Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:09, 16 March 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty: striking my participation in improperly initiated thread← Previous edit Revision as of 23:27, 16 March 2009 edit undoTeeninvestor (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,552 edits Deleted after user decided to withdraw report.Next edit →
Line 707: Line 707:


: 48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy ] (]) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) : 48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy ] (]) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

<s>If this venue is only about slapping hands, then the exercise is almost pointless. If this is the place to come for help in calming a problem before it gets out of hand, then good.

Additional help would be constructive in averting a needlessly escalating controversy? The threat of edit war needs to be mitigated before an attempt is made to seek help elsewhere -- perhaps where the focus is more to do with ]s than edit warring?

Lengthy discussion threads on the talk page seems to have engendered a consensus, but that investment of time and words seems to have been to no avail.</s>--] (]) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:Editor above has tried to delete large sections of cited content, without citing any sources as to why, how. Editor above has also violated consensus by deleting large sections of content, (even when he admitted he had no knowledge of the subject) and despite an outside editor's comments that this article is well sourced. In addition, said editor has repeatedly tried to delete an article even after AFD saved it. Said editor has repetaeldy violated WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COMMON SENSE by trying to demand "Screened pictures of the text of the source", as well as "English translations for all the words used in the source".] (]) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:Did you notice the link at the top of this page that says "Click here to add a new report". Well, if you want to "add a new report", you "click" on it. And follow the instructions. Tricky, eh? ] (]) 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::In that case, there's been no violation of 3RR(as of yet).] (]) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

:::<s>I don't believe anyone cares about violations of 3RR -- that's not the point. I am <not> assuming any infraction of any rules. Three editors have challenged the material per ]and all have asked for confirmation of the cited source per ].

:::The challenge is informed by two clear sentences which are the first ones to be found at : :"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a ], not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

:::It is my view that this challenged material should not be posted until the comments, suggestions, and questions on the talk page are addressed. I support the consensus view; and my actions are informed by the talk page threads. In the absence of better guidance, I'm persuaded that my edits are moderate, appropriate, and supported by Misplaced Pages policy. That should be sufficient to settle the budding edit war ... but apparently not.
:::]'s extravagant comments above are proof enough that assistance is needed in calming a needlessly escalating situation. If this is not the place to come in hopes of averting an avoidable problem, then I was simply wrong. Not the first nor the last time I fumbled in trying to comply with Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system.</s>

:::What now?--] (]) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:27, 16 March 2009

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

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Click here to create a new report

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

    Reports

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


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • All reverts

    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)

    Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    —MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


    Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    Viriditas reported by Dlabtot (Result: )

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

    User:Viriditas is edit warring on this talk page, changing and removing my comments, violating WP:TALK as well as WP:3RR. In my zeal to restore my own comments, I may have violated or come close to violating 3RR as well, if so, I humbly apologize. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

    According to the page history, I haven't edited People's Park since 1 May 2008, and that was only to disambiguate a link. On the other hand, the page history shows that you've been engaged in an edit war while tag teaming with User:Sierralaw, and User:Rkmlai against edits made by User:Apostle12. Most recently, you made a POV edit after starting an RFC. I arrived on the talk page on March 6 to try and mediate, only to be attacked by you and told that I have contempt for homeless people. Now, I discover you are pushing a minority POV in the article. Lastly, you started an RFC when you found that discussion between Apostle12 and Rkmlai was working towards resolving the impasse. Unfortunately, you didn't follow the conventions for article RFC's and you made comments about users instead of the topic. I removed them, you restored them, and then you tried moving the goalposts, claiming that I was invovled in the dispute (I'm not, I've only been mediating on the talk page). And that's where we stand. Article RFC's are not about users, and the RFC was changed to reflect the nature of the dispute, the words of which were written by you and you alone. I will admit, however, that my mediating style was overly aggressive, and had the effect of not one, but two elephants in a china shop, drunk on cheap wine. For that, I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    As the talk page history and the talk page version before you started reverting my talk page comments shows, my comment that you have deleted from the talk page was clearly presented as the comment of an involved editor and was never part of the RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but neither of those links show anything and I'm not involved in any dispute on this page. If you pay very close attention to the talk page, you will notice that I have criticized all parties involved from the very first edit I made as mediator. I'm surprised that you missed this fact. I would be happy to provide diffs if you need them. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

    Could I possibly nudge some admin to look at this? I would really like to restore my comments to this talk page but I don't want to do so if they are just going to be deleted again. I was advised elsewhere that this report would have been better made at WP:ANI, but it seems too late for that now. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    • I would really appreciate some response from someone who is watching this noticeboard. It's been 6 days since I posted this notice. Perhaps dozens of reports have been responded to in that time. I don't understand why this report has been ignored. Tell me I'm wrong to post it, and why, or tell me to post it somewhere eles, or tell me whatever you want - just please don't pretend that this report doesn't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Mrnhghts reported by happy138 (Result: Page protected for a week)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Happy138 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    2009-03-11T17:09:42 SoWhy (talk | contribs | block) m (3,698 bytes) (Protected Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)) (expires 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Captain Kirk (Result: 24hr block)

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There is an on-going edit war between two wiki users who feel that James Cawley's name should be included in Star Trek bio box on the James T. Kirk Page. The bio box for Star Trek characters was agreed upon and setup properly, but there has been no discussion as to whether or not Cawley (a fan who has been in 4 Star Trek TV fan shows he made himself) should be included on Kirk's bio. The argument is stricly over the bio box, not the "depictions" section of Kirk's page.

    Furthermore, these two wiki users have blocked another user for making multiple edits, while they have made twice the number of edits in a day as the user they blocked! Both of these users are clearly familiar with one another (as you can tell by their Wiki pages) and may even be friends IRL. Arcayne's wiki discussion page also shows several other users complaining about his behavior. Please help.

    (I saw the header for this and thought: 'Damn, someone got the wiki-handle Captain Kirk? That's totally awesome'. Then, realizing that our spacefaring manwhore was blocked, I figured Khan was behind it. KKKKHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNN!) - Arcayne () 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Bradfordparkavenue reported by Plumbago (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR not broken


    • Editwar began after I edited article to tag up OR and remove unsourced and inappropriate (my POV) material on a BLP
    • Editwar has focused in article lead where (other) editwarring editor is repeatedly adding material that is inappropriate for a biography and sourced to an inaccessible lecture given by the article's subject
    • I have tried to discuss how this material could be supported with the (other) editwarring editor on their talkpage but they refuse to engage, and instead just describe the edits of myself and other editors as vandalism
    • The (other) editwarring editor appears to have reverted two additional times from the IP address 66.183.24.133
    • In passing, this is my first visit to this forum, and I may have come too early before exhausting all alternative actions; my apologies if this is the case

    --PLUMBAGO 08:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    User made an additional revert from IP 66.183.27.212, subsequent to 3RR warning that I added to the user's talk page. It should also be noted that User:Plumbago has made several polite attempts to engage in discussion with the user on his talk page but the user has not responded. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    Editor has made a further revert from same IP (66.183.27.212). Editor has still not engaged in any form of discussion (beyond edit summary jibes). --PLUMBAGO 07:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    (Between the two foregoing IP reverts, the user also made an additional one in his own name.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Arcayne reported by anonymous coward (Result: wrong person)


    • Previous version reverted to:



    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Arcayne (talk · contribs) is engaged in an edit war over the Captain Kirk page (oh no he isn't - you mean James T. Kirk). There have been several discussions as to whether or not non-studio actors should be included in the bio box on Kirk's page. Three editors and two admins have said no (feeling that non-studio actors have as much weight as spoofing actors and should not be included), but Arcayne feels otherwise and keeps reverting the page to include an actor who played Kirk in 4 webisodes. In addition, Arcayne (talk · contribs) has deleted another studio actor that will be playing James Kirk as a young man. Rather than start yet another edit war or endure his harassment, I am asking you to please put an end to Arcayne's endless reverts. 24.115.224.131 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think you reported the wrong person: 2009-03-12T16:28:32 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) blocked Erikeltic (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: James T. Kirk) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by ww2censor (talk) (Result: 48hr block )

    Talk:Republic of Ireland‎ (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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


    • Diff of warning: here

    —ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


    User:89.240.193.223 reported by dougweller (talk) (Result: 24hr block )

    Location hypotheses of Atlantis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.240.193.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 16:34, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "no such thing is done. all statements involved are referenced")
    2. 16:41, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "then revert THAT bit - not the entire thing")
    3. 16:56, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "*sigh* some people don't listen. I've taken it into my own hands - I've put back the information about Siculo-Malta, but removed the "the most popular theories include". Next time, read.")
    4. 17:49, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "did you even look at it? Look at the sources. Sicily is not excluded in the new section. It is mentioned exactly as it is presented in the sources. Next will be RFP")
    5. 17:50, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Malta */ clarify")

    The two above edits should be treated as one as they are consecutive

    1. 18:20, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "did Plato say that they came from Iberia during his lifetime?")
    2. 18:28, 13 March 2009 (edit summary: "you don't just "remove it". you improve it (which I have now had to do)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Hm, I didn't notice one of the IP's edits and edit again after that, so I am at 3RR and should stop editing, sorry! dougweller (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    I beg your pardon? You've blocked the anon for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    ;-) Scarian 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

    Fasttimes68 reported by Therefore (Result: 24hr block )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is about adding in 2 second paragraph about the Nancy Pelosi aircraft issue. It is properly sourced from MSNBC news and balances out the Judicial Watch's statements in the New York Post. The user removes it 4 times. I've attempted discussion on the article's talk page. User claims the 3rr rule doesn't apply to him because, he says, I didn't respond on his talk page. I don't understand the reasons for his revert. Please, if you could, revert the page. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


    Complaint against Philbox17 on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (result: this isn't ANI)

    1) Philbox17 has made personal attacks on me.

    Here, Philbox17 accuses me of making propaganda.

    And here he calls me a propaganda machine.


    2) Philbox17 is editing an article about an organization after being asked to do so by leaders of this organization. There is a conflict of interest here.

    3) Philbox17 has called me "peureux" (a coward) on French wiki and has also taken to threatening me in a veiled manner: "I counsel you to stop the vandalism and the federalist propaganda right away Vincent...". (My translation.)


    4) Note that Philbox17 was suspended from French wikipedia for the above and the suspension was extended following an attempt by Philbox17 to evade the block with a sockpuppet.

    Would an admin kindly look into these matters, please? Vincent (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've looked, and concluded that this is WP:3RR not WP:ANI which is over there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Digwuren reported by Russavia (Result: Go away)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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



    I put this up for speedy deletion, as the template serves no purpose, other than to denigrate other users, especially if they are "North American". There is discussion between Digwuren and another editor at Wikipedia_talk:Baltic_States_notice_board#Another_notability_discussion.2C_this_time_on_Latvian_politicians in regards to this. There are policies in place on WP which stop the deletion of articles, such as notability. The speedy deletion template states "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.", and Digwuren as the creator should not be removing speedy deletion templates from this, but rather using "hangon". He hasn't done this, but is rather removing the speedy template completely, outside of that process. --Russavia 11:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    Check out Misplaced Pages talk:Baltic States notice board, the discussion of a clown who attempted to seriously argue that Riga, Latvia's capital, is such a "non-notable community" that its mayor is not "inherently notable".

    The template is supposed to act as a reminder of WP:BIAS to people who might otherwise all too easily delete stuff they haven't heard of. Russavia's entirely pointless speedy deletion tag not only interferes with the template's rendering, it's also fraudulent -- the systemic bias *is* a widely recognised issue of Misplaced Pages, and there's nothing in established policy against reminding people of that problem. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    So you again resort to personal attacks against User:Seicer, calling him a clown? And your others reasons are not bound in policy for this template, which you have breached 3RR on. --Russavia 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    You know, there's a reason why I didn't name any names. Your doing so is what constitutes a personal attack here -- and accordingly, I've removed it. Under established policy, of course.
    Besides, there's nothing shameful in being a clown. Even Penn Gillette has attended a clown school -- and his apology for that was merely for laughs. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    Please do not alter my posts. Thanks --Russavia 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    It is also evident by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andris Ārgalis, who your "clown" comment was directed towards. You have failed to assume good faith with his nomination, have created a template directed towards "omniscient" "North Americans", and have not read the template in that you should not be removing it, but rather use "hangon" instead, and have breached WP:3RR, the only reason for which we are here. There is no doubt that you have breached 3RR, and it was out of process. --Russavia 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    Hmm. Interesting tactic. It's you who's doing his darnedest to keep personal attacks on this page, and yet you're trying to claim I'm responsible. Where have I seen this before?
    Are you User:Ghirlandajo, per any chance? He *has* been suspiciously silent for months ... ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Declined Not blocking anyone over this at this stage. Instead:
    • Russavia - if you think this should be deleted then take it to WP:TFD. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion.
    • Digwuren - don't remove tags from pages you created, it just leads to nonsense like this. Administrators do know what the speedy deletion criteria are.

    CIreland (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    59.91.253.113 reported by Radhakrishnansk(Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user is involved in mutilating the wikipage of SUCI for the last 2 years. Some time back he was stopped by the administrators. He keeps using abusive language on every editor who criticizes him. He has some personal vengance against this party which is evident from his vandalism.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h. R is cautioned re 3RR and incivility too. WP:RFCU is over that way if you need it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    RFCU is unnecessary. The IP editor has acknowledged being a banned editor. See which can be read as admitting that the editor is User:Kuntan, and acknowledges being banned. Edits by banned editors may be reverted on sight and 3RR should not apply to these, though the non-admin editor should immediately request admin assistance. IP from the range appearing in articles of known interest should be treated as the banned editor, and blocked as appropriate. Rangeblock might be considered. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:173.67.254.207 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: 21:04 stated as undo and revert to 20:38
    • 2nd revert: 21:10 stated as undo and revert to 21:06
    • 3rd revert: 21:15 revert to previous
    • 4th revert: 21:20 revert to previous
    • 5th revert: 21:22 revert to previous
    • 6th revert: 21:24 restoring inappropriate note at the beginning of the article


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:16
    I've reverted the anon's nonsense elsewhere, so I can't block it myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    2009-03-15T02:01:01 Hersfold (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 173.67.254.207 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) ‎ (Vandalism; and insinuating the intent to pursue legal action) William M. Connolley (talk)

    Ebenkostbar1 reported by Aktsu (Result: final warning)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: None, but warned that he was inserting copyrighted material in his edits (diff). Will give him one now.

    This seems to be one part edit warring, one part copyvio and one part COI... --aktsu  01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    Warning given. I reverted him since removing copyright violations are exceptions from 3RR. --aktsu  01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Given final warning William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Prof.rick reported by Richard Arthur Norton (Result: 12h)


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I am not sure why the contents of the subjects website are notable enough to include, and then add a warning that the information should be disregarded. If an editor wants to argue over the contents of someone's blog they should do it in their own blog, not in Misplaced Pages. The topic has no third party coverage. I think there may be some personal animus between the subject of the article and the editor adding the material. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    12h, in the hope that is enough to make him see sense. If it isn't, get back to me. Haven't you been around long enough to know that warnings go on the user talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    3RR violation against Philbox17 on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (result: 24h each)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Note: Philbox17 has taken to personal attacks on me (Vfp15) and he has made threats against me, following which following which he was suspended on French Misplaced Pages, at first for three days, then for longer because he tried to evade the block with a sock puppet/.

    Help would be appreciated. Vincent (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't know if it helps, but youve both broken 3RR so I've blocked you both. You desperately need to start discussing the substance of the edits concerned on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    76.202.195.129 reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Comments: User has been edit warring to restore an unsourced network list and trivia over the past few days, only now stepping up his efforts to enforce his version. Been led to WP:BRD in edit summaries and dismissed it. Been warned about 3RR on fourth and continues reverting. He's also reverting obvious corrections: there is no "Jeremiah" in the series, yet his fifth revert is to undo that correction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    because im not talking about a character.. maybe you need to pay attention. this is why people who dont follow a subject matter should not edit pages regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    If it's a city or some sort of location, you should make that clearer, because there is no link indicating it as such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    or you should stop acting like a know-it-all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Xasodfuih (Result: 24h)

    From 02:56, 15 March 2009 to 10:58, 15 March 2009 OrangeMarlin reverted in whole or in part multiple users on Major depressive disorder with the following edits:

    3RR warning was acknowledged. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    For whatever it's worth (WP:3RR says it matters), he also called me an idiot, and CAM POV pusher. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    There is no reason for the incivility, though please try not to use generic warnings templates on the regulars, ie users with an established history of contributions. I urge everyone involved to use the article talk page and remain calm and civil to avoid future edit conflicts. Nja 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like the 3rd one was a straight revert: "no scientifc evidence" and "little evidence" do not actually mean the same thing. Cardamon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Taken together there was obvious disruption: the reverts; conduct; not assuming good faith; and the fact that the blocked user had not been using the article's talk page to discuss the obvious dispute. Nja 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I am one of the editors with whom Orangemarlin, supposedly, editwarred. I do not think there was editwarring per se. OM was reverting separate edits, and did not revert any of those more than two times. Moreover, he stopped reverting when I explained my reasoning on the Talk page in detail. It also appears that Xasodfuih agreed with the compromise version. Thus, there is no need to block Orangemarlin. There was incivility but not so gross as to warrant a block. A warning from an admin would have sufficed. Can this block be reconsidered? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your observations, however the edit history tells a slightly different story. Further the conflict was reported by the other editor that you named. Regardless the user is able to edit their own talk page if they have anything to say that will clarify any lingering queries. Nja 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Stradov reported by Dynablaster (talk) (Result: no vio)

    Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stradov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 00:08, 14 March 2009
    2. 01:22, 14 March 2009
    3. 01:08, 15 March 2009
    4. 03:59, 15 March 2009
    5. 08:01, 15 March 2009

    User:Stradov keeps trying to remove notable information published in New Scientist that he personally deems "factually dubious". The information will keep being deleted until he sees some evidence the New Scientist report is accurate. Please read the brief exchange on the main talk page for a complete understanding. Stradov was informed about 3RR on the talk page, "Mind you do break the three-revert rule", with special emphasis in the edit summary: "Be sure to read carefully and follow the links" 03:03, 15 March 2009 I proceeded to post a note of warning to his talk page, offering a piece of sound advice. 03:12, 15 March 2009 Unfortunately, the aforementioned user again deleted reliably sourced information from the article, as the above timeline will show. More recently, I invited Stradov to self revert. 16:18, 15 March 2009. Editors are welcome top see if I myself have done anything wrong, and offer advice/sanction accordingly.

    —Dynablaster (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    This doesn't look like a strict vio to me, and if we're counting non-strict, you too have sinned. Meanwhile, I'm not really inclined to regad Nude Scientist as a terribly RS. I strongly recommend you find other editors to offer an opinion rather than edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Hello William. If you examine the page history, you will discover that I have been careful not to break 3RR. In the past, when this sort of thing has occurred, the advice on offer was to take a deep breath, calm down, follow the correct procedure and report rule breakers instead of reverting them. Now that I follow this advice, you disparage a perfectly reliable source ("Nude Scientist") and accuse me of "sinning". What, may I ask, is that all about? Dynablaster (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Let me try again. S has not, in strict terms, broken 3RR. Neither have you. But he has been edit warring, and so have you. from the edit history it looks like recent changes have consisted of you and he reverting each other, so it could hardly be otherwise. And no, NS is *not* a perfectly reliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Presumably then, "strictly speaking", if Stradof has succeeded in deleted exactly the same information (not once but 5 times), but in doing so, he simultaneously moved other words about and shifted a period fractionally to the left, that is not to be considered relevant? If so, then what is to stop me from doing the same thing? Kindly explain why New Scientist is not a reliable source. Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Don't understand you. Have you read WP:REVERT? S hasn't got 4R in 24h, is that so hard to understand? As for NS, that is my personal opinion of it, I have no intention of arguing about it here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    The aforementioned user has removed notable information, attributed correctly to a reliable source, 3 times within a 24 hour period. He thinks the information is inaccurate, and until he sees some evidence otherwise, he will keep removing it. If that is not a clear violation, then I'm a banana. Dynablaster (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Don't go near any gorillas :-). More seriously, if you think your reverts are "right" but his are "wrong" then you dont want AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:User:86.151.123.189 reported by User:Boston (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    I'm not really involved with this but I noticed the user in question making personal attacks against another user an deleting what seems to be well-referenced, NPOV text. Requested user not break 3RR but they stated they do not care about this rule. If I shouldn't have reported this or should have handled this differently please advise.--Boston (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, but the rules care about them 2009-03-15T19:27:44 Mfield (talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.151.123.189 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: removal of sourced content, personal attacks) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I caught that one via a request at RFPP. IP seems to be a sock too. Mfield (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    User is wearing a new sock already Someone want to revert that edit? I already did 3 times. --Boston (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Have blocked all the IPs and semi protected both articles to prevent continual reversion and chasing of IPs. Mfield (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: 24h block)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Editor keeps adding a disputed paragraph to the article, claiming a "consensus" on the Talk: page which he will not actually point to. Has been blocked for 3RR before, and in his last revert actually warned me about 3RR. His response to a request to revert himself was belligerent. Jayjg 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

    Dream Focus reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • Diff of 3RR warning: link (left by User:Sloane, third editor to remove the tag).

    DreamFocus has now reverted three different editors over the removal of the rescue tag from an unsalvagable article. He first tried to claim it doesn't apply unless he's reverting the same person then falsely calls the removals vandalism even though he is fully aware that 3RR does not work that way and that removing the rescue tag is not vandalism. He is also beginning to edit war on Misa Kobayashi, removing a CSD tag despite his not being an administrator and it being obvious the CSD tag was applied in good faith and appropriately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    That isn't edit waring. The tag says anyone who disagrees with the speedy delete, should remove it. Another editor reverted you and agreed with me on that point. A voice actor working on three notable projects is just as notable as a regular actor on a non-animated film. Dream Focus 02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment A rescue tag should remain in place until the afd is over. Removing it serves no purpose at all. It doesn't affect afd outcome and will not save the article from deletion if that is the outcome. The tag merely serves as a flag to guide the 'rescuers' who may be able to improve the article to a point were it may survive deletion. --neon white talk 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment Completely concur. Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the {{rescue}} tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep articl;es on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. The template is for articles that have some potential to be referenced and rewritten, and editors can believe in good faith that that isn't possible. WP:ARS's work is good but it's not sacred. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't believe I suggested that ARS' work is sacred, in any case the underlying principle is the same as AFD. That one person doesn't decide if an article is kept or rescuable or not. It is a discussion. If an article will be deleted anyway who cares if the rescue tag is on it when it goes down? Ergo removing a please fix this article if you can tag seem rather pointy and possibly hostile. -- Banjeboi 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Or it could easily be a good-faith belief by an expert that the subject cannot be improved in this manner. {{afd}} has the support of years of consensus that removing it is disruptive because it delinks a conversation; no such custom protects (or should protect) {{rescue}}. "Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive" is a false statement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not really relevant that one editor may not think the subject can be improved, if another editor wants to try and asks for help with it, then that's good practice and is an attempt to improve wikipedia which is the goal of every editor. It should be encouraged. I can see no good reason to remove, it serves no purpose or benefit other than to deliberately hinder attempts to improve the project. That is disruptive and above all quite petty. --neon white talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Tags are text. Reverting them is not vandalism per se. Whether they belong or not is up to the editors of the article. There is no 3RR exemption for restoring tags, no matter how passionately you may believe they belong. The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. is untrue. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there. would be nice, but failure to do it does not justify breaking 3RR, which is absolute. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Dream Focus reported by Sloane (Result: vote delete)

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

    Conflict is about the addition of the "rescue" template to the article, I, User:Collectonian and User:TheFarix disagree. I tried warning User:Dream Focus about breaking the 3rr, but he continued anyhow and is now justifying his actions by accusing the other editors of vandalism.--Sloane (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    • The tag on the Misa Kobayashi says if you disagree with speedy deletion, you should remove that tag. I don't think it meets that criteria, and stated me reason why. Another editor went and agreed with me on that. You don't need to be an administrator to remove that tag.
    • The three edit rule does not apply to revert vandalism, such as tag removal. I read the policy, and that's what it says. Collectonian recently nominated an article for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_David which had a rescue tag placed on it, resulting in members of the rescue squadron, including myself, going there to argue keep. The third person who removes the tag is Sloane, who gives the reason, "article is going to go anyway)" and "no need to waste peoples' time" for his two attempts to delete the tag. I believe that counts as vandalism, and reverted it. Dream Focus 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    That is completely and totally false BS. I did not post on my user page for someone to remove the rescue tag. Provide proof or redact that false accusation please. The only post made to my user page about this article was responding to Artw to let him know that I was NOT the first one who removed the rescue tag and saying someone needed to warn you for 3RR because you were now reverting a third editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    It's hardly vandalism. It's other editor's auditing the use of a cleanup tag. The rescue tag is not except from being audited like any other cleanup tag. The fact that you are assuming bad faith only compounds the problem. --Farix (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Wait.. sorry. I misread something. What was I looking at... I apologize, you didn't ask others to go there and delete the tag also. The rest is true though. Dream Focus 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Everyone please click on that link. I asked if someone was allowed to remove the rescue squadron tag or not, since I didn't think they could. Still waiting for an answer on that. And that isn't canvasing, it quite relevant to the issue. Where else would I ask it, but the Rescue Squadron's site? Others may have had this same issue come up in the past. Dream Focus 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I would just like to point out, as the person who tagged the article for deletion, that the first person I notified (after the automated message from Twinkle to the article creator) was to Dream Focus. I have monitored this deletion discussion closely and have been making sure that there is no canvassing on either side. Dream Focus certainly hasn't canvassed either; I've made sure of that. I would have warned him otherwise if he had. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Removing the {{rescue}} tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the {{rescue}} tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep content on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- Banjeboi 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    (EC) Removing the misapplication or abusive application of this template is hardly disruptive. But holding that the template as "unremoveable", especially when the article is clearly unrescuable, however is. But that is beside the point. The point is that Dream Focus had edit warred with multiple editors over the template's application and shows no signs of relenting if another editor removes it again. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'd be careful about accusing others of edit warring when you are involved in similar behaviour. --neon white talk 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • The error here is that someone is putting themself as the judge and jury when a community AfD process is underway. Many "unrescuable" articles have been saved. There really is little to be gained by removing the rescue tag then possibly baiting members of the ARS project or those working to save the article. Seems ironic, IMHO, that certain editors are keen on adding voluminous clean-up tags (despite guidance not to) yet are simply besides themselves when another service tag they find objectionable is also introduced. If you honestly think an article is beyond the help of the ARS project you simply need to do nothing but express your !vote at the AfD. If you're right the article (and tag) will go away in days. If you're mistaken the tag will still be removed when the AfD is complete. Really this seems rather disruptive every time it's brought up. Just leave the tag and ignore the article, one or both will disappear soon. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I did not do an edit war. I reverted three people who tried to remove the tag, one of them trying twice. I checked the rules, and it says that the three revert rule doesn't count if you are reverting vandalism, such as tag removal. Does anyone believe I violated a rule here? Other than the three who kept trying to remove the tag? How many consider what they did vandalism? Dream Focus 13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No, 3rr clearly states that "adding or removing tags are not exempt". It's not an exception to the policy. And once again, the "rescue" tag is a cleanup tag like any other. It's within any editors prerogative to remove or add these as they see fit (without edit warring of course). This not an afd tag.--Sloane (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's not correct, tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved. As i stated above to deliberately try to hinder rescue attempts or any other attempts to improve wikipedia is disruptive. --neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


    1. (cur) (prev) 02:14, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there.) (undo)
    2. (cur) (prev) 02:10, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (no need to waste peoples' time) (undo)
    3. (cur) (prev) 02:08, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (that is not a valid reason to remove the tag) (undo)
    4. (cur) (prev) 02:05, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (article is going to go anyway) (undo)
    5. (cur) (prev) 01:28, 16 March 2009 Artw (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (Possibly you should discuss that first?) (undo)
    6. (cur) (prev) 01:25, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Undid revision 277533128 by Dream Focus (talk) not salvagable; per Rescue groups REAL goals, should not be added) (undo)
    7. (cur) (prev) 00:50, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (And an editor can put it back in if they believe it is valid. Form a consensus with other editors before reverting again. Use the talk page) (undo)
    8. (cur) (prev) 00:44, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Any editor can audit a cleanup tag. This is no different and its pointless to use such a tag with a clearly unrescuable article.) (undo)
    9. (cur) (prev) 00:40, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (That is not your decision to make.) (undo)
    10. (cur) (prev) 00:31, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (clearly unsavable.) (undo)
    11. (cur) (prev) 00:22, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,739 bytes) (added rescue tag) (undo)

    I consider this vandalism, and reverted it. Dream Focus 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Rather than edit warring it would have been better to post an alert at ANI. This isn't really vandalism just tenacious editing. --neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Looks like it is going down on AFD; the more you edit war the more likely it is to die, so go for it I say William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to:



    • Diff of 3RR warning: see date of account creation in 2006.

    Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Categories: