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 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 17 January 2009 (→EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:10, 17 January 2009 by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk | contribs) (→EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: ))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    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)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Reports

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


    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Will not discuss civilly or respond to evidence that his idiosyncratic edits are improper. Appears to be POV-pushing a separatist agenda. Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#.22Indian.22
    • Has started edit-warring at Adi Shankara, , without explaining deletions.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    SotosfromGreece reported by Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (Result: Incomplete report)

    I am not sure I am going at it just the right way, but I've been having some problems with this user which seems to insist on inserting material that is inconsistent with WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. I have brought the issue up with WP:RSN (diff ) and my position is inline with consensus. He has been approached by a third party () but chose to clean up his talk page instead. He has reinserted material sourced to elore.com and other random websites, even though this has been defined as unreliable. I don't know if I am doing something wrong myself, or should this person be notified for edit warring? He has made some disturbing allegations in my talk page and has tried to file me to WP:AIAV. Thanks for notifying me as for the proper proceedings.

    --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Comment - If you are not familiar with how WP:Dispute resolution works, it might be better to take this issue to WP:Editor assistance/Requests. The other guy does appear disputatious but you don't have a well-organized case for your own view yet. Somehow you need to bring in other editors and convince them.This is not quite an edit war by our definition. EdJohnston (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Tales23 reported by Novangelis (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    I posted proven facts or multiplication and division based on the tool bones calendar sticks from 20000 and 35000 BC. Above in the Logic Nature category there is listed mathematical logic. --Tales23 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Novangelis (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    7th revert, 8th revert, 9th revert Novangelis (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Dear Novangelis you started this discussion here, why do you still just revert? Face the Facts! --Tales23 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    Please if you have doubts read this http://etopia.sintlucas.be/3.14/Ishango_meeting/Mathematics_Africa.pdf --Tales23 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:206.228.222.39 reported by User:Smallbones (Result: 31h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    Plus he has reverted me twice and user UnitedStatesian twice, all in about 1/2 an hour


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Gave a non 3rr warning, which followed a non3RR warning by another user. Will give a formal 3rr warning now.

    Smallbones (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    2009-01-14T22:06:07 Hiberniantears (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 206.228.222.39 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Costho reported by Skomorokh (Result: 24 hours )

    Some reverts by this user to the article in the past two days:

    1. 02:03, 13 January 2009 (edit summary: "libertarianism is synonym for anarchism. never heard of libertarian socialism as distinguished from state socialism?")
    2. 05:38, 13 January 2009 (edit summary: "there is not consensus either way")
    3. 17:40, 13 January 2009 (edit summary: "obviously there is not conensus by the fact that I'm putting it back in. If you want to COME to a consensus you need to have more substantial arguments than that.")
    4. 16:36, 14 January 2009 (edit summary: "libertarianism is often used synonym")
    5. 23:21, 14 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 264125177 by Koroesu (talk) there is the option to discuss while it's there, as well.")
    6. 23:46, 14 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 264146119 by Maziotis (talk) no policy says something has to be out of an article while it's being discussed")

    Four different editors besides myself have tried to restore the article during this period (an RfC on the content dispute is ongoing), and only Costho has reverted it back during this time. Skomorokh 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    So then why aren't you and those four editors edit warring too, for taking out what I put in the article? Don't insult the intelligence of the administrators. Costho (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    I insult no-one's intelligence. I've offered what I think constitutes evidence of you violation 3RR; the administrators are free to judge whether or not my assessment is correct. You are free to report me and our colleagues at Anarchism if you feel we have been edit-warring in a manner that requires administrator intervention. Regards, Skomorokh 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    Why would I "report" you? I'm not that petty. You have a right to make changes to the article just as I have a right to. You just don't like what I put in the article, even thought it's well sourced, and now you're trying to pull some scam. Costho (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    We don't have rights; editing is a privilege granted by the Wikimedia Foundation who empower administrators to withdraw it when it is being abused. 3RR is there among other reasons to stop never-ending edit-wars such as the one at Anarchism. If you think it's a "scam" you should have seen the encyclopaedia before it was introduced. Skomorokh 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your majoritarian scam. You're trying to make it look like I'm the only one that supports the material being in the article. Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. Also the implicit assumption is that the majority is not edit warring, just by the fact that they're in the majority, but the minority is edut warring by the fact that they're in the minority. No one has to abide by the majority. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and I'm sure the adminstrators are aware of that, as explained at Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not Costho (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    PeeJay2K3 reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: reporter blocked )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    • information Administrator note It appears that PeeJay reverted himself upon receiving the warning, as such I am going to hope that cool heads prevail and you both take this issue to the articles talk page. Any more edit warring though, will result in a block. Tiptoety 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Amy Fisher reported by Wuhwuzdat (Result: 12h to reporter)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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



    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User Fisher ( AKA "The Long Island Lolita" ) has OBVIOUS COI issues with this article, and insists on having it her way, despite multiple COI and AUTOBIOGRAPHY warnings. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    You also reverted five times, and there may be mild BLP issues here (as there generally are with mugshots). I'm not sure if there are here, since she's most famous for the action she was arrested for, but you're certainly not blameless. --NE2 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'll stand by my actions, and state that all my edits to this article were for the purpose of correcting COI issues, as stated in my 1st edit summary. If I get punished for that, so be it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    "Correcting" CoI issues isn't one of the exceptions to 3RR...just for future reference. --Onorem♠Dil 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    Regardless, I stand by my actions, as being in the greater interest of Misplaced Pages. Ms Fisher, on the other hand, seems to have signed out, and continued to edit this article as an IP user. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    Edit warriors always think they're "in the greater interest of Misplaced Pages" --NE2 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    FYI WP:AN#Amy Fisher.--Tznkai (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    IMO Wuhwuzdat deserves a trout slap for not discussing the matter on either the talk page or Amy Fisher's userpage, beside using CAPS and templated messages. Seriously. This is not helping the project, and that's how we end with angry emails to OTRS and bad PR. -- lucasbfr 08:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oh good grief. W slapped with a 12h trout. AF warned. Look, this is silly. AF is a noob. She has clear COI issues on the article, but so what? What was so urgent about this that you needed to break 3RR? Answer, nothing. Raise it on COI and let them send her a polite warning instead of spamming her page. Argh William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Cheers, I didn't dare doing it :) -- lucasbfr 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Ibaranoff24 reported by Landon1980 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There is a thread on ANI regarding this user as well, but mainly for different issues i.e. personal attacks, harassment, etc. Amongst these things he has now violated 3RR despite numerous warnings not to do so. This has been going on for days now and he reverts anyone that touches the article, the sources he is disputing have all been found reliable at the RS noticeboard. Despite this he continues to edit war with several different editors. These are just the reverts within 24 hours, and I can supply several more if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Bytebear reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

    Media Matters for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bytebear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:50, 15 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 264305856 by Gamaliel (talk) Reverting POV edit which censors FACT. Dont sugar coat facts, please.")
    2. 22:07, 15 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 264322966 by Gamaliel (talk) See talk.")
    3. 22:22, 15 January 2009 (edit summary: "yes, you liberals will probably ban me for 3Rs but wikipedia does not accept euphemisms above facts.")
    4. 23:35, 15 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 264354587 by Blaxthos (talk) Did you even look at the changes. stop removing facts")

    Diff of 3RR warning. Croctotheface (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Note that Bytebear is an established user who is clearly aware of the 3RR (see his edit summary above). Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Vitorvicentevalente reported by Amalthea (Result: 24 hours)




    I've tried to explain to the user in detail why his changes can't be accepted on his talk page, and referred to it in my edit summary. Other users, like User:Acalamari and User:JYi also referred to it in their respective reversions of Vitorvicentevalente's changes. Acalamari explicitly asked the user to explain his reverts on the talk page.
    His replies to it were unsatisfactory, and he keeps undoing nonetheless, and in the process re-inserts errors to the article, as well as unverifiable and non-noteworthy rumors. --Amalthea 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    User: 96.239.140.104 reported by User:Mervyn Emrys (Result: Incomplete report)

    Request immediate block and reversion of following articles to version of yesterday's date before this user began destroying them: Morris Dees, Sierra Club (section on immigration controvery and affiliated groups), Southern Poverty Law Center, and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). User has repeatedly removed sourced material with reliable references frompublished sources from each article and reverts my reverts. Has no user page and no talk page, but makes nasty remarks in edit summaries. Appears to be concerned nothing critical is said about FAIR or its founder, John Tanton, and nothing favorable is said about Dees or SPLC, even if sourced. I haven't mastered how to make diffs yet or I would provide them, but all this has taken place within the past 48 hours. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    And I am requesting reversion of said articles back to their state before any edits to them were made by User:Mervyn Emrys and User:Dr. Perfessor (the same person), which is when those articles were NPOV and stable before the above person started inserting heavily slanted, inflammatory and biased narratives into them. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    I concur with this last (counter-)request. Said articles were stable and balanced before the recent editing, editing which multiple Misplaced Pages users have unanimously assessed as being overtly slanted and in violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificus (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Why does the comment above have no signature? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Harshray reported by Roadahead (Result: sock blocked 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Could be operating several sockpuppets as well, checkuser results show this as "likely" that the Harshray, Chellaney and IPs are the same person. --Roadahead ★ 05:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Indef blocked as probably sock; would have been 24h for 3RR otherwise. If the C account misbehaves, it should get the 24h 3RR block, by that logic William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    He says he's not a sock; so 24h instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: merge restored)

    • Previous version reverted to:
      Some content added, but the point is it's being restored from a redirect.
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Comment: Per this AfD, the Code Lyoko characters were merged. Jeremie is trying to restore those pages. The content he restores them with is not significantly different from the original nor does it satisfy any of the concerns of the AfD. He has been told this repeatedly by me and several other editors yet continues on. It;s getting tiresome. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    I've restored and locked the merge. JB: don't recreate any more of these without getting agreement first. Definitely don't edit war over them William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Rick Norwood reported by Tales23 (Result: 12h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Comment: Are you sure you have the right editor? Rick Norwood appears to have only made one edit to this article in the past two days. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    He states: History of logic: Remove material that is clearly off topic, but which may belong under either "number" or "calendar".
    But when you see the history of logic section, it starts with "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A" so but now in 35000 they got this already 10 + 1, 10 − 1, 20 + 1 and 20 − 1, so in the respect of Mathematical Logic, and in particular the History, How did humans start to think logic - woman tracking menstrual cycles with lunar phases using a device the bone tools. This had a lot of logic applied! At least contributed here and therfor it has its place in History. --Tales23 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Which doesn't mean he's edit warring. You seem to be coming off of a block for edit warring, by the way. I hope you're not reporting anyone who reverts you just to make a point. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    No i dont report anyone, especialy Novangelis as he started with reporting me and is not accepting legit references. --Tales23 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    False. You've reported Novagelis on three different articles above, and you seemed to be keeping a hitlist of editors on your talk page that disagreed with you while you were blocked. I think it's best an admin take a look at this. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    Daywalker we are on the admin page and to understand the matter you would need to see that they didnt disagreed with my references, accept for Novangelis on the topic Meteorit as the Origin of Life. Furthermore your argument is Off Topic. --Tales23 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    24h for disruption, edit warring, and probably 3RR though I haven't checked that last carefully. I removed the other spammed 3RR reports, if you're wondering where they went to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I see Ed blocked him for 24 already for the 3RR. Sorry. OK, 12h for the AN3 spam instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


    Khalsaburg reported by Roadahead (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: So many articles and reverts, please my logs on this articles talkpage


    Diffs for reverts at article "Akhand Kirtani Jatha"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Vegetarianism in Sikhism"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Sikh practices"

    Diffs for reverts at article "Langar"


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    I feel that this editors is not doing the reverts in good faith or in misunderstanding. The editor seems to be aware of Misplaced Pages policies and so is indulging in wasting others time by appealing to spite on user talkpages. --Roadahead ★ 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Definitely not 3RR; far too slow. Maybe you want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Baseball Bugs reported by User:Tanninglamp (Result: IP address blocked)

    This user is a repeated violator of the revert rule and edit warring concerning the Rick Reilly article. He has not participated in any discussion or given any legitimate reasoning for his constant deleting of a respectable news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    It doesn't look like Baseball Bugs violated 3RR on Rick Reilly. It does look like you're evading your block.
    Previous AN/EW discussion for any interested. --Onorem♠Dil 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    ANd he hasn't participating in an edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) How am supposed to make a report if I keep getting blocked for what I can see is an issue created wholly by Baseball Bugs. Why don't you show a real neutral eye and use the appropriate wording on the Rick Reilly article which Baseball Bugs won't let there be one critical word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    A few more related discussions about Tanninglamp. --Onorem♠Dil 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    We're done here. IP address blocked for block evasion. seicer | talk | contribs 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


    Anonymous IP user reported by GeezerBird (Result: no vio)

    • User: Anonymous IP user, either begin 91.109.- or 91.111.-

    The articles are connected in that Alan Harvey runs the Springbok Club and used to be in Swinton Circle till he was chucked out. I would guess that the Anonymous IP user is Alan Harvey

    Alan Harvey article:

    • Previous version reverted to:

    As can be seen it is unsourced and a seemingly self-written piece

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

    Springbok Club article

    • Previous version reverted to:

    As can be seen it is unsourced and more or less a self-written advert for his group

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

    (prior to this there were other variations)

    Swinton Circle article

    • Previous version reverted to:

    This is slightly different in that he accepts most of the article but attacks certain material which relates either to him or his position. I gather from the he was expelled from this group but he denies it

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

    (there are further variations beyond this)

    It does not seem possible to give a Diff of 3RR warning as the IP address is not exactly the same each time?

    My apologies if this is not the correct way of going about this, I am new to this, but this seems a clear case of Edit warring as "a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time". Thanks. --GeezerBird (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    Too slow, sorry. None of these articles have even *one* revert by the anon in the last 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    77.221.10.65 reported by ] (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:


    User:RafaelRGarcia reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: 12 hours each to User:RafaelRGarcia and User:Simon Dodd)

    Page: Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User: RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)

    Please see related complaints at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarence_Thomas_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence_Thomas

    Misplaced Pages:3RR provides that "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."

    • 1st revert: (00:04, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264558124)
    • 2nd revert: (00:07, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264556386)
    • 3rd revert: (00:08, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264555848
    • 4th revert: (03:04, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264579583)
    • 5th revert: (03:35, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264601171)

    That's five reverts in three and a half hours - how can this not violate the prohibition on three or more reverts in any 24 hour period? Note that two of these reverts were in bad faith, following a good faith request for medcab.

    (05:02, 17 January 2009)] Simon Dodd (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    (05:21, 17 January 2009). Hole getting deeper.]Simon Dodd(talk) 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    (05:32, 17 January 2009). Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    (05:53, 17 January 2009). RafaelRGarcia in flagrant and continuing violation of 3rr.]Simon Dodd (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    You continue to edit the article, changing what was there, then claim I'm the one reverting? Hah. Furthermore, "says" and "writes" are NPOV; "asserts" and "claims" are not. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Here are four more from you. You're basically counting every edit I make as a "revert," when the same could be said of you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264614559
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264613917
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    I was the one who suggested that we get medcab involved; you were the one who insisted on continuing to spar over the wording. After your bad faith refusal to await the results of mediation, I saw little point in a self-imposed exile from improving the article. The edits of yours that I am counting as reverts are those edits that are reverts. None of the links you provide above are reverts: they are changes (although they do aptly demonstrate your inflexibility and insistence on wikipedia:Ownership of the article.)Simon Dodd (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    They are all reverts; they're all to exactly the same section we had been arguing about today. If your edits are just "changes," then so are mine. You "suggested" we get medcab involved, but then you kept editing, and you requested page protection and reversion to your preferred version. Nothing but bad faith abuse over some differences of opinion that could've been kept to a talk page. Cite your claims next time, and stop adding your own speculation to articles. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    You offer merely further demonstration of your bad faith:
    • You reverted, changing the text from what I had back to what you had had it before. I changed, proposing alterations and text that was different to one extent or another to what either you or I had previous used.
    • I requested page protect only after you continued to edit war following submission of the issue to medcab, and I returned to editing only after you had refused to desist yourself.
    • And, once again, you simply repeat the very accusations that were submitted to medcab.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    Please stop changing the article lead. Please stop trying to take some moral high ground here; it doesn't exist. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    Removing your uncited assertion is not a revert. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    COMMENT:Actually, it's exactly edit warring, which is what this board is for. I'd advise both of you to stop and wait for an admin to sort through this. Any further arguments you guys get into after posting this case here won't be looked upon kindly. Please remain calm while an admin figures out what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    Us both stepping back was exactly what I suggested when I filed a request to MedCab, and that the other fellow rejected by continuing to edit war; it was also implicit in my filing a page protect request, and the other fellow has disputed that, too, continuing to edit war even after that (he has also continued to edit war and revert even after this report, as you can see in updates above; he is now on his eighth - fifth by his own preferred counting system - revert in 12 hours, let alone 3 reverts in 24). As one party to an edit war, I tried to "end it now. e the first one to go to talk, ask for protection." What I got was a whole bunch of bad faith on the part of the other party, as you can see. I'd love an admin to figure out what's going on, but there don't seem to be any around.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


    Response: A brief review of Dodd's edit history will reveal that he has also broken 3RR. Best to wait for MedCab and such. Dodd has repeatedly ignored my requests to add citations to his uncited assertions and original research. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Among other edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264600642

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264590092

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583

    I have performed two reverts on Clarence Thomas today, and one (arguably two) on Anthony Kennedy. Explain how you think I have "also broken 3RR." Another baseless, scurrilous accusation on your part. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    3RR does not mean you get 3 reverts per article, and you're not entitled to three reverts. Arguably, three of my reverts were just one roll back, because you made your edits in multiple, unbroken sequences. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


    Rafael, this is verging on the comical. 3rr prohibits a user from "perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" (emphasis added); how can you be a law student and exhibit such astonishingly poor reading comprehension and imprecise thinking again and again?Simon Dodd (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    This user has now called me a "prick." http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264609416 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    In addition to breaking 3RR, you are also breaking the spirit of the rule, by continually reverting, or, in effect reverting, my edits.

    These and other edits were revertions or undoings of my own:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264558124

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264555848

    RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


    In addition, I have not gone above 3 reverts: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    COMMENT: Since this page has a backlog, I've opened up a case at ANI about this in hopes of settling this matter quickly and ending an edit war. Since this page isn't really for discussions and arguments, I suggest you two take your comments over there. Dayewalker (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Reviewed. You guys both need to take a break from editing Clarence Thomas. What has gone on over the past several hours on the article was not productive in the least. This should have gone to the talk page as opposed to multiple reversions or reversion-equivalents. I'm probably the most lenient 3RR reviewer, but I think both of you warrant 12 hour blocks for breaking 3RR; I'm also protecting the article for 5 days to encourage discussion on the talk page when you return. -- Samir 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


    Cali567 reported by 76.174.124.198 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: )

    Hi. This is not a direct violation of 3RR, but an "in spirit" violation given that the user recently came off a ban on a couple of days ago.

    • Previous version reverted to:

    EuroHistoryTeacher has returned from his prior 24 ban over reverting the map and is engaging in exactly the same behaviour.

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

    Per the previous report, the user was both warned and acknowledged the 3RR rule.

    This user has an ongoing problem of making unreferenced edits. Some more disruptive behaviour at War of Jenkins' Ear: where he is removing a referenced statement. It's been like this for the last 4 months now.

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

    Categories: