Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 12 September 2008 (→Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale ): comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:56, 12 September 2008 by Black Kite (talk | contribs) (→Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale ): comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    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

    Violations

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


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time reported:Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Comments Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise, his last revert would have been 12th revert.

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

    He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
    My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user
    this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. Manacpowers (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.Kumdo, Club for Editing of Korean History, Baekje, Dojang, Second Manchu invasion of Korea. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit. but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    24 hours????.too short .WHY??? He is too bad.

    User:68.146.103.217 reported by User:Shootmaster_44 (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Only three reverts given, and I'm not seeing a fourth in the page history. If I'm wrong, please link to the fourth revert; otherwise no vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    Oops I reported it one edit too early. However, the 4th edit is now done, so I guess the user falls in violation correct? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Grayghost01 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Warning)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: In addition, a warning in an edit summary at was also given.

    This sequence is the result of conflicts between this editor versus myself and several other editors (one other has particulary been singled out by Grayghost) over several articles including Confederate States of America, Great Train Raid of 1861, and Winchester in the American Civil War. The editor repeatedly categorizes others' edits as vandalism both in edit summaries and by actual warnings placed on user talk pages. He identifies his particular POV a well as editing style at User talk:Grayghost01#Neo-Yankee vandalism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy. Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it. I posted a 3RR warning at 16:47 7 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    I've been busy on other wiki-topics, see my list of created pages and long-standing contributions of high-quality. The user User:North Shoreman, from Ohio, originally made the POV alternations to Virginia in the American Civil War, on off-topic news articles, and various details below the level of detail appropriate for the page. As a Virginian, and member of the Virginia Task Force and Civil War Task Force, I stick to contributions of my locality. North Shoreman has a POV on the Civil War that he wishes to put in almost every page on a Southern Locale. Several times I have had to undo off-topic out-of-scope edits that North Shoreman has INTENTIONALLY put in only for the sake of being bothersome, not in the INTENT OF GOOD WIKI SPIRIT. In my humble opinion, the Revert-Violator and well beyond 3RR has been North Shoreman. I have called his attention to look at himself introspectively, to see his own conflict of interest on the topic (An Ohio-man with a POV editing Virginia pages, disputing with a published Virginia Historian). In conclusion, there are both POV and COI problems here. I have advised him that if he wishes to diatribe or blog on Lincoln and Fort Sumter to PLEASE ... PLEASE ... go ahead, but to do so on pages on THOSE topics. As a retired instructor from Marine Corps University, and curriculum developer on topics such as this ... I'm frankly apalled ... but thus is the nature of Wiki to deal with bothersome folks such as this. Good day, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    On a P.S. topic, as a resident of Winchester, Virginia, you will see in that page which I created initially quite awhile ago, a depth of information, content, graphics and quality not present in many other ACW pages. I have obtained free-release permission on many embedded images, as well as created many. My contributions are purely historically-topic in nature. I have added and cited many references. If the gentleman from Ohio, User:North Shoreman, honestly things he has something positive or valuable to contribute to these very localized articles Winchester in the American Civil War, Great Train Raid of 1861, Romney Expedition ... then by all means, he is welcome. However, as I mentioned previously, as a published author I do not agree with the nature, the content, the orientation, and the level of detail of North Shoreman's edits. In fact, they are intented to express his POV on the Civil War as a whole. By chance, I made a minor edit to the very high-level topic of Confederate States of America by merely adding a secession date for Arizona Territory (a well documented historic fact). Thereupon User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae proceed to war-edit on this page, and then delve down into other areas where I mainly work and contribute. I am merely a retiree, Virginia historian, spending free time on history packages, tours, and writings. I am local to this area, and work with local organizations, schools, etc for the promotion of local history. My contributions (see my user page) are focused in Virginia and locally. I don't normally contribute to the high-level topics where User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae like to edit frequently with their POV. I stand confident that any fair examination of these users vis-a-vis my contributions will reveal a very different tone and nature, and from my contributions you will find material which is organized, coherent, thoughtful, and attractive to wiki users reading on this topic. I hope that the admins and admin-helpers here are diligent in their examination, interested in the aims of Wiki, and take the time to exercise due course as necessary. Finally, I have invited these users to dicuss on the discussion pages. They have had no interest in this normal forum, and simply undo, revert, and war-edit at will. Again, thank you for your time in the matter.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kelly reported by MastCell (Result: Declined because of lack of consensus)



    Kelly (talk · contribs) is at 6RR (!) on this article, which was just unprotected because of... edit-warring. These are not vandalism reverts and they're not BLP issues - this is just edit-warring about a content issue. He's an established user and well aware of 3RR and its exceptions. Given that Kelly has been around awhile and has done good work, I was going to simply remind him that he'd hit 6RR already and ask him to take a break. However, another admin (User:KillerChihuahua) already warned Kelly that he'd been edit-warring, and Kelly's response was defiant personalization of the dispute, concluding with the constructive phrase: "If you would like to block me, bring it." I've therefore left this here for an uninvolved admin to deal with.

    Note that Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs) has also gone well over 3RR, though they appear to be a new account and have not been warned about 3RR. I leave the appropriate response to the reviewing admin's discretion. MastCell  21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Are you sure this article has just been unprotected? It is possible that the admins here were not aware that it had gone from full protection to semi-protection. I'm also seeing reverting of different bits of content. I know that this is still reverting under WP:3RR, but is this a straight "no edits without talk page consensus" edit warring? Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    At first blush, Kelly's response alone deserves a wrist slapping. Reviewing diffs now.--Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm taking a closer look too. It seems that the sections sourced to an article in the Independent ("Palin: the real scandal") was being edit warred over. I agree that Kelly has also made unconstructive comments on the talk page. On the other hand, that there is discussion ongoing on the talk page is a good thing, and possibly things are calming down now. Jossi said a block would be punitive. I've also left a note at Kelly's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    KC and I are nominally friendly from waaaaay back in the day, in the interest of fulldisclosure. And I'm not going to start throwing blocks, but I am considering a 1 hour cooldown protection for the page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    Who is KC? (Oh, KillerChihuahua?) I'm not going to do anything here either, but someone does need to tell Kelly to back off. The ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate, and I'm about to say that in the user talk page thread. Editors need to work together here and explain any edits and reverts they do, or request protection (I know, I know, there is an arbcom case about that at the moment). Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    The status quo is not acceptable. A few days ago, September 4, Kelly hit 6RR on the page and I didn't report it (5 of the reverts happened in 20 minutes). On September 6, the article was protected because of edit-warring, which consisted largely of Kelly removing material and incorrectly claiming a BLP exemption. Now he's back at 6RR again. He's continued to revert since this report, again erroneously claiming a BLP exemption). I was willing to cut him some slack, but his response to KillerChihuahua indicates that there's a serious problem here. If you think talking to him will more effectively address this egregious edit-warring and combativeness as opposed to a block for repeated 6RR violations, then go for it, but something needs to change. MastCell  03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    I cannot believe that Kelly reverted again, after the warnings given. This is not simply a "mistake" but a pattern of disruption of an unprecedented scale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Note: Jossi's one to talk about making disruptive choices in editing these articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    (Undent) Uninvolved administrators are welcome to get involved, but I intend to deal with this in the morning.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    (ec)Strict enforcement of WP:BLP is not disruption, I'm sorry. I'm heading to bed now, hopefully by tomorrow this will all have blown over and we can work forward constructively. But a read of Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#Israel will explain the problem well, if anyone has time. Kelly 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    These are not BLP violations as per Mastcell and many others that have warned you. This is getting simple out of hand. Where s the admin that would do the right thing and block this editor for blatant disruption? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Also, please don't fight on AN pages.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Ok, I have been looking into this for a little while now and here is my (uninvolved) opinion. What Kelly is doing seems to be a bit controversial, but at the same time barely within the scopes of WP:BLP and based simply on that reason he should not be blocked. But then when you look at the way he is going about it, it is clear that it is disruptive and is causing un-needed disruption to the article, and based simply on that reason he should be blocked. I like Jossi am a bit biff'd by the fact that Kelly reverted again after being warned, but think a block would cause unnecessary drama and so for the time being I think it best the article left protected and everyone left unblocked. Tiptoety 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Have you checked the reversion? How can you call that material, sourced to the Washington Times to be a BLP violation? Or should I copy here what is considered to be a BLP violation? I was instrumental in making BLP into policy way back with other editors, I monitor BLP/N, and I am not buying that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Not only that, but her disruption and WP:BITE of newbies is making these new editors to trip as well on 3RRs. This has to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    We all know you are having a spat with Kelly jossi. This is NOT the proper location to continue your crusade against him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    I did not make this report, three other admins warned her/him. And I do not have a crusade against her/him. And your comments here ignore the facts and are most unwelcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I forgot! Its the pile on Kelly show. I'll just go edit List of edible fruits. Being supportive of someone who's done a shit ton more to keep these articles NPOV than all the administrators of wikipedia jointly is a crime. I forgot. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Kyaa, consider this your only warning, and further uncivil comments will result in a block. Unless you are here to discuss the article in question and the edit warring going on, do not comment at all. Tiptoety 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    At this point the report is getting stale and a block would not be preventive anyway, so perhaps that ought to be off the table. Kelly and a few other editors are, and have been, patrolling Sarah Palin-related articles and talk pages, aggressively reverting and removing edits, discussions, comments, etc., that they feel violate BLP, WP:NOT, and so on. These routinely go beyond 3RR in a technical sense because they do more than 3 clean-ups per day. On the one hand they are (in my opinion) often over-zealous, dismissing things out of hand and reverting productive discussions on dubious BLP claims that can start to look a little bit like article ownership, biting, or even a touch of POV in the form of avoiding content with controversial implications. On the other hand, these edits are all in good faith, mostly uncontroversial, and tend not to be edit warring - usually the reverts don't overlap. Do we really want to enforce 3RR in a way that chases away people doing article patrol? If so we need more people to watch the articles because the bad edits are coming fast and furious. I don't know the statistics, but something like 90% of all edits to any article on Misplaced Pages are bad edits - simple mistakes, perennial things that have already been decided, B from BRD, test edits, and so on. When an article is edited dozens of time per day there will be dozens of edits per day to revert. If Kelly doesn't do six reverts we need a second editor to do the other three. Anyway, I think people have to make the decision if 3RR is to be strictly applied for making unrelated reverts while uncontroversial patrolling of high-volume articles. If we make that decision, why not simply thank Kelly for the good work, ask to slow it down and be friendlier with the edit summaries, and leave it at that? If you have an issue with an established editor isn't it best to ask nicely instead of threatening a block? Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    For disclosure, I am one of those editors that is trying to remove questionable material from the Palin talk page, ie forum discussions, rumors, links to blogs, straw man aurguments, you name it. I also agree that "maintenence" of talk pages is essential and requires more help. Right now, it seems like that page is in the Wild West phase, where anything and everything is a go. --Tom 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined There is a lack of consensus on whether these edits were appropriate. This is more complex than a 3RR vio edit war.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Arilang1234 reported by Hawkins1969 (Result: Editor warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:

    This is the last "good" version of the article from August 31st. Since September 3rd user Arilang1234 has made over a 150 edits to this article. Various people have tried to revert back to the August 31st version to remove Arilang1234's changes only to have those reverts reverted by Arilang1234. Arilang1234's edits are now so numerous in the edit history that people are beginning to attempt corrections of Arilang1234's version of the article rather than seeing they can achieve the same thing by simply reverting to the August 31st version.


    • 1st revert: Benjwong reverts Arilang1234 edits of the last 2 days restoring August 31 version.
    • 2nd revert: Arilang1234 reverts Benjwong's revert.

    In the course of 3 edits user Transparent1 reverts most of the changes made by Arilang1234:

    • Edits:

    User Arilang1234 reverts these edits:

    • Reverts:

    User Transparent1 again attempts to remove Arilang1234 material:

    User Arilang1234 reverts this:

    • Revert:

    User Enochlau reverts Arilang1234's revert:

    • Revert:

    User 76.103.204.232 attempts to edit out Arilang1234's work:

    • Edit:

    User Arilang1234 reverts this:

    • Revert:

    User 76.103.204.232 then reverts again:

    • Revert:

    And Arilang1234 reverts again:

    • Revert:

    User 91.171.113.10 attempts to remove Arilang1234's changes:

    • Edit:

    And Arilang1234 reverts this:

    • Revert:

    I (as 84.74.150.48 before I acquired a user name) revert Arilang1234's changes:

    • Revert:

    These are reverted by Cluebot and Arilang1234 makes further additions:

    • Edit:

    User Enochlau again reverts Arilang1234's changes:

    • Revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    I believe the user's contribution is well intended but not the stuff of a coherent encyclopedia article. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant.

    The bulk of the changes consist of the addition of a few new sections near the start of the article which add no value and are poorly phrased.

    The apparently minor changes made to the rest of the existing article reflect a revisionist sino-centric view of history which aims more to serve modern political purposes than fact and would be viewed by many as distasteful (and by that I don't just mean an in-vogue Free Tibet set).

    Attempts to revert the article to its state before Arilang1234's edits are being quickly reverted by the user. Enforcing a particular set of opinions and beliefs in this manner does not seem appropriate.

    Hawkins1969 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    I have warned Arilang1234. Due to his his recent Talk comment, it seems possible he has got the message that cooperation with others will pay dividends. Thanks to Coppertwig for explaining matters to a new editor who appears well-intentioned, but whose work has led to a war-like situation on this article for the last two days. If he resumes editing without trying to achieve consensus, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    86.158.238.188 reported by Bogorm (Result:Warned )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    The user is identified by User:Soman as being banned (visible on the second and fifth link) and indulges in launching repeatedly menaces to me (i promise to you that your mission of POV will be killed) and derogatory statements to other users and expresses intent to editwar for 70 more years here on this topic Bogorm (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Further disruption

    Discussion

    Bogrom has also threatened by saying "pakistani editors can throng" hes continuing to abuse me also 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    They actually have... on the Misplaced Pages discussion page. Here one expounds uniquely the three-revert-rule, which I have never trespassed, therefore refrain from inserting minutiae. Bogorm (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    "no matter how many Pakistani editors throng hither to impose its deltion here" this is the qoute from Bogrom in the AFD page so hes to blame too he also made several controversial edits to muzaffarabad without consensus and with a POV redirect to the POK page 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    The 70 year thing was a clear joke hes just weasiling his way in and please check his POV edits on the POK page claiming india has the right to call it what ever they want hes a nationalist 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Now you are trespassing WP:NPA - I do not sojourn in Asia at all. Bogorm (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Neither do i but your pro indian stance is undeniable86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    But it is not interdictory. Cease distracting the administrators by deviating their cogitations from the three-revert rule, this is ineffably, extremely ineffably superfluous!. Bogorm (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Bogorm you didnt mind when your chum kashmir cloud broke the three revert rule or where you just letting him off your bias is seeping through your veil of big words 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    that was a deserved retort to "this POK article will be deleted no matter how many indian editors flock to this page". Forbear from underscoring deviating minutiae. Bogorm (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    That was not abusive freind your big words just dont suite your behaviour please leave you biases away from talk pages 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    I concur completely with Kashmircloud - PaK is not used by India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis have their version - Azad Kashmir, so must the Bharat version be present too in order to prevent one-sidedness! As eluidated by him and other users, POK does not include only PaK, but a much wider territory, do not mislead the readers. Bogorm (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) This comment clearly shows his POV based mentality 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Defamations concerning my mentality are not to be committed neither here, nor anywhere in Misplaced Pages, cease trolling! Bogorm (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Trolling around on talk pages and provoking editors with your baseless claims is also no desired on wikipedia so please keep your philosophical rants about POK and pakistan to yourself unless you wish to stir more trouble as you are by provoking me 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    I implore you, block him, he relapses anew into indulging in personal menaces, this is an incontrovertible intimidation essay, please elevate your attention thereto. I do not know which Misplaced Pages rule he has not yet tresspassed: WP:3RR(explication above), WP:NPA, Misplaced Pages:Harassment, WP:Sockpuppet(according to the user), WP:CIVILITY, it is escalating into unambiguously minatory insults! Bogorm (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)This provocation of Bogorm is bread out of anger because i have challenged him on the POK talk page this is what drives his unrelenting bias accusations towards me 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned One thing I noticed is that this users talk page was a red link and no communication had been attempted. I have left the IP a warning and will block if they continue. Tiptoety 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    68.52.36.127 and Sox23 reported by Neo16287 (Result: Stale )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    It was at this point the two editors began adding spaces to a section simply for the purpose of posting edit summaries to one another, as shown below:

    • Version before edit summary war:
    • 1st subsequent edit:
    • 2nd subsequent edit:
    • 3rd subsequent edit:
    • 4th subsequent edit:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been notified of 3RR on talk page. No response as of yet.

    An edit war has ensued on the page, from time index 19:28, 7 September 2008 to 21:56, 7 September 2008 (all times UTC). Any assistance would be most helpful. Thank you. Neo16287 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: This user is aware of the 3rr rule, because above this section he's trying to report someone else.

    This user blows 3rr away and is extremely hard to deal with (he can't be convinced of anything). Most of the reverts are self-evident.

    Grey Fox (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment and reporting vandalism

    The proponent for my blocking has committed severe vandalism ("Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." - the only thing in the summary is mistrust for Russian and Iranian sources, but he erases Ukrainian and American ones as well; "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content" - the character of his actions described pretty discernably in WP:Vandalism) by blanking a whole section which was provided with sources:

    • here
    • and here.
      The section was obviously inconvenient for the user, since on the talk page he blames the Iranian and Russian source and utters derogatory comments towards established medias as Press TV, overlooking that there is one Ukrainian and Israeli corroborating the information, and ostensibly being reluctant to search for refuting sources in lieu of disparaging the available ones.
    • Here he offends three renowned Russian sources (RIA Novosti, Vesti.ru and Russia Today) simply for being Russian and and blanks the section. Since vandalism needs not to be present 4 times, but only one for a complaint, I would like to complain against Grey Fox's biased and offensive edits for at least four renowned medias which he erases. Bogorm (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    "is extremely hard to deal with" - this is considered (hopefully not only by me) as Argumentum ad hominem. Bogorm (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    You've violated 3rr Bogorm, 3rr is like an electric fence. I've given valid reasons in the summary, always referring to the talk page where you didn't respond. You've been reverted by multiple users on inserting dubious material consisting of exceptional claims completely based on dubious sources, so to pull that off as "vandalism" is absurd. Grey Fox (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Bogorm, not only you made 3RR violation, but you also accuses another user of "vandalism", which is against WP:CIV and only makes things worse. That was obviously a content dispute, not a vandalism. This user considers Russian sources unreliable because Russia was a combatant side in this war, and because those media are state-controlled and involved in extensive propaganda campaign. So, he actually wanted to remove something he perceived as garbage. Please always assume good faith.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    But according to him Israel is not involved, and according to every sensible person neither is Ukraine, but he removed Ukrainian, Israeli and US source, how about that? Bogorm (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, I accuse, since he blanked a whole section simply by belittling the sources, and I even do not know whether he at all knows Russian to remove them! How about if I now begin to remove every, let's say, turkish source with no knowledge of the language, simply because I do not like the content, would that be vandalism???? Your "valid reasons" are but a disgust for every Russian and Iranian sources, and I'd rather desist from drawing a conclusion (for reverence for ¨WP:NPA), but it is obvious. Bogorm (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    That's not what it comes down to Bogorm I advice you to adress my arguments more carefully. I've also asked you multiple times to read source guidelines more carefully. I'm also not just removing sources because they are from said countries, but because you misinterpretate them and add a lot of original research. For now let an admin judge. Grey Fox (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Bogorm, let's assume that you are right, and the sources are valid. Then you should discuss this matter at the article talk page, ask for 3rd opinion, or post this problem to WP:RS. But making 3RR violations and claiming that another user is vandal is not the method to resolve this, and you suppose to know that.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    (To Biophys) Thank you for the assumption, may I be permitted to ask for yours(see below)? Besides I quoted two sentences from ¨WP:Vandalism, elucidating the question of vandalism. (To Grey Fox) Well, but your reticence about my question about the knowledge of the Russian language is rather aggravating. Biophys speaks it and can verify if I have committed any wrongdoing in quoting and recapitulating them in English, which I declare I have not. If I had indulged in purging large amounts of Turkish sources and the sections based on them from articles without any knowledge of the language, I would not heva been surprised, if one who is knowledgeable accuses me of disruption. Bogorm (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    I am going to look into this and am currently working on a resolution, until then I ask that there be no admin action taken (though comments are welcome). Tiptoety 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Reporting calumny from Grey Fox

    Claiming that the sixth edit was arguably revert is a flagrant calumny, since it only removes one word, where there is no previous edit, inserting only and exactly this one word - it has been inserted by this edit, to which the 6th quoted here is obviously no reversion! All other edits besides one have been restoration of light-mindedly erased sources and not only Russian and Iranian, but German, Ukrainian, American and Israeli - it is obvious that the persons who deleted them, erase even not only Russian sources, but inconvenient for their POV and if one seeks more assiduously, would reject them as reversions too - reversions to what (no previous situation quoted)??? (two summaries of the second person who erased them are against the sources (German and Russian) ! ) Bogorm (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Deletion of texts supported by sources, which are considered by user X unreliable (for whatever reason he explained at an article talk page), does not represent vandalism but a content dispute.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Diva411 reported by User:CMJMEM (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:



    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User has repedidld vandalized page. it is the only page that they are editing.CMJMEM (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    This user could easily be the subject of the article, please try and communicate with them. John Reaves 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Warned It is customary to warn them before reporting them here. I was very close to blocking the reporter for edit warring as well. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    UPDATE: There is certainly an edit war going on at the page, but following the 3RR warning, Diva411 made two more reverts as seen . A short block for 3RR or refusing to follow procedure might still be in order, or perhaps a brief protection of the page. I've made one more revert and a plea to take it to the talk page for Diva411. Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    (OD)Before I could get back there, an IP reverted DIva411's edits, which seems to be the work of the other editor. I'll leave this one as is for admin attention, thanks on advance. Dayewalker (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


    User:Kelly reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: probation by tznkai; user de-watchlisted)


    • Previous version reverted to:
    1. 03:34, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG per long-running talk page discussion")
    2. 16:46, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ NPOV again")
    3. 17:02, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")
    4. 21:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per WP:BRD, undue weight - see talk")
    5. 22:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")
    6. 22:09, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")

    Discussion

    This is EW; both removing content without discussion, citing NPOV (or BLP, as yesterday) to win a content dispute; and now edit warring also to include an NPOV tag. Kelly needs to step back from these articles. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    I am reviewing this right now, but will also be reviewing all other users on that page.--Tznkai (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    Inserting an NPOV tag is a revert now? Kelly 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    This is absurd. Given the number of people attacking the Sarah Palin articles (6500 edits in the last 7 seven days, vs. 5500 for Obama for the entire year) if this rule is applied to editors defending these articles from POV and BLP the articles will soon descend into a basement of libel and wild inaccuracy. This is just like a denial of service attack.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    How something is done is at least as important as why.--Tznkai (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I've disengaged and unwatchlisted the Palin pages. Time to hand this off. Kelly 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    I have to say this is the oddest definition of 3RR I've ever seen. Any edit is apparently considered a "revert". ~:) - Kelly 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    (E/C)Like Tznkai said, the edits themselves may not be wrong, but the way they are being brought about is a different story and ultimately that is the whole basis for WP:3RR along with WP:EDITWAR. Tiptoety 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    People can, and have, been blocked for edit warring over inserting or deleting NPOV tags. Even if that were technically to be considered a violation of 3RR, that seems a matter best worked out on the article talk page or if necessary a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Three-revert rule or a dispute resolution page. Kelly is a good faith editor, trying to help with some exceptionally high volume editing articles, who has not been an edit warrior and shows no inclination to be, so I don't think a block would help the situation even if one disputed the wisdom of the edits (and most people would agree with them, probably).Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    (Undent)In my capacity as an administrator familiar with edits in question, I am of the opinion the Kelly is a good faith editor. However, I have to be fair, and this is the second 3RR in two days. In an application of common sense I have made this offer--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kelly has apparently agreed to the conditions I laid out and is on a topic ban for 24 hours from Sarah Palin related article space. Kelly is clear to make constructive comments on related talk space. If this ban is breached, default to standard WP:3RR block, and use your best judgment. I would also appreciate being notified via talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ramu50 reported by Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

    Time reported: 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:37, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 236575861 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
      Remaining edits restore to the version of 20:50
    2. 21:06, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "stereotype")
    3. 21:17, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "USE the talk page")
    4. 22:51, 8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk page contribus (dead example)")

    —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    I also came here to report this. User:Ramu50 is now at 4 reverts plus the initial edit. I left a specific 3RR warning after the third revert. Discussion at Talk:Function (mathematics) is unanimously against adding this material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    Reviewing--Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    Hugh Ross (creationist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karvok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 05:07, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237214380 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
    2. 05:46, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237221562 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
    3. 06:02, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237223177 by Hrafn (talk)")
    4. 06:12, 9 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 237225054 by Hrafn (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —OrangeMarlin 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Be Black Hole Sun (talk) reported by Andreas81 (talk (Result: Users warned )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    I don't want this user to be blocked completely but to stay away from the site Roxette discography. He erased information which was given a reliable source and that can not be accepted. so please could you please make this user stay away from this site or block him from editing this site. thank you. Andreas81 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Okay first off, most of those reverts are Stale Secondly the Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs) has never been warned (I have now done so), the warning diff you provided above is that of a warning issued to you from Be Black Hole Sun and I heed you to take that warning because you have caused just as much disruption as him. I am going to leave this open a bit longer and see what transpires, but I am thinking (and hoping) that no block will be needed here. Tiptoety 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, the edit war has appeared to die down and no one has edited the article after their warning. Tiptoety 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Nickhh reported by Canadian Monkey (Result: Stale )


    • Previous version reverted to: - this is a complex 3RR violaiton, invloving partial reverts.


    • 1st revert: edit sumamry describes it as "partial rv"
    • 2nd revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237146162 by Hypnosadist" - simple revert
    • 3rd revert: reverts this edit by Raggz
    • 4th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237168311 by Raggz" - simple revert
    • 5th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undo series of unilateral edits"
    • 6th revert: edit summary

    describes it as "Restore material." - repeats many of the reverts included in revert #5


    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned about violations before

    Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Westrim reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours )



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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Made a single revert after the warning and reverted my warning calling me a "perpetuator" of 'said war': --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:201.152.199.35 reported by User:WilyD (Result: 24 hours )



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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Robbo25 reported by Pfainuk (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (Came before the 3RR warning)
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I'm not involved here, just noticed it on my watchlist. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I checked out the article and the reverts - can't speak for all the diffs but in the last one he has certainly added a source and it cites exactly the information he claims it does. Porterjoh (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Was just about to make a correction. The source actually shows up in the fifth revert. The source does appear to say what he says it does, but he's still edit warring over it. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    The phrase "bankrolled" is being used pejoratively here, sourced or not, and if you look at previous edits you can clearly see this is the intention. Beve (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    He has also continued to revert after the 3RR warning. I've lost count now. The user insits that anyone disagreeing is a vandal, which is hardly playing nice. The source provided is hardly great. A piece in a tabloid that uses the term once in a throw away fashion? I'm not sure it meshes with the other sourced info where his father was having towork hard to support Lewis' racing. Narson (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Perry mason reported by User:24.147.84.127 (Result: User warned )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Declined Okay, first off this user was never warned in regards to this, so I have done so. Secondly, a few of the reverts are Stale. If the user continues, I will block them (but understand that it takes two to edit war and if the IP continues they will be blocked as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:68.146.103.217 reported by User:Shootmaster_44 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. I resubmitted this report as the previous one I edited did not seem to be getting any further action. There have been some intermediary edits on the template during this edit war. The correct version should be However, the template asked for a correct version from before the edit war began, so that is the one listed above. Also, the user has progressed into making nonsensical edits to the page as demonstrated here , Ron Lancaster has not played for the Riders since the late 70's and does not belong on there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    Phlegm Rooster reported by Hobartimus (Result:stale )


    • Previous version reverted to:

    Previous edit being reverted 12:51, 9 September 2008 inserting poll numbers

    Previous edit being reverted 16:53, 9 September 2008inserting section header religion

    Previous edit being reverted 05:26, 10 September 2008 Jossi inserting the section header again

    Previous edit being reverted 09:40, 10 September 2008

    Further edits within 24 hours that could be potentially reverts, deletion of marathon info. And other deletions (could be reverting the person who inserted them) . I think this case is somewhat similar to that of Kelly in that due to circumstances, some type of non-block measure should be used so the block log is not affected. Hobartimus (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mooretwin reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 1 week )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    There has been an ongoing discussion here, and they were told by two editors how the information could be introduced, but kept reverting anyway. Now they have again reverted, adding references which do not support what they want to say. We all know the term is used, just not by the Party itself. Now they are trying it on with this article, granted the last edit made me smile, when they cop what they are after doing, but that is beside the point. Likewise this seems to be the next article we can expect more of the same. A quick click of the link would have ruled out the need for a citation Ulsterisation. They seem to have a thing about reverting consensus versions? Thanks--Domer48'fenian' 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    Catiline63 reported by Arcayne (Result: 24 hours )

    Catiline63 is a fairly new user who sometimes fails to sign in before editing, (thus, the anon account: 82.44.82.115 (talk · contribs)).

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    -To the anon: 1, 2
    -To the primary account: 3, 4

    I've offered to counsel the fairly new user, and didn't report him yesterday when I discovered the seven reverts yesterday. I warned the user, and hoped (s)he would listen to the warning to stop reverting. The last two diffs indicate that the warning was ignored. - Arcayne () 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yep, sure did. Less than two minutes after the anon posted in article discussion here, Catiline67 signed in, and posted that the anon response had come from him here. - Arcayne () 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, seeing as neither the IP or the named account has edited since you have left them a warning, and seeing as neither their IP or named account have ever been blocked for 3RR or edit warring before I am going to give them the benefit of doubt. But if they revert one more time I will block. Tiptoety 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    I don't mind you giving the contributor another chance, but I respectfully believe that you might have the chronology backwards. The user was warned via his anon account at 11:17 and 11:24, September 9, 2008, and via the named account at 11:59. The 8th and 9th reverts occurred after that notice was made. During that notice, they were encouraged to ask questions before reverting. It did not happen.
    Again, I don't mind the newbie (if they are indeed such) getting cut a little slack, but it is important to note that (s)he were told what the rules were, and the user reverted anyway. At least a small block or stern warning would seem to be warranted. If they are new, they need to know that we take our rules rather seriously. If they aren't new...well, same thing. - Arcayne () 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    Durh! I guess I did not see the first warnings, just the second ones. As such I have Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    PsychD11 reported by Yilloslime (Result: Blocked )

    Yilloslime (t) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.248.62.143 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: 24 hours )

    Constantly reverting cited material on article. Ignores discussion on Talk Page as well as appeals on personal Talk Page.

    • 1st revert: 17:29, 9 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: 17:36, 9 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: 3:25, 9 September 2008
    • 4th revert: 06:36, 10 September 2008
    • 5th revert: 16:14, 10 September 2008
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


    Jamescp reported by Jagiellon (Result:User warned )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 17:42, 10 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: 18:01, 10 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: 21:53, 10 September 2008
    • 4th revert: 22:48, 10 September 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Comment: Apart from the above 4 diffs, user Jamescp has made more than 50 other edits to the article over the last 24 hours. The majority of his edits have been to delete existing material. The majority of these edits can therefore be considered disruptive, as they remove valuable information on the topic which has been added in the previous days and weeks by numerous other editors. Others have already pointed out to this user the disruptiveness of his edits (see for instance ) which nevertheless continued unrestrained afterwards with little or no discussion. Please pause this. The page is a controversial page which has recently been locked for similar edit warring reasons. Jagiellon (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    Str1977 reported by Bignole (Result:24 hours )

    Robbo25 reported by Beve (result: already blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert: (note incivil edit summary)
    • 7th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User has returned to edit war on the article ten minutes after a 24-hour ban expired, against clear consensus of several other editors, whose reverts he labels as "vandalism". No intention to reach consensus by discussion, his last edit states "The discusion will continue forever and never come to a conclusion". If you look at the user's edit history, there is only one constructive edit that I can see, the rest is blatant POV at best and vandalism at worst. The user clearly has no intention of following the rules and will continue to revert against consensus ad nauseam. Beve (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    DX120 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: 48 hours)

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

    Use has been adding a win which other editors including myself have removed. Only reason for gap between version reverted to and 3 reverts was a 12 hour block for disruptive editing. Also this personal attack . Darrenhusted (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Misessus reported by Lawrencekhoo (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User Misessus is disruptive and by his own words, he edits based on WP:TRUTH not verifiability. Some of his comments on truth: ("truth is not told in any textbook, of course.") (This is an encyclopedia and it should give truthful information, not politically angled information.)

    Misessus was sanctioned for breaking 3RR on 6th September . He broke 3RR again on 7th September (as shown above), was warned and responded by reverting again. He also responded with a personal attack on the talk page , adding to several personal attacks already made. On 10th September, Misessus made another 3 reverts on the Inflation page. Shown below:

    EDIT: Misessus has just made another two reverts, even though consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly against his edits:

    As these reverts appeared just over 24 hours after the last 3 reverts, I believe he is aware that he is edit warring, but is purposefully trying to game the system to avoid being sanctioned for breaking 3RR.

    For more context on this issue, please refer to these discussions about POV pushing by 'Austrian school' editors:

    Hellis reported by D'Agrò (Result: warned/stale )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: 18:42, September 10, 2008 (UTC)
    • 2nd revert: 06:24, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
    • 3rd revert: 12:16, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
    • 4th revert: 14:54, September 11, 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Instead of provided evidences stated in the talk page coming from printed sources scanned, the reported user keep revert to a POV version.

    Comment. For somebody that would have us believe that he/she appeared at Misplaced Pages for the first time yesterday, User:D'Agrò has a remarkable knowledge of our policies, rules, terminology etc. It may perhaps be worthwhile to peruse the currently open Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (6th) and the related Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove while, or, ideally, prior to, adjudicating this case. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    I asked myself for a CU. I'm not anyone else but me, unfortunately for you. BTW, from where are you got the idea that I'm in Misplaced Pages for the first time yesterday? Im I stated that somewhere? Did you ever thought that I could be on Misplaced Pages from longtime on some others wikipedia-projects and/or languages? You, AlasdairGreen27 (talk), had included me in that "Happy brigade" Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (6th), providing FAKE AND WRONG evidences, as I already proved and wrote to you in your talk page here. Until now, you weren't so honest to admit that your "evidences" to include me in that "suspected sockpuppetry" are wrong (in case you were in good faith) maybe fake (if in bad faith...) and to recognise that ad remove them. IMHO you are only trying to intimidate me (without any results, thought) to be free to erase entire section on the Giovanni Luppis page and pushing to force your POV. I ask the Administrator to not stop this 3RR violation procedure. Thanks--D'Agrò (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Bosonic dressing reported by Pyl (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The second 3RR warning link was given because the account in question admitted he/she was one and the same person as 67.71.16.7 (having 2 or more accounts). The admission is here. --pyl (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Correct me if I am wrong, but no three of the revert diffs are within 24 hours. As stated, I previously edited at an IP, and created an account upon being prodded; yet he filed a misleading sockpuppet report. All of this appears to have been done because User:Pyl has a particular position regarding ROC/Taiwan and has been unable to get his way on this article: this editor has engaged in edit warring throughout (whomever that may have been with) and has not used the article's talk page to compel or to get a consensus. In fact, the editor whom Pyl has accused of being the sockpuppetmaster (?) restored and reformatted references Pyl blatantly removed to further their viewpoint. So, if I am to be disciplined for edit warring, Pyl should also be. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I believe that creating an account to circumvent the no-3RR rule is a violation of the rules, even if these accounts aren't sock puppets/sock puppeteer (which I believe they are). I've only listed reverts under the Bosonic dressing account and the reverts done by your other account is not listed in this report. But the administrator is free to inspect the history of the article for further details.--pyl (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Creating an account is not an attempt to circumvent anything: you asked for the creation of an account to legitimatize edits, and now you have submitted a plethora of reports to distract and conflate. Whatever else you believe is, frankly, irrelevant. And your long, drawn-out, dilatory responses, edit warring (including the removal of references pointed out above), and multiple reports regarding so simple a notion is inane and borders on disruptive. I have no further commentary regarding this ... editor, or actions same. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale )


    No sorry. The first entry cited above is clearly an edit of long satnding text, and not a reversion (if you look at what Piotrus is trying to pass off as a "reversion," you will see that all that was done on his edit was wikify a name--the edit I made was a correction of an error in long standing text--while leaving his wikifying alone). So in fact, both Piotrus and I did 3 reversions.
    Piotrus' reversions
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    So I'm afraid this latest attempt of Piotrus to use the 3RR process for edit warring doesn't fly. It's also the second harassing 3RR complaint in a week. Its getting annoying. Boodlesthecat 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Boodlesthecat 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    No, Boody; you have removed part of the article four times within few hours. The fact that my previous edit was, as you point out, not a revert, only means I've not violated 3RR, it doesn't say anything about you. It is quite possible for one user to violate 3RR and the other not to. You should be familiar with WP:3RR, you have done that thing before (reverted four or more times within 24h) and you should now the consequences. PS. And yes, your edit warring and habitual breaking of 3RR is getting annoying. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, first one was clearly an edit. And since you are being scrutinized right now in your Arb for this very sort of misuse of the system for edit warring, I actually would have expected that you would have known better. Boodlesthecat 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    Reverts are edits, yes. You removed something four times. That's a violation of the 3RR (just as adding something four times would be). In that case it's the same something and your violation is easy to see (and similar to ones from your past). And yes, I am sure that ArbCom will take your continuing history of edit warring and 3RR violations into consideration when they get around to issuing some rulings.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    No the reverts start from the point where you reverted my edit, not from my edit (which is not a revert). Come on, you should know these things. Boodlesthecat 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    Let's see if the closing admin agrees that you can remove something from the articles 4 times within 2 hours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:PrinceOfCanada reported by User:G2bambino (Result:both blocked )

    This breach comes not eighteen hours after he was let off of a block for 3RR after making a promise to the blocking admin. --G2bambino (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    The '1st revert' was not a revert, as there were intervening edits. The mischaracterization of the promise is poor form; I promised not to edit at G2bambino's talk page, not promised not to edit anywhere else. Prince of Canada 19:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    snlfan reported by Ward3001 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:
    • 10th revert:
    • 11th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Reverted 8 times after 3RR warning. Was also given a vandalism warning. Probably made same revert as anon IP here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

    Categories: