilabrand (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected All three of you are edit warring and all three of you could be blocked. To make things simpler, though, I'll just protect the page.

The point is, all of you are reverting one another without even giving edit summaries, and I don't see any evidence of consensus anywhere (the fact that it's two-against-one at the talk page doesn't mean there's a big "consensus"). Who knows, maybe חכמביום's edits are totally bad, but that should be dealt with through discussion, not through edit warring, Please take the time while this article is under protection to seek outside input (try Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Israel or WT:WikiProject Jewish culture) in the discussion. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gilisa reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Warned)

Pre-war version:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Quark#Ne.27eman_part_in_the_QM

Comments: This is the front page article, so a quick resolution would be apprecited Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Boxedor and User:23prootie reported by User:JL 09 (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to:

I'll report two users, who undergone edit warring on the article Philippines for the last days.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Each users, especially Boxedor leaves some defamatory and offensive edit summaries: "what are you talking about? are you lost User:23prottiee, whats New york times got to do with these issues? lost" "User 23prottiee user obsessed with these history and weasel words. weirdos stick to facts please." --JL 09 _{_c} 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Orsahnses. Boxedor (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of a indef blocked sockmaster who constantly warred on Philippines-related pages. The V-Man 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Noroton Second Report (Result: )

Administrators: This report overlaps with a report still on this page (last edit to that report here), and some of the diffs overlap with the ones on that page. If it would be better to merge this report into the bottom of that one, please do so.

Previous version reverted to: This does not apply; reverts are all over the page for an extended period of time and involving either full or partial reverting of other editors' contributions. There is no one version.

If these four reverts are somehow incorrect, please see the many other reverts in the previous report, most of which take place within the 24-hour period included in the 3rd or 4th reverts here -- somewhere in all this crap there's a pony:

1st revert (repeated from previous report): 19:11 Sep 14 (the previous edit is the one reverted) Uncivil edit summary characterizing good faith, factual edit (The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN.) sourced to a daily newspaper: (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS)
2nd revert (repeated from previous report): 20:11 Sep 14 Edit summary: use one WP:RS (this edit did not just remove a reference but removed part of an edit as well -- "immediately")
3rd revert: 06:22 Sep 15 Edit summary: (Reverted to revision 314026634 by Methusedalot; revert vandalism (same puerile change made dozens of times by anons)
4th revert: 06:27 Sep 15 Edit summary: Needless duplication: Undid revision 314018027 by 24.217.91.82 (this edit, from 01:59 Sep 15, is the one reverted: ) The "duplication" involved was not some kind of uncontentious cleaning up, but a part of furthering LuLu's point of view and suppressing an opposing point of view. This is best seen by looking at the added language and its removal in context.

As I said in the previous report, whether or not these reverts somehow do not violate 3RR (and someone please explain to me how they do not violate it, if they don't), this is still continuous edit warring. Any editor who attempts to add information to the article that goes against LuLu's very strong, very pronounced point of view is reverted, usually by Lulu, and often with an uncivil edit summary, often one that describes the editors contributions vandalism, crazy or with some other abusive language. Some passages go in and out and in and out of the article (need more diffs for that?). LuLu does not participate on the discussion page (not since mid-July), and when he does, his last two statements were snide, rude comments. What's the point of participating on that page when LuLu will just abuse you there and other editors look the other way, including one administrator? The two reasons to avoid edit warring are to allow for an article to improve, which is more likely when disputes are worked out calmly and rationally, and to avoid frustration among editors who are trying to make well-meaning changes, which characterizes many of the editors and edits that LuLu is excoriating and reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: LuLu is well aware of my concerns, after I posted a note on his talk page about the previous report I filed , and he commented on it

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I explained in the previous report why this was not applicable diff to final edit in that report's section

Incidentally, ACORN has been in the news in the United States because two undercover filmmakers have taped themselves acting as a pimp and prostitute, going to ACORN offices in various cities and asking for help getting loans for a brothel. They are gradually rolling out videos where ACORN employees are depicted as being very aware of the nature of the business. One day a tape from the Baltimore office is revealed, another day it's a tape from the Washington office, then from one in Brooklyn. Last night, the filmmakers said they had another revelation coming out today and possibly another one after that. Since this is one of the ongoing, major disputes on the page (the most major), we can expect the pressure to edit war to continue. -- Noroton (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified LuLu of this second report. -- Noroton (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

As he did yesterday, Noroton has again successfully identified 4 unrelated edits by me to the ACORN page. I suspect that once this report is ruled "no violation", he'll file a third, fourth and fifth 3RR report against me, in the hope that someone will block me. Indeed, it seems clear that Noroton doesn't like me, I do think he's managed to demonstrate that fact above. Maybe in subsequent reports, he can just randomly collect all my edits to all articles, and hope that a 3RR violation magically emerges. LotLE×talk 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany#Your_Fact_is_not_a_fact_but_an_opinion_on_the_value_of_German_ethnicity_in_defining_Germans> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Have asked Spitzer to stop his persistant pov on this article. Refusal to discuss or reason. Have asked for him to come to a consensus on the talk page before editing, user insists he is right and ignores. His edits are emotional and pov, rather than encyclopaedic.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)>

Warned –Juliancolton | 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:24.2.247.208 reported by User:DJ Clayworth (Result: Warned)

The pattern of behaviour is easy to determine from the user's edit list.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a persistent pattern of expanding the US healthcare debate onto any article that may be even marginally relevant; also of reverting changes to those articles to their preferred version; all this over a period of several months without any single attempt to discuss the matter. I would appreciate another admin's presence in these disputes. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No edit warring since warning. –Juliancolton | 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he comes in and does a burst of editing and then goes away. He'll probably be back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ziggymacho reported by User:ArcAngel (Result: 24 h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is continually added unsourced info which could be considered OR to the article. From my view, he has come close to violating WP:3RR, but has not done so yet. Since the user is apparently not heeding the warnings given on his talk page, I am reporting him here. ArcAngel (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for disruption. –Juliancolton | 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories: