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 01:47, 4 September 2009 editNug (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →User:PasswordUsername reported by User:Martintg (Result: ): sig← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:00, 4 September 2009 edit undoRjanag (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users58,857 edits →User:PasswordUsername reported by User:Martintg (Result: Warned): warnedNext edit →
Line 939:		Line 939:
	:Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. ] (]) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)		:Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. ] (]) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{article\|The Soviet Story}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{article\|The Soviet Story}} <br />
Line 968:		Line 968:
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->		<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	--] (]) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)		--] (]) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

			*{{AN3\|w}} Consensus seems clearly against PasswordUsername and he has continued reverting, which is clearly edit-warring. That being said, the attempt to "resolve the dispute" at the article talk page doesn't look very enthusiastic to me (accusing someone of "vandalism" during a content dispute is never helpful either) so I'd like to give the user one last chance at having a discussion. The warning I gave him was a final warning, so if he reverts again I will block him immediately. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:00, 4 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, 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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
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

71.243.119.32 reported by Justin A Kuntz (Result: no vio)

Page: USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.243.119.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Another editor who seems to feel that one of the purposes of Misplaced Pages is to right great wrongs. See his first comment in the talk page . I'm not going to risk a block for reverting wholesale POV changes so I am alerting an admin to review the changes. I emphasise that I don't intend to make further reverts. I would however bring your attention to the fact that the editor chose to revert after a further warning about 3RR and seems to think that 3RR grants carte blanche to make a specific number of reverts, see . Note that this editor has been slow reverting for several days . Justin talk 22:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This report is without merit. The user who reported me, Justin_A_Kuntz repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion. Please view the history and the talk section. He has still not provided ANY constructive feedback. I have repeatedly asked, him to tell me exactly what his problem with my edits are. He has refused other than to make vague comments about NPOV and righting great wrongs. I don't understand how either of these policies apply to my specific edits. I have asked. I have received no useful answers.

As stated in the discussion, I reverted a third time SPECIFICALLY to allow him to make a new revert that only removes the parts that he thinks there are issues with. Instead of embracing my attempt to lower the temperature, he falsely accused me falsely of breaching 3RR.

If there are issues with my edits, I want to know specifically what they are and discuss how the article can be improved. I think that providing specific feedback about WHY you do a revert is absolutely essential to making that revert useful. I don't understand why I am having so much trouble getting this feedback, or how the issue could have escalated here.71.243.119.32 (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You need 4R to break 3RR, and if you needed 3 then J has brkoen it too. Furthermore, while the anon has made considerable attempts to use the talk page, I'm not seeing much from J there other than incorrect policy-quoting (WP:NPOV requires that we represent all views equally is false) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:20enlightened1 reported by User:Hj108 (Result: 15h both)

Previous version reverted to: (link)

1st revert: 10:03, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Unsourced comments; Citation tag added")
2nd revert: 10:21, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
3rd revert: 11:22, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311057021 by Hj108 (talk)My Note's been on the discs page;can't help if you choose to ignore it. so 3RR applies to You.")
4th revert: 11:43, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311062065 by Hj108 (talk)I know that but you've been ignoring my note on the discussion page, hence the reverts.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (link) - I know I'm supposed to warn him with a template but the user's edit summaries show he knows about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Never done this before so I don't really know what I'm doing. The user "20enlight.." posted on the talk page under an earlier discussion. At first I did not notice this and added a post in a new section at the bottom of the talk page (isn't this the standard procedure?). After adding my post, I saw his and replied to it, again at the bottom of the page. I also posted sources to back my arguments. The above user still claims I have not replied.

IMO this is just another case of Indo-Pak rivalry; this guy does not care about the article being factual, only which flags are shown at the top, whereas I'm adding sources and have made contributions to expand it with new info. --Hj108 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 15 hours You both violated 3RR. In the future, when the other party continues to revert without discussion, then: come here earlier; move up the chain of the dispute resolution process; or consider requesting page protection. Nja 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ROxBo reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Both warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

10:28, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
10:52, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
11:02, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "add the (2009 released) 06/2008 ABS estimate of population to main text, still useful to have census data in article, remove dead line about capital of NQld")
11:03, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
11:57, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "totally agree - my error on LGA, ABS subsets confusing. h'ver restored statistical district rather than urban area most commonly used for pop's see List of cities in Australia by population")
12:00, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "restored to (2008 updated) statistical division")
12:03, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "okay, now done")
12:30, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "hey, let's not inflame things - my edits are not misleading ok? please don't have an edit war, use discussion page if you need, the statistical district data has been on this page for months")
13:22, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Bidgee (talk) to last version by ROxBo")

Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Warned Both warned for edit warring and how to handle disputes properly. Nja 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenos2008 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Apart from violating 3rr rule in 2 articles & insisting on standard pov and fully unsourced expressions (also claims that he can't add sources in wiki due to 'technical' issues ]) and vandalisms ]], User Xenos2008 has a different understanding of wiki rules breaking wp:civility, WP:NPA (], ], ], ]) in every single discussion. He blames every side 'of acting under a fictious propaganda shedule', and is a relatively new national-advocacy SPA with an aggressive battleground mentality as evidenced.

The user has also a recort in wp:npa issues ] (His answer about the report ])

Comments:

24h, primarily for incivility. Didn't check on 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It just goes on... ... Check the old report,too, please.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Wikiscribe (Result: no vio)

Genetic history of Europe

1st revert

2nd Revert

3rd revert

This user appears to be trying to pov push his personal editorial piece into the article and edit warring with several editors in the process, also when investigating this case note the users block log he has a checkered past on here to say the least of disruptive behavior and according to his block log and talk page an admin was extremely kind and unblocked him from his sock puppetry case if he promised to be good and he would abide by a 1 revert rule only i decided to make this report at three because of users history and the imposed 1 rr on him--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

M (signing, confusingly, as W) is indeed limited to 1RR (by agreement with me), but hasn't broken that here. However, it does look like this festering dispute is close to breaking out again into open warfare. I think you are doomed to RFC and worse unless you can bring yourselves to discuss and find some common ground William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can another admin investigate this one is clearly biased for some reason,he actually has been ignoring past complaints of this user violations of the rule and edit warring for sometime now by numerous other editors,just as he is ignoring the fact the user has obviously reverted the same content more than once not to mention the content he is edit warring over is clearly a editorial to boot--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

one more thing i am bystander not currently involved in the edit war i noticed it on my watch list..thanks for the solid investigation,now agian can i have another Admin who may be more impartial look into this ..please--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Darkoneko reported by User:Neustradamus (Result: no vio)

Revert of my change with no reason — Neustradamus (✉) 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You two appear to be having a page move mini-war, perhaps imported from some other wiki. Please don't. Moving a page without consensus is bad; please use the talk page to discuss first. And don't call the other person "bad" per WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But if I change, I vio ... the problem is that I have always talk with this person, and this person revert all modifications, can you help me ? — Neustradamus (✉) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:Soxwon (Result: no reason to block)

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 continues to turn Feminazi into coatrackish attack on Limbaugh by overquoting MMFA and Slate for really non-notable criticsm. User also continually creates false controversy by misappropriating sources. Despite a neutral editor reverting and a warning, user continued to revert back to her preferred version (WP:OWN issue). Reverts grouped as user made changes over several edits, usually 4 or 5. Soxwon (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have been very civil with Soxwon, attempting to start a dialogue with him on the talk page on numerous occasions: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Soxwon#Edit_War_on_Feminazi and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Feminazi#Removal_of_citations

It is also the case that Soxwon recruited another user to continue the edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Geronimo20#Feminazi

Last, he did not warn me before posting to this board. I would be happy to revert to whatever version of Feminazi is appropriate to avoid a 3RR on my part. Since there were lots of edits, I don't know where to revert to. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

result: I see no reason to block. Both of you guys are discussing things at the talk page now and there have been no edits to the article since that discussion got under way; I trust that neither of you is stupid enough to revert again while the discussion is ongoing, either. If you guys can't reach an agreement, there is always WP:3O, WP:LGBT, and other avenues of Dispute resolution (for example, one good editor to contact about LGBT issues is User:Moni3). As an aside... Soxwon, you should also be happy with this result, because if I blocked IronAngelAlice for edit warring I would have to block you as well. Both of you have many reverts over the past 2 days. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

1st revert: 08:56, 31 August 2009 - removing, Many residents fled the camp., inserted in 8:50 by Nudve.
2nd revert: 12:12, 31 August 2009 - re-adding 4,000 people had remained in the camp, removed in 11:44 by Nudve. (challenged - see below)
3rd revert: 14:00, 31 August 2009 - removing, bulldozers inside the camp to widen pathways and knock out buildings suspected of holding militants and explosives., inserted in 13:54 by Jaakobou.
4th revert: 14:29, 31 August 2009 - "revert vandalism" Note: Multiple changes by Tiamut were inappropriate e.g. use of a fringe source for opinions on the Battle.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - prior to last revert. She's also been blocked for edit-warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_Jenin#.27Subsequent_investigations.27_-_opening_paragraph

Comments:
One admin (Ynhockey) and two editors (Nudve, Jaakobou) have asked Tiamut to work with others and use the talkpage for consensus building:

- 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
- I agree with Jaakobou. The paragraph is about the massacre allegations, and it's undue to add the war crime accusation through the back door. Some compromise can be considered. I would also prefer that this be done on this talk page rather than an edit war. -- Nudve (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) static link
The second edit claimed to be a revert does not seem to satisfy the definition of a revert for the 3RR rule. It did reinsert some information which had been deleted, but the text is completely reworded with extra information and a new good quality source is given. In my opinion it is not a revert but a perfectly reasonable edit. Zero 00:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- *cough* ... look down a bit. Black Kite 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned/Stale I would not take the 12:12 edit as a revert; Nudve removed the sentence as unsourced; Tiamut restored it with a source. Also, this report is slightly stale now. The last revert shown here took place ten hours ago. I will warn Tiamut though. Black Kite 00:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:64.169.53.42 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 64.169.53.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Revert 1:
Revert 2:
Revert 3:
Revert 4:
Revert 5:
Revert 6:
Revert 7:
Revert 8:
Revert 9:
Revert 10:
Revert 11:
Revert 12:
Revert 13:
Revert 14:
Revert 15:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Strong pattern of edit warring and vandalism, as evidenced by the 40 or so template warnings on the talk page, as well as three previous blocks.

— Bdb484 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 6 months for long-term vandalism. (Last block was for 3 months). Fascination with 'poop', constant warring at Najeh Davenport. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Petershipton reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: warned)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Each time, Petershipton has been reverted by a different editor. It is clear from the diversity of editors reverting and the edit summaries that there is no consensus. The editor has been invited to take his concerns to the talk page, but has so far declined

1 2 attempts again on 8 August

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Since mid July, Petershipton has attempted to insert the disputed text into the article. Of course, the editor may be inexperienced, but the insertions are made most of the time with misleading edit summaries, and the edits marked as minor. He made 2 attempts in early August, and reverted 4/5 times yesterday. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned, per AniMate William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.142.8.116 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:09, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ Added Citation Needed Tag. Which Award? What Story? Employer/Affiliation? When?")

22:52, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ cite tag as per talk - need to support this with name of award, when award given, affiliation, title, etc...basic ref material")
23:25, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311172625 by Gamaliel (talk) I disagree - no proper ref exists yet and a cite is required. Need Date, Place, Title,")
00:25, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "If we can't cite the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the award itself is named or linked - we do not have a citation. Tag is appropriate, Vague, unsupported claims need ref - no proper ref exists")
17:37, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "adding proper tag according to WP:CITE (If we can't reference the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the Award itself is Named or Linked - we do not have a citation. Tag is appropriate)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:99.142.8.116&oldid=311175694

Comments:

This user, under a number of IP addresses, has been a contentious and uncivil editor on this page. When his/her attempts to enter POV edits and openly insult editors on the talk page were thwarted, s/he has moved on to accusing others of incivility and challenging the most basic and innocent of biographical facts. Here s/he is edit warring over a citation tag when the information - an uncontroversial, minor detail - is clearly sourced. S/he will not even accept the "better cite" tag but insists upon the "citation needed" tag even though there is a clear reference, albeit one that s/he chooses not to accept. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'll notice from the edit's - The first one listed adds the tag - and my supposed 4th edit merely reinstates a tag lost in the shuffle. Gamaliel himself has added a version of the same tag requesting a citation to the same place and fact in the article. There was no revert, simply a replacement of a tag that we both agree to and have added in one way or another. 99.144.251.189 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the "better cite" tag, you reverted it to "citation needed". That's hardly you agreeing with anything. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of our tags were there for the fourth edit you ref'd above, or the 1st. The question seems to revolve around whether we use the tag as dictated by policy in WP:CITE or whether we use a template that Gamaliel introduced.99.144.251.189 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE says you should use that tag when a fact "lacks citation". The fact at issue has a citation. I provided the appropriate tag that was created for exactly this kind of situation, but you continue to edit war over your preferred tag. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote, "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Misplaced Pages, use the tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." If we can't reference the Date, Title, Affiliation - not even the Award itself is Named or Linked - then we do not have a citation and the Tag is clearly appropriate.99.144.251.189 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the forum to be debating preference of tags. The diffs above clearly indicate the 99.x.x.x editor reverted the status of the article to a state containing his "citation needed" tag at least 4 times in a 24-hour period. Edit warring behavior has been established regardless of tag preference or appropriatness. Having that tag removed or changed by multiple editors was a clear indication that more discussion, not more re-insertion, was needed.

This dynamic-IP editor does have a history of incivility and disruptive editing, having been blocked on several prior accounts:

99.144.250.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.135.169.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.141.246.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and even prompting temporary article protection. In light of frequently changing IPs, maybe semi-protection is in order. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. Semi if any further edits William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Wikiscribe (result)

Genetic history of Europe

1st revert

2nd Revert

3rd revert

4th revert

This user appears to be trying to pov push his personal editorial piece into the article and edit warring with several editors in the process, also when investigating this case note the users block log he has a checkered past on here to say the least of disruptive behavior and according to his block log and talk page an admin was extremely kind and unblocked him from his sock puppetry case if he promised to be good and he would abide by a 1 revert rule only. Opening up a new case because because said editor has reverted for the 4 th time--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This user User:Muntuwandi was warned this morning User_talk:Muntuwandi#Edit_warring_warning by User:William_M._Connolley, the admin that put him on the one revert condition and Muntuwandi has continued his reverting on the article and imo is gaming the situation by reverting after 24 hours and a couple of mins. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You've got your timestamps confused. I warned M/W at 19:41, 1 September 2009; rv4 is at 2009-09-01T13:31:45. Indeed, as of writing, M/W has no contribs post my warning. And: pile-on "imo"'s get no weight here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. The old 24 hour clock got the better of me, I see now your warning was after his last revert. I also see you have given him another nudge. I hardly think the one comment from me can be described as a pile on, I saw the complaint, had a look and passed a comment, ok it was a bit wrong about your warning but it was in good faith, the 24 hours and 2 mins revert is clear gaming of the one revert condition. Off2riorob (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.111.114.131/ User:81.110.104.91 reported by User:WebHamster (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert: as 81.110.104.91 (talk · contribs)
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP editor is leapfrogging through two IP addresses 81.110.104.91 and 81.111.114.131 (both addresses geolocate to the same NTL southern England location) both repeatedly deleting/reverting the same text. This editor attempted to AfD the article and failed. During the AfD he/she continually edited the same article disruptively against the advice of several editors. It seems they still want to get their won way with the article, ie wreck it. --WebHamster 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 31h and article semi-protected for a month. Black Kite 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 reported by Andi 3ö (talk) (Result: no vio)

Edit war on

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

15:59, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311245193 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) The decision was keep from an administrator hence undo...")
18:03, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311308472 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) Vandalism")

Diff of warning: here

After two lengthy discussions on here and continued here there is an apparent consensus to turn the page into a redirect/disambiguation but the user keeps on reverting my edits and instead of trying to counter my arguments on talk, calls my edits "Vandalism". Andi 3ö (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2 reverts isn't enough. Warned re incivil edit summaries. I'm afraid I don't understand NW's AFD closure; these things have their own weird rules. You should probably ask NW to clarify, if that would help the edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Oops, I see you have asked for clarification. No, it makes no sense to me either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:96.230.141.254 reported by User:Mlaffs (Result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I've removed the uncited material twice, and another user has removed it once. In my last removal, I left a plain statement in the article regarding the format/call sign swap that can be cited. It would be inappropriate for me to act in an administrative capacity with regard to this situation at this point.

Mlaffs (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

12h for incivility; warned re edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy Goer (Result: Protected)

Page protected By another admin. Reports such as these should typically go to WP:RFPP. Cheers, Nja 07:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for protection. I asked for review of the edit warriors' edit histories. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: PP 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

15:44, 1 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Putting back in well sourced claim that Adam Smith and John Locke were classical liberals.")
20:02, 1 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "False edit summary that this is refuted by the sources. Look at the sources! It's plain English.")
00:39, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I dont see evidence that this person is a "follower" of classical liberalism")
01:10, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert. Please work toward making sure things are sourced for what is claimed. Don't be disruptive.")
02:44, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "The quote given to source this doesn't even mention classical liberalism. Note to Four Deuces: do not revert back in claims that are not represented by the purported source.")

Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please note that 2 and 3 are consecutive edits, so there are only 4 reverts.

—The Four Deuces (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Number 5. is not a revert. It's deletion of ADDITIONAL information that was falsely sourced. So, there are two reverts, I believe (and not all for the same thing). Introman (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, please look at the nature of these edits. I've had a lot of conflicts with "The Four Deuces," because he is a highly disruptive editor. He apparently couldn't care less if something is sourced or not. He will delete it something if I put it there with multiple sources. Then he will turn around and delete something that is improperly sourced. This is all clear to see in the diffs above. Thanks. Introman (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected One week. Multi-party edit war. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:OMCV & User:Likebox reported by User:OMCV (Result: Protected)

User being reported: OMCV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
And many more.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nearly the entirety of Talk:Quantum mysticism. I have also tried WP:3O and Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. (Quantum mysticism was protected by User:Vsmith while filing this report.)

Comments:

Page protected by another admin. Nja 07:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pungimaster reported by User:SpaceFlight89 (Result: 1 week)

Previous version reverted to:

16+ reverts by Pungimaster on the article today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; user has been blocked twice for edit warring over the same article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maulana Masood Azhar#The truth User is uncooperative and accusing everyone who's on the other side in the content dispute of sockpuppetry and racism. —SpaceFlight89 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 week For continued edit warring, and general disruptive editing and WP:POINT issue on talk pages and in his edit summaries. Further, the editor has made personal attacks against multiple editors. Nja 07:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Steve Grayce reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 15h)

1st edit: 14:50 August 28, adds to the title of an article, "They Want To Take Your Drugs Away!"

1st revert: 14:31 Sept 1, again adds, "They Want to Take Your Drugs Away!"
2nd revert: 06:39 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead
3rd revert: 06:46 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead
4th revert: 06:56 Sept 2, removes Antony Lerman from lead

Comments

This is a new account, a LaRouche supporter, almost certainly an old editor. Is removing material he sees as critical of LaRouche and reverting a lot. SlimVirgin 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a new user, wouldn't a {{uw-3RR}} have been appropriate? Nja 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 15 hours Nja 07:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regarding the template, it's a new account, but almost definitely a returning user. I'll consider asking for a CU. SlimVirgin 07:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sam9925 reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (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:

Comments:

The user keeps removing reference to Israel as an emerging market despite the sourcing being unambiguous on this matter. A similar edit war by another user (now blocked) had happened just before. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 reported by Andi 3ö (talk) (Result: Protected - 2nd opin requested)

Edit war on

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

15:59, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311245193 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) The decision was keep from an administrator hence undo...")
18:03, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311308472 by Andi 3Ã¶ (talk) Vandalism")
06:28, 2 September 2009 (edit summary: "Edit war revert, between two users, discussion closed article was kept by administrator")

I reported this earlier(see above). Although since then two additional users have weighed in on the discussion (see edit summary and Talk:Modern Buddhism), still the user has reverted once again, of edit warring, although i clearly am not and instead try to discuss; he disrespects the results of the AfD and the preceding discussion here, misrepresents the decision of the closing admin of the AfD in his edit summary although the admin has clarified his decision on Talk:Modern Buddhism. Also, he now calls for page protection:

06:47, 2 September 2009 (edit summary: "Request for page protection")

...and he still does not discuss on Talk:Modern Buddhism.

Diff of warning: here

—Andi 3ö (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja 08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See here, where I told the reporting editor that he may seek another view here, though I don't think a block will resolve the problem. Nja 08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nja. Yes, i'd like to have a second opinion on that. Please read my comments at Nja247's talk page and assess the situation via the links provided above. Thanks, Andi 3ö (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 has just commented on Talk:Modern Buddhism. Please take a look at that comment. He doesn't even seem to fully understand what a disambiguation page is - after two weeks of extensive discussions on the subject (the references he claims i deleted were btw moved to one of the redirects). He then resorts to ad hominems once again and ends by restating his WP:POV about what "modern Buddhism" really is about. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are his latest ad hominems, here is his latest attempt at totally distorting the reality of things (please compare with this statement by the closing admin of the AfD, only a few lines above of his). Of course we could RfC...his calls for dispute resolution are ridiculously hypocritical; we are right in the middle of it since almost two weaks now and he simply doesn't like the outcome. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...and yet another misrepresentation: In his latest comment he claims that User:Emptymountains has participated in the which he apparently has not. His is in fact one more, fresh, opinion adding to the overwhelming consensus. I don't know if this misrepresentation is an earnest mistake or a deliberate lie...but in any way, i have to admit it becomes harder and harder for me to WP:AGF Andi 3ö (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC now. Andi 3ö (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Das Ansehnlisch reported by User:Merbabu (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:

Only effort by this user to discuss was the comments "screw you" on my talk page.:

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Leatherstocking (Result: No vio)

First edit: 11:25 August 28 deletes Russian press coverage
First revert: 4:26 September 2 reverts quote request tag
Second revert: 4:31 September 2 again deletes Russian press coverage
Third revert: 5:48 September 2 reverts NPOV and Split tags
Fourth revert: 6:41 September 2 reverts removal of Antony Lerman from lede
Fifth revert: 6:52 September 2 reverts removal of Antony Lerman from lede

Comments:
This user has performed 62 mostly tendentious edits to this article since August 28. Is removing material she sees as favorable to LaRouche and reverting a lot. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No violation. Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited edits are not consecutive. I am somewhat shocked at the way this has been handled. I filed this complaint because I thought it was somewhat brazen of this user to complain about User:Steve Grayce (see above -- he was blocked for 15 hours) when her own behavior was similar, but more extreme than his. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Three of them were part of the same batch of edits and count as 1 edit. One was five days prior to all the others. Therefore there are at most 3 reverts in 24 hours represented. Now subtract the ones which are reverts of a banned user. No admin is even going to contemplate a block. CIreland (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:84.240.27.89 reported by User:Mikej007 (Result: 24h)

Page: Vilnius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Biržai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Paneriai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Simonas Daukantas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported: 84.240.27.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Vilnius

1st revert:
2nd revert:

Biržai

1st revert:
2nd revert:

Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga

1st revert:
2nd revert:

Paneriai

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

Simonas Daukantas

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The case is under mediation

This anon user reverts systematically all Polish-related Lithuanian articles, always without explanation. The case of Polish-Lithuanian naming is under mediation and all his reverts are ageains WP:policy and WP:POV. It is also widely discussed on the talk pages, what this user haven't done. As you see, this user usually tries not to revert more than twice, in the tought of not fallint under 3rr rule, but the range of his reverts tells the stiry. pleaseblock this IP to br anon.

--Mikej007 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very disruptive Anon user who's sole purpose is to remove Polish names from all Polish - Lithuanian related articles. Personally I think it is a sock puppet of an established editor known for similar behavior.--Jacurek (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to stop] here, however he continues anyway, now changing nationalities] all together.--Jacurek (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon got blocked for edit warring, though was never been warned or approached for discussion. Jacurek presented a false chronology, claiming the anon continued after his warning (Jacurek avoided leaving a timestamp as well) but in reality only asked one minute before his comment. Also, it seems the anon doesn't travel about removing Polish names but undid the changes of 203.56.87.254/124.190.113.128. Nor was the anon warned about policies or so much as approached to discuss things, bitten instead with a block request, which makes also look Jacurek's blanked edit warring extremely unproductive, simply using undo and calling it "vandalism". Similarly, the "warning" Mikej007 presented as a diff link in this report is no warning at all. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging by his edits this Anon is an experience editor who is reverting without explanation against opinion of majority of editors. Please get familiar with facts before accusing other editors, you personally had previous disagreements with, of misbehavior. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek is also reverting without explanations and I don't see any consensus in this medcabal case that would justify undiscussed revert warring like Jacurek's ( ). There shouldn't be any better treatment for Jacurek's revert warring than for the IP, especially not based on Jacurek's added misrepresentation of the matter, but so far he received no consequences while the IP got blocked despite never having been warned or approached for discussion. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

These edits of mine were reverts of the vandalized pages by the above problematic Anon. I'm just wondering Sciurinæ what your agenda here is and why you are so strongly defending the Anon who clearly reverts against an opinion of majority of editors. You are also attacking my person and your traditional opponent user Piotrus (see Anon talk page])? Can you explain that on my talk page please? I have also left you a message ealier on your talk page] but you ignored it. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your ad hominem attack, my "agenda" right now is to prevent success for what I consider another disgraceful misrepresentation by a user engaged in sustained edit warring who manages to get an "opponent" IP blocked, achieved by those misrepresentations although that IP never got warned or talked to on the subject. I had noticed the ANI thread two days ago and pointed out what should be the basic level of decency regarding new users, having feared already then that proper procedure of talking and if necessary warning could get circumvented in the edit war in favour of blockshopping. I especially feared that admins could have been misled if not pointed out. Now exactly the same happened again but this time the misprepresentations had not been pointed out in time and therefore they succeeded in misleading. This only goes to show the importance of having an eye on violations of policies (in particular WP:GAMING) of said users. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns regarding the fair treatment of the Anon user but I still wonder why you focus more on behavior of your traditional opponents such as myself and user Piotrus instead on the behavior of the clearly disruptive Anon user. You also question William's decision to block the Anon user as well as Mike's decision to report him. Honestly, and please do not take any offense, I see your actions as and attempt to falsely accuse me of misbehavior as an revenge for ours past disagreements on Polish/Jewish - German history. I also think that our further discussion should be taken off this board. Looking forward your response on my talk page. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DBZfan29 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 48h)

Previous version reverted to: diff

1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff (done as IP - admits it his him)
3rd revert: diff
4th revert: diff
5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Collectonian#GT Episode List, User talk:DBZfan29#September 2009 (after warning, left retaliatory one on my talk page)

Comments:
This user is just off a block for edit warring and incivility. After initially appearing ready to edit constructively, and having discussed the edits he wanted to make (and having it explained as to why they were not appropriate), he again returned back to edit warring on the article to add original research and personal/fan opinions, with later edits including falsely applied sources that do not back up his claims. Have given multiple chances to stop vandalizing the article with false information, tried discussing with him, but he continues to act inappropriately. When warned he would be reported, reverted back to his same arguments from last time he was blocked that if you do it to me, I'll do it to you (which he did before, retaliating an AIV report with one back), and claiming he is not reverting when clearly he is., then posted a link to a bootleg DVD to the talk page to try to support his claims-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I was trying to help. If he already owns the bootleg, how is supplying a link illegal. I was just trying to help. And second, you have reverted more than me. I never hit undo once unless I had a reason to back it up. I warned you - and you deleted the warning. I reported you - and the report magically disappeared when I left the page. I've listened to everything the admins and you said. I added refs. I am being calm. Yet I'm always getting reverted! Anyway, did you have anything to do with my report being removed? DBZfan29 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you or he owns the bootleg. Linking to it violates Misplaced Pages's WP:COPYRIGHT policy. And it does not matter if you hit undo. You are still reverting by restoring the content you have already been told was not appropriate and was original research. You continue doing it anyway. I have nothing to do with any report being removed, however if you are again filing a retaliatory report, I'd suggest you rethink it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't think that bootleg link has anything to do with this. I made a mistake. Another thing, you never said it was inappropiate - you just removed it even after I added refs to support the edit. And I reported you because you were doing this and you did remove the warning I sent you. How it disappeared, I don't know - but I'm certainly going to add it again. DBZfan29 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were told, both on my talk page when you asked about it before hand and in the edit summary. Do not readd the warning as it would be inappropriate and a misuse of the template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by Lucas (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Edit war - User:Yopie against the three users: User:Karasek, User:Lucas and User:Jadran91.

Page protected No one is doing the right thing, so instead of blocking everyone I've just protected. This will give everyone time to have a real discussion (one that reaches its end and maybe even results in a consensus) and seek third opinions and dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist reported by User:smatprt (Result: semi)

Previous version reverted to:

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

5th revert:

6th revert:

7th revert:

User already warned by admin. and other editor. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: to which I got this response

Comments:

This entire sequence (above) followed a warning by an Admin to stop edit warring (noted above). The first war that brought the admins warning is documented here:

Diff 1:
Diff 2:
Diff 3:

I suppose you mean Monterey, California. Not a good start. There does seem to be rather a lot of edit warring over the photos. The response you got to your attempt to resolve the dispute appears sensible; I'm not sure why you then took offense William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakersw22 reported by User:criticalthinker (Result:No vio )

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: I have let the user know that the problem is not what he's adding, but how he's adding it. It's written with a point of view as opposed to be facts-based which is required to post anything on here. He is either very immature or has some kind of mental disability. Either way, that's not my problem, nor is it wiki's. It's time to block him since he can't seem to understand why his silly edits are being reverted.

Seriously the first thing you do is call the editor stupid, his edits vandalism and now you're mentioning a mental disability. Please read WP:BITE and WP:NPA. This is not how good intentioned but inappropriate edits are handled. I've left a note on the editor's talk page welcoming him and offering to discuss how to add the information to the article appropriately. Shell 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:72.79.190.67 reported by User:Drmies (Result: 48h)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts have been made to resolve dispute on user talk page (User talk:72.79.190.67) and on an editor's talk page (User_talk:Falcon8765). Editor also did some yelling on my talk page.

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For 3RR and WP:DUCK. Nja 06:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DHawker reported by User:MastCell (Result: 1 week)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:11, 2 September 2009 by DHawker

1st revert: 01:53, 3 September 2009 (two consecutive edits by DHawker; reverts immediately preceding edit)
2nd revert: 04:47, 3 September 2009
3rd revert: 06:35, 3 September 2009
4th revert: 09:10, 3 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DHawker is well aware of 3RR, having been blocked twice before for violating it on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Colloidal silver#Biased Colloidal Silver Article and Talk:Colloidal silver#Better rationales.

Comments:
DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver (see contrib history). S/he has a history of edit-warring on this article, and has been blocked twice before for this sort of thing. At the most recent AN3 report, an admin voiced the opinion that an indefinite block was appropriate. Either way, I'm bringing this here as a recurring problem. MastCell 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with indef; too long ago. 1 week; SPA edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

1 20:33, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Previous lead is much better. Restoring that.")

1 20:50, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted unsourced remnant")

1 01:41, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "more sources for classical/social liberalism dinstinction, as well as source that says that the classification is common")

1 01:42, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:01, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Better vs of previous intro. Redid the 3rd paragraph, and gave MANY sources for the claim that Americans and Euros use "liberalism" differently, which Rick Norwood and Four Deuces have been disputing")

2 22:02, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:08, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "page #")

3 22:37, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Nonsense. Approximately this version of the intro was taken down without agreement.")

4 23:19, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted original research assumption that Marcus Aurelius statement is representative of liberalism, much less that that it encapsulates liberalism such that it should head the whole article")

4 23:23, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deleted statement about American Declaration of Independence. This article is about liberalism. Don't make it U.S. centric.")

4 23:30, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This claimed "elitism" branch of liberalism thing is not common, so doesnt belong in the intro.")

Diff of warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Excluding consecutive edits, there were 4 reverts

-The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. Introman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PasswordUsername reported by User:Martintg (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 03:34, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311268588 by Andora1 (talk) Undo deletion of sourced material and summarizing per WP:MOS.")
2nd revert: 17:09, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311620460 by Andora1 (talk) You need sources before you claim all these critics' words are false -- not WP:OR.")
3rd revert: 21:13, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Rvt. You mention that (some?) critics discuss things that are not in the movie. We have no way of knowing this - what we depend on is WP:RS, not WP:OR. If you have those, you can include them.")
4th revert: 01:07, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Revert insinuation about supposedly "false claims" by living people (historians, politicians). The only refs give the critics' views -- they don't argue that all of the critics wrote misinformation.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Repeat offender

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

--Martintg (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned Consensus seems clearly against PasswordUsername and he has continued reverting, which is clearly edit-warring. That being said, the attempt to "resolve the dispute" at the article talk page doesn't look very enthusiastic to me (accusing someone of "vandalism" during a content dispute is never helpful either) so I'd like to give the user one last chance at having a discussion. The warning I gave him was a final warning, so if he reverts again I will block him immediately. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite error: The named reference Time was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Categories: