Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SWF Trainer (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 11 February 2009 (→User 68.56.81.128 / Article Shamu: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

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


    User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior reported by User:Ukufwakfgr (Result:no vio)

    This concerns the article Masonic conspiracy theories. User:Blueboar is unilaterally making edits that are still under discussion, and hiding them behind minor edits.

    The article had gone without a revision for 5 months, and was biased. The changes that I made were undone by User:WegianWarrior with the reason that the article is already excruciatingly neutral or something like that. Suddenly, however their interest has been renewed, and have made more than a handful of unilateral edits in the past few days, claiming deceptively that such edits were "discussed."

    There is reason to suspect that these users may engage in edit-warring as well as revert-warring. User:Blueboar has already been blocked for violating 3RR. This has been mentioned in Wikiquette alerts as well as the noticeboards of: conflicts of interest and neutral points of view. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WQA tagged NWQA and referred back here. Gerardw (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm so what you are saying is that you are edit warring with 3 different people and they are all in the wrong and you are in the right? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that there is reason to suspect, and look at the edit logs for yourself. They are full of unilateral changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Blueboar has "already been blocked for violating 3RR". Three years ago. Unblocked after ten hours. Never been blocked again. Clearly, a recidivist hardened criminal. Throw the book at him!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you have more to contribute than sarcasm. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You got to admit though that it's bloody impressive how such a new user as Ukufwakfgr could find someone's block log like that. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read through the lengthy discussion at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories and was wondering where User:Ukufwakfgr got the cajones to accuse the others of edit warring. His posts are one rude personal attack after another laced with foul language. The article is quite NPOV and his edits are clearly attempts to insert POV. (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Please discusss why on the talk page, and actually read it instead of pre-judging or cherry-picking. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe he stated that he did in fact read the page. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He obviously skimmed through the more sensationalistic parts. Not good faith. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I have indeed read the Talk page. It's a sad commentary on how one person can disrupt carefully crafted neutral wording with what appears to be a nit-picking agenda. And the nit-picking is not always well-informed or even accurate. I have seen that Blueboar et al. have carefully and patiently tried to deal with Ukufwakfgr, but to no avail. Ukufwakgr's posts tend to be rude and insulting and when he doesn't think that others are paying enough attention to him he reverts to foul language. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Baseless allegations. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I don't want to get involved in the particulars, I'd like to say that just because Uku (don't mind if I call you that, right?) is the minority view here doesn't mean he should be ridiculed or ignored. Not to say he has been, but there's been a bit of irrelevant discussion concerning him which isn't the most productive thing that could be done. Likewise, Uku, try to be a bit more civil and collected. I'd encourage everyone to take to the talk page, including Uku, and sort out your differences there. If that can't be done, someone get back to me and I'll protect the page, but only if I see evidence of discussion that has been ignored by the warring party. Any questions, comments, concerns are welcome here or on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more users accounts are involved: Theresa Knott Taivo

    All 5 of them are acting in a grossly uncivil manner by repeatedly requesting that I comply with what I believe to be an unreasonable demand (to select one of my talking points and re-state it, even though each talking point has been discussed already). They have outrightly rejected my counter-proposal without discussion, and seem to agree on pretty much everything.

    Theresa Knott has abused her administrative priviliges by "redlinking" me, deleting portions of a comment I made, and providing additional support to the other users instead of demonstrating impartiality. She, along with Blueboar seem to be trying to play good-cop-bad-cop.

    Taivo has taken to engaging in revert wars in the talk page itself, calling my desired changes ugly or something like that. That user has hypocritically accused me of trolling, and has tried to remove the POV tag.

    So far, about 10 unilateral changes have been made to the page in the past 5 days, mainly by Blueboar and Taivo. I would really like to see this dispute resolved, if at all, rather than to resort to protecting the page. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Love the implication that they are sockpuppets by using the strikeout tag... classy, real classy. If a multiple of exeprienced users talls you that you're doing it wrong, and only you think otherwise, chances are good that you are, in fact, doing it wrong. Just saying...
    Any editwarring taking place is done by Ukufwakfgr, not to mention his breach of other rules and policies. I encourage everyone to read through his contributions and make up their minds. 158.112.84.234 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Majority doesn't rule on Wikipedia. More baseless allegations. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the name of your previous account? I'm curious. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really am new. Just because I understand computers and the Internet doesn't make me an experienced Wikipedia editor. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deacon of Pndapetzim reported by Leevanjackson (Result: Take it to WP:MFD)


    I've been around the houses looking for the right place to ask, was going to Help_Desk but the content of this Wikipedia:User essay is a method to apply POV and get around the 3RR so should be of interest to you, not sure how user essays count for accountability, but it is unwikipedia and also provides an instruction set for POV pushers- the 'what links here' turns up a few interesting related articles LeeVJ (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation If you truly disapprove, consider asking for the essay to be deleted at WP:Miscellany for deletion. Have you noticed that this is a humorous essay, and the advice it gives is not very practical? EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had noted the humour, but was more concerned with feeding beans to people, particularly use of sockpuppets and how to disguise reverts which seemed practical to me - but then I'm not seasoned in 3rr! - I have enquired on user's talk page to answer my concerns before taking any action. Thanks LeeVJ (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be required reading for all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought this was only worth a chuckle but now I see it was cited as evidence in an Arbcom case. The arbs have way too much time on their hands :-) To clarify the intention, perhaps the essay could be rewritten in the style of WP:ABF, which seems harmless and does not have the air of recommending anti-social activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User has tagged with 'humorous essay' and since there are a number of similar such essays, which I would personally disagree as well, I will have to say I am _happy_ with the situation! LeeVJ (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Loonymonkey reported by CENSEI (Result:No Vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    Please note that the first line of the 3RR rule states the following:

    Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.

    Clearly Loonmonkey has violated this as he reverted the contributions of four separate editors on with four separate edits, non of which had anything to do with any violation of policy.

    CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Grsz11Review 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    147.27.47.76 reported by Greekboy (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [6]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

    User has been adding in information that I and another user have said does not belong there. User initially asked on talk page about adding that infromation, but he/she has since ignored the response given and keeps adding it in. Additionally, it is believed that this IP is also User:Ftsdgs, who added in the same information earlier, and also wrote the same thing on the talk page, as well as User:Sdgspt who just made an account to re-add the information back into the article after the 3RR notice was placed on his IP talk page. [12].Greekboy (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sdgspt has just violated 3RR. I left a notice on his page. Diffs: [13], [14], [15], [16]. The last time, he wrote in Greeklish via a hidden message "Hahahaha....I am having fun with this". Greekboy (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked S, and the anon who is S. Considering G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    G saved by self revert. A wise decision William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "G" I guess is me, not Greekboy, just to clear that up, its a little misleading. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Satellite9876 reported by Jebuss (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [17]


    • 1st revert: [18]
    • 2nd revert: [19]
    • 3rd revert: [20]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Satellite9876 has posted inaccurate and misleading information. Confusing the difference between profits and revenue together with a confusion about the way that public companies are traded and sold in the UK.

    Satellite9876 does not understand that the SoJewish business was purchased by Totally plc. Benjamin Cohen (the subject of the article) was just one shareholder and later said he sold £40,000 worth of the shares he held.

    Satellite9876 does not post sources for a number of the statements that they have made (Jebuss (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    I do not agree with the above. Nor have there been 3 reverts as alleged. The Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) article appears to have often been 'protected' by one or two editors who seem to remove anything they think may be "negative" to the subject in question. That concerns me for the sake of the encyclopedia.
    My view regarding the share valuation is that the article should most relevantly discuss the share value of the individual the subject of the article in question, and as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Other editors hold differing views.
    My other concern about this article, since we find ourselves here, is that these same editors are seen to favorably edit this article rather consistently and remove any facts that someone like, say the subject, might find disagreeable. Happy for others to consider the issues, and the familiarity of various contributors with the subject of the article.
    There were valid WP:RS posted for all my edits. Not sure about the alternate claims as to share and company valuations made by others being similarly sourced.
    Overall, I must say though - bringing an edit discussion here, and not to my Talk page seems rather rash indeed. --Satellite9876 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me that J has broken 3RR formally, whereas S hasn't. More importantly, S has made clear and repeated attempts to resolve this on talk, and J hasn't. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SonofFeanor reported by MastCell (Result: 24h)

    This editor has been edit-warring on passive smoking. He's been repeatedly warned about violating 3RR (see recent 3RR report, final warning from outside admin and final, final warning from outside admin. Still at it. Enough's enough. MastCell Talk 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bridies reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    • 1st revert: [22]
    • 2nd revert: [23]
    • 3rd revert: [24]
    • 4th revert: [25] editor warned before this point
    • 5th revert: [26] with comment that editor is willing to exceed 3RR to make a point


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [27]

    Dispute among several editors resulting in edit war and heated discussion on talk page. Ironically, this is over an edit I myself added over a year ago. I came back after a break and noticed this war, and warned 2 users, one of whom seems to have stopped. =Axlq 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was willing to break the 3RR/risk being blocked if it would bring an admin, and thus an uninvolved, disinterested (as in not a D&D fan) and reasonably competent editor to the page for purposes of a third opinion.bridies (talk)
    24h. Edit warring to bring in other opinions is not a good idea. Read WP:DR, ask for a third opinion, don't edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mttll (Attlmt) reported by User:Olahus (Result: 1 week)

    The user Mttll is involved in an edit war again (as only few days ago), this time it is about this template where he edited as Mttll and Attlmt (they are the same user) - 2 reverts made by Mttl and 1 revert made by Attlmt = 3 reverts, which means that the 3RR was broken. I also suspect Mttl of using more sockpuppets, as I reported here.

    --Olahus (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    4 reverts are required for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Olahus (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User comes off a 48 hour block for edit warring and almost immediately returns to just that. This appears to be a clear 3RRvio on his part, but even if it isn't, the clear disruption can be seen here, which warrants a block regardless. Also a look at Mttll's contributions show that he re-initiated an edit war on at least four other pages, mass-reverting each of them following his unblock. I see no signs of a change in behavior, so I am blocking for one week. Khoikhoi 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benjiboi reported by User:THF (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: N/A


    • 1st revert: 7 Feb 03:25 [28] reverting addition of wikilink
    • 2nd revert: 7 Feb 03:27 [29] undoing this THF edit
    • 3rd revert: 7 Feb 03:38 [30] undoing THF edits [31] and [32]
    • 4th revert: 7 Feb 03:41 [33]
    • 5th revert: 7 Feb 03:45 [34]
    • 6th revert: 7 Feb 18:52 [35] reverting four intermediate edits by User:BaldPark without discussing on talk page


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 7 Feb 03:48 [36]

    In the 0400 time frame, I was on the border of a 3RR violation as well, and stopped editing the page, instead opening an RFC. THF (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for B and T William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what happened, William blocked both B and T, but with T, William M. Connolley wrote:
    With some reluctance, I've blocked you for 3RR on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    T responded:
    My reversions were good-faith working to reach a consensus, and I miscounted the number of times I reverted. When I realized I reverted three times and that consensus wasn't going to be reached, I stopped editing the article and took discussion to the talk page; each of my reverts was discussed on the talk page contemporaneously. It appears that one can construct an argument that I reverted more than three times.. THF (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    William quickly unblocked THF:
    OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    No offer of "I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason" was given to Ben.
    Can an uninvolved administrator give Ben the same offer?
    Ikip (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikip misquotes me. It's hard to think of a good-faith reason why he did that. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if one looks at the Benjoboi talk page, he was specifically invited by THF to make some of the edits that resulted in what THF nows shows as either edit warring or 3RR. In good faith, I will not call this entrapment... but I respectfully request his block be removed with a caution to be more careful when following the requests of other editors. I'm sure this developed into a misunderstanding all around. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, that's 100% false and I ask for a retraction. Benjiboi made an edit that munged punctuation and confused quotation marks. I asked him to fix his edit so that the punctuation was accurate. He didn't, so I did, and he reverted me. I tried collaborating with him, and he just blindly reverted every edit I made, even removing wikilinks for the sake of removing wikilinks. I gave him a 3RR warning after his fifth revert, stopped editing the page; when he started reverting the work of third-party editors against talk-page consensus, I reported him. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No retraction of my simple observation. "When you added the cquote template, you munged the punctuation of the quote. Can you fix that, please?" Those are your words, not mine. He replied, "No problem, fixed". When it did not appear to be so, you wrote"Actually still munged. I'm just going to restore the original". He questioned, "How is it "munged"? I copied direct from the source". So I cannot retract what you two yourselves wrote. THIS dialog preceded the 3RR and escalation of the edit war. The result was an unequal serving of justice... a quick unblock for you and not even an offer of one to Benjoboi. My request above was an unblock of him with a warning, and my own observation that this entire thing stemed from and resulted in a misunderstanding all around. I am not counting the bodies after the fact... only analysing the events leading up to the explosion that might have been prevented with a little bit of patience and dialog from BOTH parties. So, You are invited to remove your assertion that my observation that A preceded B preceded C is "100% false". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of attempting some sort of equal and balanced justice here I'll repost what I said on Benji's talk page: I'm amazed at how you were "man handled" here (by William) but the main person (THF) causing the problem and the edit war gets handled with velvet gloves by William. Sad. Typical. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that WMC has some sort of pro-THF bias is remarkably amusing. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh - that's bad form, William M Connolley. Really bad form. I'm unblocking both users and protecting the article for 48 hours so the involved users can discuss changes on the talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. What is bad form in unblocking, in a clearly non-emergency situation, without even a pretence at consultation, a block that had already been reviewed [37]. And what kind of nonsense is trolled edit-warring? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right - I should have consulted you in the first place. My bad on that. But, IMO, "Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason" prevailed in my view. The blocks were placed evenly, but unfairly - you gave THF (who provoked the situation) a chance to be unblocked (which they were, in less than an hour), while Benjiboi was a) not given the same opportunity, and b) denied the unblock with a short one-sentence that seems to be by someone who did not read the full situation. I'm sorry if I stepped on toes, but this was unfair and was following the letter, but not the spirit, of Wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how I "provoked" B. into reverting BaldPark's four edits without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. THF (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This won't do. You don't just step on top of other's actions without very good reason, and nothing you've said provides a good reason. Both users had a chance to be unblocked, indeed everyone blocked for 3RR has the same chance. I decided to remind one side of that; this is not unreasonable. Further, you have accused THF of trolling for a block on B. Do you maintain that accusation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) I left a message at SatyrTN's talk page asking for an explanation of their unblock and they replied I should have a look at their reply here. SatyrTN's explanation here does not justify his course of action, that clearly constitutes wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Put aside the wikilawyering: this was clearly a bad block and it was a good idea to lift it. That's the bottom line. Spotfixer (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? The unblock was supported above by at least three other users, the block was set to expire in 4.5 hours anyway, and the application of rules seemed unfair. I admit I should have made a better effort to communicate with the blocking admin, but since they hadn't commented on any of the notes from Benjiboi, AllStarEcho, A Nobody, or MichaelQSchmidt, I decided to be bold and lift the block from an *extremely* competent Wikipedia user. Again - I'm sorry for stepping on toes, but it seems the right thing to do. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, we give rather greater weight to the opinions of admins on questions of block/unblock William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your bad block is more of an issue than any technicalities in removing it. And I for one don't believe that the opinions of non-admins are irrelevant. Do you? Spotfixer (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wheel warring is not a matter of being bold, but simply inappropriate. — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always appropriate to remove a bad block. Spotfixer (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...how was this block bad? There was a clear case of 3RR violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, two people were blocked for warring with each other, but one was immediately unblocked. This disparity makes the remaining block a bad one. Spotfixer (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept that you use a mind-reader, but yours is off calibration. I'm reasonably well-informed about this case. Your argument is bogus. The block was good. A potential problem with another block (or unblock) does not make this one bad. "We could only get Al Capone for tax evasion, so Timothy McVeigh should not have been tried for murder, either"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, one person was blocked for edit-warring with multiple people after a warning, and one person was blocked sixteen hours after he said he'd stop editing the page to resolve matters on the talk page, and then unblocked when he noted that the block did was punitive, rather than preventative. THF (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the two users were treated unequally. One was explicitly given the chance to escape the block, and did so less than an hour later. The other explained their actions and was denied the escape. The two had been involved in ongoing communications, though they may not have been the best at it. Blocking both may very well have been the correct course of action - both users had, in fact, violated 3RR (and admitted to it). But for the blocking admin to seem to coddle the one user and unblock, while leaving the other user alone and not responding to queries about their block, that was unfair. I stand behind my decision, though I will admit that I should have tried to discuss the issue with the blocking admin - that was an error. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One block was for actions that were 18 hours old and weren't being repeated. The other block was for actions that were continuing. WP:BLOCK explicitly says that those should be treated differently. THF (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone considered the extremely rude and baiting language that was used on the talk page of the article? Edit warring goes both ways and in this case the editor who was working to get the other one blocked kept insulting him/her; also was using dubious primary sources which was part of the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.214 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The block also took place six hours after they stopped editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.214 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    81.71.161.34 reported by E_dog95 (Result: 12h each)


    Here is the pre-revert war article.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

    The user is simply adding an embedded list of artists. This probably started back in November. I have let the user know that some content other than just the list would be better. I have asked that some prose be listed along with the artists. English may not be their first language. E_dog95' Hi ' 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    12h each. You are both edit warring. Neither of you has tried to use the talk page, which still doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.179.173.225 reported by Opinoso (Result: both reproved)


    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

    < This IP is claiming Austrians are Germans because they speak German. Then he included a Brazilian town settled by Austrians as if it was a "German community". I removed this, then he started to reverte me. Opinoso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Excuse me, but i will like to give my own defense. If you read the German Brazilian article, in the immigration section, it has Austria listed. So in that article, the Austrian people are listen as Germans. This guy who reported this is claiming that there are Germans in Austria who are not Austrian. He is also flip-flopping on the whole issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.173.225 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for heaven's sake use the article talk page instead of reverting like people incapable of communication. You are both reproved for edit warring (technically the anon hasn't broken 3RR but O has) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    75.57.0.136 and Ajacreative reported by VoteSchiff (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted from: [49]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]


    The individual who is deleting/reverting the posts is doing it out of business competitiveness, rather than seeing the benefit of the factual information, which is needed for the Peter Schiff wiki bio page. The fact is, "On January 23rd, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd."

    VoteSchiff (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked both the reporter and the reported user for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mttll reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: blocked )


    • Previous version reverted to: [54]
    • 0th revert: [55] (not exact same revert, but a similar revert)
    • 1st revert: [56]
    • 2nd revert: [57]
    • 3rd revert: [58]
    • 4th revert: [59]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: See my edit summary on 4th revert

    Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    03:41, 8 February 2009 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mttll (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (3RR violation on Template:Romani infobox, almost immediately after coming off previous block, edit warring on at least four other pages, no signs of stopping) (unblock | change block) Tiptoety talk 05:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:59.167.38.253‎ reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: warned)

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

    1. 10:56, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The fire hit Kinglake yesterday. Victims are only now being identified.")
    2. 11:00, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The fire is known fo have hit Kinglake on 7 February.")
    3. 11:35, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The article clearly states the fire was on Saturday (7 February)")
    4. 12:12, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The news reports clearly state the fire was Saturday (7 February). 8 Feb is the date of the announcement. Claiming 8 Feb as the date of death is original research.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The IP was also told to take it to the talk page which they did but also continued to revert against 2 other editors (excluding myself). — Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There don't seem to have been any reverts by this IP since your 3RR warning William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:THF reported by Ikip (Result: No violation)

    As per: the above complaint

    User:William M. Connolley Blocked User:THF[60] at 21:47, 7 February 2009

    User:William M. Connolley then unblocked User:THF on the promise that "OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h" at 22:32, 7 February 2009

    User:THF has began editing the talk page again:

    11:45, 8 February 2009, adding a RFCpol to the talk page.

    Please reblock this editor. Ikip (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained on WMC's talk page (maybe to briefly), WMC blocked THF due to a WP:3RR violation on the main article, and asked him to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours. The talk page is not the article, there never was a 3RR violation on the talk page, there was no restriction of THF editing the talk page, and hence no reason for your complaint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Donadio reported by Opinoso (Result: WP:TROUT for both)


    • Previous version reverted to: [61]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    < This user was already blocked 2 times, on the same week, for violations on this same article: first block and second block. Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

    First and second reverts were reverting my own edits, that I inadvertently made while unlogged, in order to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Donadio (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Third revert was merely an intermediate step to add correct information. Donadio (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides, look at Opinoso's reversals in German Brazilian.

    Taking at good faith that User:189.27.21.142 is Donadio, I see at most 3 reverts. User:Opinoso's reverts from yesterday have already been handled above. Stop reverting and talk. Both of you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you go to the Talk Pages of the articles, you will see that's what I'm trying to do. But I get this kind of response:

    I won't waste my time reading your out of place comments. With some many article at Wikipedia, you only appear at the same article I have recently edit. You are obviously following my edits. I'm contacting an administrator to resolve it. Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    which is difficult to argue with. Opinoso is good at the art of stonewalling...

    And yes, I'm User:189.27.21.142. In a few seconds, I'll log out and confirm it. Donadio (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm Donadio, unlogged. 189.27.21.142 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:169.234.115.112 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31 hours )

    Invention disclosure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 169.234.115.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 21:17, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 21:25, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "not vandilsm, impotrant info")
    3. 21:27, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389458 by Daniel 1992 (talk)")
    4. 21:28, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389728 by Alansohn (talk)")
    5. 21:29, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389983 by Alansohn (talk)")
    6. 21:30, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390172 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
    7. 21:31, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390376 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
    8. 21:32, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390680 by Alansohn (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Lab notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 169.234.115.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 21:16, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 21:19, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "deleted link spam - blogs not acceptable")
    3. 21:22, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 21:24, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    5. 21:26, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "not vandilsm, important info")
    6. 21:27, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389616 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
    7. 21:29, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389867 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
    8. 21:30, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "I saw this on 30 Rock, I can do whatever I want")
    9. 21:32, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390498 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.8.64.63 reported by User:Kww (Result: stale)


    Note: two different reverted versions. Primarily attempting to edit out an image. Once that failed, he began to change the image caption to cast doubt on image's authenticity

    Note that the 7th revert is in response to this edit, and represents a shift in the reversion.

    There is an active SPI report open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher, but the question there is whether we are dealing with meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting. With this edit, Wildernessfly admitted to meatpuppeting as his defense against sockpuppeting. (Breaking news: CU results came back as unrelated, so it is meatpuppeting, not sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Basic issue is an old one: the LDS strongly discourages showing any images of the temple garments, as they are considered sacred. The article is a chronic target of efforts to remove the images based on LDS doctrine, which violates WP:NOT#CENSORED. The IP admitted that as his motive in this edit.

    Note that with the 8th revert, 24.8.64.63 crossed the 3RR threshold without having to take meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting into account.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [67]

    —Kww(talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Without denying that the above users have indeed edit warred, I'd like to try to defuse the situation before any sanctions are applied. I've invited these two users to discuss their concerns on my talk page, and I have implored them not to make any more edits to the article for several days at least. If the admins monitoring this case will hold off to see how it goes, I'd appreciate it -- but I'll support any sanctions if there are further violations from either of these editors. alanyst /talk/ 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No further violations, closing as stale William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.132.132.138 reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: various blocks)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [72]

    User is removing referenced information from the article. Already warned, no response from user.Baxter9 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stwalkerster has blocked User:Phd mit UCLA student and Rrrtkzt. The anon seems to have dropped out, let me know if it returns William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eightball reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [73]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]


    Please see Talk:United States men's national soccer team where we are attempting to work this out. Unfortunately Eightball can't seem to allow the process to take place before insisting on getting their way, rather than allowing the page to remain as it was for weeks prior to this incident while discussion continues as normal. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus has formed REPEATEDLY against Grant on this matter, and he refuses to respect the decision making process that has already occurred. All I am trying to do is implement the solution that other editors have determined is satisfactory. Grant continues to incorrectly revert the article after the matter has been settled. This is not an edit war, this is Grant vandalizing the article and me returning it to the proper state. I suggest that Grant is blocked, given that he is the one actually causing trouble. Eightball (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was the way it was for weeks without any problem until today when you started an edit war. I don't know how you can call anything other than the one prior to the edit war the "consensus" version. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was only that way because people got tired of dealing with your crap and gave up trying to enforce consensus, something I am not going to do. Eightball (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to add that Grant once again reverted the article (thus violating 3RR himself, though I don't care) under the guise of vandalism. He knows exactly what he is doing: consensus was reached against him, so he has decided to 1. ignore discussions that have already taken place between editors, and 2. revert our edits by lying and claiming it is vandalism. I would also like to note that this user has a long history of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus, and has been blocked from editing on many occasions. Eightball (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrwsc (Talk | contribs | block) m (51,774 bytes) (Protected United States men's national soccer team: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Offliner reported by Biophys (Result: O article-blocked for 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [79]

    In the last revert he restored his key phrase "caused the county to launch a military invasion" in Introduction that was present in the "Previous version reverted to". Note that he removes huge portions of sourced text in three first reverts. This user is regular.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My last edit is not a revert, but an attempt to form a compromise version of the lead. Note, that I only modified a small part of his last edit:[84]. Earlier, I made many different edits to the article, putting my arguments in the edit summaries. However, all of my edits were soon reverted by Biophys, who complained only that I had removed sourced text. Indeed, some of my many edits removed material which I thought was irrelevant (such as a chapter about fiction books) or giving undue weight to the conspiracy theories surrounding the bombings. Biophys, you could have reverted only those few edits about which you had complaints, but no, you had to revert everything I did. Please note, that while reverting all my edits you removed huge portions of well-sourced content I had added. Offliner (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Finding; O has broken 3RR; the last edit listed above is indeed a revert. O has self-reverted, but not one of the 4 listed above. So a block would seem pointless. Instead, O is banned from the article for 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Therequiembellishere reported by Middayexpress (Result: No result)


    • Previous version reverted to: [85]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [90]

    An editor has been constantly reverting an edit I made where I added the fact that Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed was the eighth President of Somalia to the page. The other editor at first justified his reverts with a cryptic if vaguely insulting "I know it must seem like I'm picking on you now, but even though I'm vehemently opposed to orders where I can, Somalia is definitely the worst place for them to be." He then insisted that no other Wikipedia articles outside of "US, NZ, Canadian and Australians" used the president numbering system (i.e. "3rd President of Egypt"). I proved that false with links directly to several pages which do. However, he reverted yet again, this time under the pretext that "it's not possible to definitively number" the number of presidents Somalia has had, although Worldstatesmen.com doesn't seem to have any such trouble. Middayexpress (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you're both over the line here. Would there be any point blocking both of you? I'm not sure, so let's say you both forget this article for a week or two. It's hardly that important. You're both competent and productive editors, so it would be a shame to lose you. yandman 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for at least having a look at my case. However, I must disagree with your verdict because unlike the other editor, I didn't go over 3RR. I actually specifically avoiding doing so since I was well aware of said rule and respect it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So here are difs as proof: My first revert; my second revert; my third revert. That's three reverts in the space of 24 hours, the maximum allowed per 3RR:

    Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.

    I did not go over that, unlike the other editor who's POV campaign compelled him to breach it anyway. I just wanted to set the record straight, even if you don't decide to revise your verdict. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were still edit warring, which doesn't require 4R. After the first revert, you really must start discussing on the talk page, not via edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot this one. Anyway, as WMC said, the point is that both of you need to stick to the talk page until you can get a consensus hammered out. yandman 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't a revert. That dif was when I first inserted the "8th President of Somalia" line into the article, which the other editor then began reverting at will. At any rate, thanks for the advice guys. I'll try and follow it next time. Middayexpress (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnnyswords‎ reported by User:Mfield (Result: last chance)

    User continues to re-add large section of text to Elephant seal that was the body of an article he had created that was deleted. The section is too long, off topic and not properly cited, editor has had this explained and had been encouraged to discuss on article talk to narrow down the material and ensure adequate referencing before inclusion. Alternate articles have been suggested for the off topic content. Editor refuses to engage in disussion as is apparently annoyed that 'his article' was 'butchered' forcing him to put this text in Elephant seal. Feel the editor could use some reading on policy but I have exhausted my reverts at this point and he continues to add it. Editor warned about 3RR informally then formally after last insertion. Mfield (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In future, would you mind formatting your reports in the correct way? Have a look at the page source to see how this is done. Johnny seems to have stopped editing since his last reply, in which he says he'll give it a break, so I don't think blocking him will help anything. He seems like a good guy who just needs a bit of help (i.e. understanding what an encyclopedia article looks like). If you feel up to coaching him, that would be great, if not I'm sure someone will answer his questions. If he reverts again, give me a call and I'll block him. Cheers, yandman 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry, I added the section manually. Thanks, I have been attempting to help him but he has seemed more interested in keeping his section as he wrote it and has been turning offers of help around into suggestions of bad faith on his part. I will keep an eye on it anyway. Mfield (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 128.208.32.177

    Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a situation where an IP (User:128.208.32.177) is actively edit warring on three pages. The articles in question are Vancouver and Vancouver (disambiguation) (the primary sites), and Vancouver, Washington. It is a content disagreement, wherein the IP has instituted changes that have been opposed by at least four different editors (including myself) who are regular contributors to the first two pages. The IP has repeatedly reverted everyone who disagreed with him and is far past WP:3RR. I have tried to reason with him/her on the IP talk page, and tried to get a self-revert while discussion is under way, but to no avail. Ordinarily, this would be a clear-cut case for a block, but I do not feel comfortable doing so given my involvement. As such, I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes on the matter. (FYI, User:Freshacconci has of his own accord self-reverted after being advised of the 3RR situation, and has also been attempting to deal with the matter including an AN/V report.) --Ckatzchatspy 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-02-09T15:01:21 Toddst1 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 128.208.32.177 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dingaww reported by TRTX (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [91]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

    While there has not been a fourth revert, I am suspicious of the timing of this situation comparred to what I saw in the article's history while reverting these edits.

    After being relatively stable for more than week, an anon IP began making a number of edits to the article. Beginning here. These edits were reverted by a different editor. However, the IP user returned on more than one occasion to attempt and restore the reverted content: here, here, and here. User Masem did warn the IP user here regarding a possible 3RR violation. I am not sure if any formal report was made here.

    What I find suspicious is almost immediately afterward, the user in question begins making the same edits over and over again, with the same MO (changing the section name each time they restore the content. The IP user has a number of edits going back to bfeore this situation, and the actual user has also been around since before this issue occured. But I find the timing highly unusual given the nature of the reversions. -- TRTX T / C 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now up to 4R, and is undoubtedly the anon. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the 4th revert. Also have added a note regarding a post to my talk page made by the user in question. I will be requesting page protection as well. -- TRTX T / C 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phd mit UCLA student reported by User:baxter9 (Result:55 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [97]



    User is removing referenced information from the article. Already warned by admin, no response from user.Baxter9 (talk)

    Assistance Needed

    Hi, an anon at 78.16.200.130 is refactoring my comments questioning the notability of February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall and also refactoring my requests to assume good faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.16.200.130's blanking your warning is seen as an indication that they have read it. Use WP:AIV if he keeps up (although the welcome was strange). I have to agree with him though. What in the world does "In Chicago, 10 inches wouldn't close the schools." have to do with anything? If you think the article's not notable, list it. Comment in the particular discussion, don't be smart. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Dingaww + Anon IP causing chaos in List of Rock Band track packs

    Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dingaww has already been blocked for 48 hrs due to his attempts to edit war regarding the unsourced addition of a 3rd track pack which they claim exists due to their work with EA. This content was added previously by an anon-IP until they were warned regarding 3RR. This lead to the user in question getting blocked for the 3RR violation, which has lead to a new anon-IP restoring the content. I can tell from the post to my talk page this user has no intent to stop. The page needs to be protected in a hurry! -- TRTX T / C 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please use that if appropriate. The warring has stopped and I'm watching the page. If it continues, I'll suggest protection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dynablaster reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 55hr)


    • Previous version reverted to: These are complex revert - a diff will be provided for each version.


    • 1st revert: [110] - removes category, and reverts this edit
    • 2nd revert: [111] removes numerous footnotes, reverts this edit
    • 3rd revert: [112] removes same footnotes as above
    • 4th revert: [113], ditto,


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


    • Previous version reverted to: [115]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [123]


    User:Hindutashravi reported by Voidvector (talk) (Result: warned)

    Aksai Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hindutashravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 12:47, 6 February 2009 (edit summary: "POV edit? How? Specify in talk page and come to a consensus.It is the previous edit which is a POV edit and offensive to India where the area legally is!")
    2. 13:28, 7 February 2009 (edit summary: "Discuss the article in talk page not in edit summary and come to a consensus")
    3. 16:43, 7 February 2009 (edit summary: "Replied to To User: Voidvector discuss and come to a consensus in Talk page before reverting to POV edit")
    4. 09:51, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "POV content has no place on wikipedia, please get consensus before introducing content that might be POV")
    5. 17:18, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv to last NPOV version of AwOc and added new external link")
    6. 12:27, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "(rv to last NPOV version of AwOc with added new external link and further added historic maps")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Myself was involved in the revert war. However, I have since stopped after my 3rd revert. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has continued the revert battle with another editor. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has not participated on the talk page discussion for number of days even though he/she insists that other editors do so before changing his/her edit. —Voidvector (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *I* was involved in the revert war. However, I can't see this as block-suitable; inspection makes me think that you and F&F are in the right, but only you two are reverting H. I'd suggest WP:DR, possibly an article RFC, if this is ongoing William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carl.bunderson reported by spin (control) (result: 24h)

    User insists on removing a comparative table from this page Nativity of Jesus

    and the section removed each time Nativity of Jesus#The narratives compared

    He has done so here:

    1. [124] Revision as of 18:47, 10 February 2009
    2. [125] Revision as of 07:51, 10 February 2009
    3. [126] Revision as of 05:44, 10 February 2009
    4. [127] Revision as of 19:34, 5 February 2009
    5. [128] Revision as of 05:08, 25 January 2009
    6. [129] Revision as of 07:14, 14 January 2009



    The user refuses to enter into a dialog as to how the section can be improved, despite repeated requests for suggestions. He started claiming "novel synthesis" but could not justify the claim. He then started claiming because another poster showed some agreement that he had consensus on the issue!

    The only thing I really know is that he doesn't like the material for some reason and wants to get rid of it through any means he can. --spin (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defence, please note that I view Spin's edits as vandalism; he refuses to acknowledge that no-one supports his addition of this section. Moreover, to see the kind of editor he is, look at his edit summaries. He has had little concept of civility and decency in his interactions with me, as well as with others. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On a first look, its clear that you (S) have at least 3R in the last 24h. Since you clearly consider that a blockable offense - or you wouldn't have reported CB for it - I'm blocking you for it. Will now consider CB William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Thought about it. Don't feel any great urge to block in the name of "balance". Will warn and encourage DR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    205.248.102.81 reported by PRODUCER (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [131]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [134]

    This IP (probably User:Onyxig) refuses to give good and valid arguments as to why to keep the info in Serbophobia. I've historically had problems with this user see Talk:Republika_Srpska#History. He constantly fails to provide valid arguments and insists its my duty to provide sources to information that he or another user adds. PRODUCER (TALK) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say I'm impressed. You think having 2R is enough for a block? Well, you have 3. So obviously, you think you should be blocked (see above). And I agree with you. Will consider the anon William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DanTD reported by 75.47.147.2 (Result: 24h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [135]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [141]

    User contines to revert legitimate edits with invaild reason and violates the WP:MOS, improperly accuses me of a vandal and also incivility. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I received the warning, and since this user has nothing more than an anonymous IP with no talk page, I'm going to address the issue here, as well as the page this user is editing. First, he/she keeps using ELG to justify these edits, But unless ELG restricts state borders and time zones, there is no reason to get rid of them. Second, if there's no established town where I-10 runs through Nassau County(where no interchanges can be found), then the column that reads "No Exits in this county" should span to the county column itself. Otherwise it's a waste of space. The only thing acceptable about this users edits are the reformatting of partial interchanges. ----DanTD (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    STOP SCREWING UP THIS GODDAMN EXIT LIST! is considered a personal attack and its not very nice and you may be blocked for disruption. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just fixed the article name. I was wondering what you were complaining about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like both sides are edit warring. Note to whoever takes care of this: 75.47.x.x has a history of IP-hopping, so a range block would probably be in order. --NE2 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, apparently this user is doing a lot of IP-hopping. To the user complaining, anybody could have your IP, so technically this isn't a personal attack. I've been dealing with plenty of Anoymous IP's who damage exit lists, most notably in and around South Carolina. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h each. Will have to look at ranges, sigh. DanTD warned re PA William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I got the range block. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nategreene11 reported by Will Beback (Result: 24h)

    Steve King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nategreene11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


    1. 21:34, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */")
    2. 15:25, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "All added information is sourced and accurate.")
    3. 18:51, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "This is an encyclopedia - all information is accurate and sourced.")
    4. 19:53, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Once again - all information is accurate and balanced.")


    1. 22:30, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Remarks about Barack Obama */")
    2. 21:07, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Added relevant quote from Obama about his own middle name.")
    3. 22:03, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Put relevant Obama quote back in for the third time. The reader should get both sides - this quote gives neutrality to the page.")
    • Diff of warning: here (actually a second warning).

    There have been multiple reverts of other edits too, but these are the easiest to list.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem (proposed result: SeP?)

    Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please take a look at my interaction with user:Glkanter at talk:Monty Hall problem, starting at about talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection (apologies for the length of the thread, but I've been really trying to help him understand both the problem itself and Wikipedia's policies)? To some extent this is a content dispute being worked out on the talk page (so far, so good), but he has lately escalated into what seems to me to be nothing more than disruptive editing, metaphorically simply putting his hands over his ears and shouting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right". Fair warning - the content dispute is about a notoriously contentious point involving the difference between conditional and unconditional probability as it pertains to the Monty Hall problem. A behavior warning from an uninvolved admin might help. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I must be missing the point but: I can't see any edit warring, just a long tedious discussion. Since it seems to bear no relation to changes on the page itself, why don't you just stop talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this at ANI, not here, since it is disruptive editing, not edit warring. There's a cadre of folks wanting to "dumb down" (my terminology, not theirs) the existing article. The discussion is actually a proposal to delete major sections of the article, which seems to warrant a response. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take great exception to Rick's characterization of my postings. There is nothing in my postings that is as he describes above. In fact, the "I'm right, I'm right" comment is just projection on his part. He has been defending this Article for over 4 years now. There are 7 pages of archives, thousands of postings. Clearly, something is wrong with the article. And Wikipedia needs to become part of a solution. I only became interested in late October. So yes, there is a problem there. But I am not it. And the section titled 'Glkanter's objection' was not created by me. It was created by Rick. I would request you read the section I did create, titled 'Conventional Wisdom'. It is there that I describe my desire for some closure to this long running fiasco. I welcome your input.
    Glkanter (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    William Connolley, I see you are a mathematician. Your input would especially be appreciated. Believe it or not, I have made roughly 75 postings making the case for the deletions based on a simple Probability proof. Curiously, Rick refers above to a 'cadre of folks' who more or less suggest the same changes. Those opposed? Rick. And a couple of new gadflys. That's how it's gone for the past 4 years. By the why, what is SeP?
    Glkanter (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurzon reported by User:Mafia Expert (result: bozos)

    I am afraid an edit war is getting out of hand in the Mafia article. User:Kurzon is constantly removing properly referenced sections under the pretext of improving the article. I am reverting errors, move sections where I think Kurzon has a point and keeping useful additions. However, Kurzon is now reverting every change. I think the best thing to do is to revert the article to its most complete version [142] and then block it for a while, until editors have cooled down (including me). - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for goodness sake, you've *both* massively broken 3RR. What was so urgent about your reverts? Luckily for you I'm bored with blocking people for tonight, so hopefully someone else will come up with a more amusing solution William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User 68.56.81.128 / Article Shamu

    [[User:|]] reported by [[User:|]] (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [147]
    SWF Trainer (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=269935328"