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 SineBot (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 3 April 2009 (Signing comment by 121.166.74.91 - "mkil problem again"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:35, 3 April 2009 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 121.166.74.91 - "mkil problem again")(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.


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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


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


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • All reverts

    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    TheRedPenOfDoom reported by 70.108.118.234 (Result: 24h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Warning :
    Andrea Anders (actress) 3rr warning
    Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in


    Add any other comments and sign your name here -->

    stalker redpen has been stalking me since 22Mar. For this encounter, redpen stalked me to Andrea Anders. My edits are those attributed to User_talk:70.108.102.252 & Special:Contributions/70.108.102.252...my ip changed). I simply corrected The Class to The Class (TV series) & redpen reverted saying wpblp , yet I added no bio info! I then decided to add sources 4 the info that was already in the article that I didnt add but still redpen reverted.
    If you will please take the time you'll see that redpen is following me throughout wiki & reverting all my edits. Please intervene. Thanks. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, that was wearily predictable. RP also counselled to caution in reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Y is redpen only counseled but earlier this week I was blocked? 70.108.118.234 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    william you said TheRedPenOfDoom would be blocked for 24hours but I still see editing. 173.79.59.36 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    No... I said someone was blocked, but it was the anon, not RP William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    will: U didnt make this clear. The format of this page has the result indicating a block of the person reported on. Your bias continues to show. Did u look @ the edits? Had u done so you woulda seen there was no wpblp violated by me. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:InternetReader2 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)


    Changes in one or two words in the title of the added section don't seem significant. He's been told it's irrelevant to the article, both on his talk page, and on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    I've reverted 3 times already. Would someone please help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    OOPS, make that 4. I reverted numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7. However, he should already have been blocked by now. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    User blocked as sock puppet/evading blocks by another admin. Nja 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Cannibaloki reported by User:68.3.67.25 (Result: Warned)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    User:Cannibaloki placed a PROD on article 2 in 1 AFTER it survived an AfD. I deproded article, but user:Cannibaloki place back the PROD 3 times. Discussion is on my talk page 68.3.67.25 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    User was unclear of PROD template procedures, which has now been explained to them on their talk page. Nja 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Global warming

    Raul654 reported by Chuck Marean (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: link
    • First revert: link seem to be simply in support of this TW revert link.

    my paragraph was so good I feel like I'm being ganged up against by accounts trying to get me to revert three times. Maybe I'm wrong, but saying the scientist is not a climatologist makes me feel they probably did not read the paragraph I wrote.

    Discussion

    Result

    This is not a violation of the three revert rule. Please discuss issues with other editors on the article's talk page and consider dispute resolution if needed. Nja 08:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:71.127.142.120 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Warn)

    In Pizzle:
    1. 08:05, 29 March 2009
    2. 22:57, 29 March 2009
    3. 01:35, 30 March 2009
    4. 01:42, 30 March 2009
    5. 01:49, 30 March 2009
    6. 02:09, 30 March 2009
    In User talk:Ronz:
    1. 01:56, 30 March 2009
    2. 2:13, 30 March 2009
    3. 02:23, 30 March 2009
    4. 02:48, 30 March 2009

    I think we can get the problems with Pizzle under control, but I'd like him to stop with the edit-warring on my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Please take a look at for edit warring in this article as he has made 9 edits in the last 48 hours to the pizzle page ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    IP has now been warned of proper procedure on their talk page. Nja 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result:no action)

    Discussion

    Hello, I would like to ask for administrator intervention in this ongoing edit war. I have provided information to this user (Unionsoap) regarding the subject of this page, and it continually is being reverted to a version which uses only unverified and unsubstantiated sources (such as wordpress weblogs, blogspot weblogs, personal Web sites, and press release style information.) In addition, the only verified notability that this individual has is as the author of two books, and the version which I (and another administrator) revert to includes only that information. In addition, some areas of this (brief) entry are just plain wrong; this individual was never a model (as the public directories and agencies lack an entry for her) and her place of origin (San Francisco South Bay) is not an actual place. I think this must be some sort of fan but I don't think Wiki is a fan site.

    May I ask that the version that excludes the weblog (unverified) information be re-instated, which was the version by the administrator, and that the version be "locked" against future edits? Perhaps this could all just sort of die down if it were locked on a version that includes only verified information.

    May I also ask that this article be considered for deletion? Other than the books, which were published by a vanity press, this person's only claim to fame appears to be as the girlfriend of a German princeling.

    Thank you kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs)

    Result

    This section is to be edited onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=49 Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section) - Misplaced Pages, the 💕ly by the administrator processing this report.

    User:Berig reported by User:Spinach Monster (Result: 12 hours for reporter)

    On Cimbrian language. Began with incivility on my page, he escalated it with canvassing tactics. Trying to talk to this user has proven to be a waste of time, the arrogance is palpable. His edits go against facts found in Cimbri, Sulla and at least half a dozen other articles from the late Roman Republic.

    If he continues, I will have to start an RFC. He's committed 3RR today. Here are the diffs.

    Spinach Monster (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    I'm just reverting OR by Spinach Monster, who clearly has misunderstood the 3RR rule.--Berig (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    I have informed Berig. Also please note that such behavior is not appropriate from any user, let alone an administrator, which Berig happens to be. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    OR and vandalism must be reverted on sight, SP.--Berig (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Berig's understanding of original research is as incorrect as his understanding of 3RR considering the amount of articles that disagree with his opinion. I am putting a disputed tag on the article now due to the intransigence here. I will start the RFC the next time I get a chance. If an admin could please assist in restraining Berig until then. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Spinach Monster, let me get this straight, Berig reverts you three times, you revert three times, and you're expecting us to block Berig or something? Please use the talk page and don't use this board to forum shop. And Berig, I know it was probably a mistake, but using rollback like this sets a bad example. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right Deacon. I should have used the undo function and left a message in the edit summary (as I did the last time I reverted him).--Berig (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Goodness me, Spinach monster thought it would be a good idea after making this report to be the only one to violate WP:3RR. I've given him 12 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Why Bering wont to bring factual data. Is it so hard to read. It appears some here can count up to 3. Can you count the missing X centuries? read section {ref} in Cimbri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.246.31 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Bosonic dressing reported by Anon (no action)

    I previously made a suggestion to User:The Ogre regarding the Latin America page, and they gave their support for it. It was put into the article, but then User:Bosonic dressing reverted, again, and again, and again, and again. In this edit, the user claimed they would continue to edit war until they had "agreed" to the edits. I agree that I am one edit over the limit, but this user has reverted 5 times, and I have stopped reverting, and instead took it here.

    A look at his talk page before he last blanked it reveals no less than 5 previous warnings for various things, yet going back further one can see even more that have been blanked .

    It appears that all in all this user's stay here on wikipedia has been far from non-disruptive, and a break may be neccessary to give them time to learn the rules. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    No violation This board is for 3RR violations or serious edit-warring, not forum-shopping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    There is a 3RR violation. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Nope, not unless the Earth day is now the length of the Martian one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps you didn't read it all the way through. The user made an explicit threat to continue to edit war until he agreed with the article. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    122.55.152.184 reported by Blueboar (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Yet other reverts: , and

    Also clearly sockpuppeting under a different IP:116.50.233.2 (see: )

    Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    The .184 IP has been blocked, and the article has been s-protected in case he/she shows up using a different IP. AKRadecki 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked for 31 hours by User:Akradecki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    12.110.131.82 reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Fifth revert:

    KuyaBriBri 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    78.148.201.138 reported by O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Diff of WP:3RR warning: Editor previously blocked for making this edit, along with many other IPs in the page's recent history

    Editor is a single purpose account only interested in removing the term "British Isles" based on nothing more than their own opinion, ignoring what sources say and having no interest in any consensus that includes the term. Editor has previously been blocked for edit warring over this, evaded the block, continued to edit war, page protected to prevent further block evasion, then as soon as the protection wears off it is back to square one. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Peterlewis reported by Nja247 (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:


    Discussion

    I'm an involved admin, who

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Going with WP:DUCK on the IP. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User Talk:Africaepbr reported by User:Usrnme h8er (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    This is a pretty clear case of editwar, as of this posting I've done my 3rd revert of a massive change and will do no more. The user in question has done no less than 8 reverts against 3 other editors. ] (talk · contribs) 19:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Jonny1123 reported by Cool Hand Luke (Result: 48h)

    • Disruptive editing on

    Zeitgeist, the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jonny1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    SPA first adds section about www.thezeitgeistmovement.com:

    1. 00:10, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "")

    Then edit wars to maintain the section:

    1. 16:23, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280352222 by Skipsievert (talk)")
    2. 17:37, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "The social movement is a critical part of the Zeitgeist project and it need to be noted. it is not a "fan site"")

    And then edit wars to maintain links to the site, which he added:

    1. 15:27, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280543152 by Big Bird (talk) Very relevent to the project. keep links")
    2. 15:27, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280543152 by Big Bird (talk) Very relevent to the project. keep links")
    3. 17:02, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280661445 by Cool Hand Luke (talk) IT is the Official site of The Zeitgeist movement")
    4. 19:28, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280683385 by Big Bird (talk) CONFLICT OF OPINION")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    PK blocked for 12h but he appears to have come back via an anon so extended to 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Michael H 34 reported by Slp1 (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Parental alienation syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michael H 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Article as last edited on the 27th


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

    1. 13:48, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "step 1") removes negative info about PAS from lead
    2. 19:04, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280680264 by WLU (talk) Restore") reverts to remove the information again
    3. 19:36, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "restoring + NPOV on "self-published" sentence") removes same paragraph again
    4. 19:48, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280712123 by Slp1 (talk) revert - obviously biased lead") reverts to preferred version minus info again
    5. 20:43, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280723039 by WLU (talk) sorry, there is no evidence that one guy has made arguments about PAS inclusion in DSM-V") reverts different material newly added
    6. 21:09, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725633 by WLU (talk) Repetitive and undue weight + Ackerman was referring to "some of the articles" "reviewed by Rand"") More removal of newly added info
    7. 21:17, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Application and criticisms */ PAS is a psychiatric order and is under the purview of the APA; there is no evidence that PAS has been considered by the AMA") Partial revert of this edit that added " and American Medical association"


    This is more complicated because it doesn't not all refer to the same material. If you need more info, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige, if I can. --Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    97.106.54.153 reported by Geoff B (result: semi)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Warning:

    Geoff B (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Addition of POV/OR, personal attacks. Geoff B (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Comment from the IP: "So now you are crying like a baby to the mods. Very pathetic." Geoff B (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    I ran into this edit war between User:97.106.54.153 and User:Geoff B) while on Recent Change Patrol and warned both parties. Pretty much it involves the wording of a single sentence: "Wesker escapes the Mansion's self-destruction, where Lisa is killed." vs "Wesker kills Lisa and escapes the Mansion's self-destruction." Much bad-mouthing involved on the part of User:97.106.54.153, who was belligerant in both his edit summaries and on the user talk pages when other party (User:Geoff B) attempted conversation. Am otherwise uninvolved. --Mukk 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    97.106.54.153 eventually changed his mind about his edit on the other article, leaving the edit summary "On second thought, I'll remove it but I'm still pushing the Trevor part. Geoff is totally anal." Geoff B (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User is also 97.106.45.159, 97.106.44.244, 97.106.48.181, user admits it here, appears to have been handing out level 3 & 4 warnings for first offences. Geoff B (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Oh come one, now you are being ridiculous. That was a LONG time ago. I didn't know that it is forbidden to hand out level 3 & 4 warnings for first offences. You really are trying to do whatever you can to block me indefinitely. Let it go man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.54.153 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Semi-protected for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Geoff B reported by Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (Result: 24h)

    Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoff B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:29, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 16:31, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - OR")
    3. 20:51, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280712208 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
    4. 20:52, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725348 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
    5. 20:54, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725673 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
    6. 20:55, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: ".rv - OR is not allowed on wikipedia")
    7. 20:56, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - original research")
    8. 20:58, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - original research")
    9. 20:59, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - unsourced material can be removed at any times. You cannot provide sources because no sources support your opinion.")
    10. 21:03, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - youtube is not a rleiable source. See WP:RS")
    11. 21:05, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv - original research. I suggest you educate yourself as to what constitutes a reliable source on Misplaced Pages.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This is the other half of the edit war reported first in this report. User:Geoff B and User:97.106.54.153 engaged in a very long edit war, though Geoff B did, admittedly, keep his cool much better than 97.106.54.153. —Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h + article semi for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:DK127 reported by Lucas20 (Result: 24 hours)

    Tried to rm disparaging remarks against living persons, non-neutral comments, conflict of interest, and non-encyclopedic efforts. Concerns with living persons "toolbags" "absolute garbage chest injury" etc. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Malik Shabazz reported by CENSEI (Result: no vios)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert: user did self revert on this
    • Fifth revert: user self reverted on this as well
    • Diff of WP:3RR warning:

    Tried to adequately source a criticism of Jewish Voice for Peace and Malik Shabazz edit warred to keep it out. Even when sourced to an undeniable reliable source, Commentary Magazine, user continued to edit war to keep another critical comment out of the article. Although in violation of 3RR, I don’t think that Malik Shabazz should be blocked. He should, however be warned for his edit warring and his initial refusal to even discuss his edits on the talk page. He has now taken to edit warring to Joshua Muravchik where he is attempting to reinsert an unsourced statement, something he must know is a WP:BLP violation.

    Edit summaries like this are typical of his personal insults and tendentiousness. CENSEI (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Insulting how? By telling you where the information is found? Grsz 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Insulting by the way he used "duh". Come on, we are supposed to adhere to a higher standard of civility, right? And to be uncivil in that particular context, during an onslaught of CENSEI's improper non-neutral POV pushing, it's downright wrong. If they come across so rudely again, why shouldn't they be blocked? I've seen users who were blocked for less rudeness than that, even if they weren't edit-warring. uncivil rudeness + editwar nonneutrality = adding insult to injury. ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    There have been only three reverts at Jewish Voice for Peace, and there is most certainly a source at the end of the sentence at Joshua_Muravchik. — ] (talk · contribs) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    There have been 7 reverts, two of these were you reverting yourself when you realized you crossed the 3RR boundary, but regardless you are still edit warring, and I have asked you several times on the talk page to cease and desist. CENSEI (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe you need to spend a little more time reading Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. ... Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule. — ] (talk · contribs) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    This is more game playing tendentiousness by Censei. He should be ashamed. He knows better. He just chooses to spend all his time here being disruptive. He endlesley inserts unreliable sources (while removing such from articles he likes) to goad people into going "over" their limits (not clear to me if malik did or didn't, and don't care).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if you don’t consider a magazine that has played host to 100's of the most notable individuals from the fields of politics, diplomacy, art, history and literature "non-notable", but others certainly don’t agree. CENSEI (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Of the five diffs cited, only the first three are actual reverts. The next two were quickly self-reverted by Malik Shabazz. Further, the first two out of three were BLP reverts, even if not stated as such. As far as I can tell CENSEI is the primary party edit warring here to insert poorly sourced POV content. I will refrain from commenting or speculating on other administrative reports but this one seems questionable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    No violation CENSEI and Malik are both engaging in edit-warring. Malik went over 3rr twice but reverted himself both times, CENSEI's hugging the line too. Blocks will come if it continues today. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:71.127.142.120 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24 hours)

    Pizzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.127.142.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    NOTE: It appears that the user was previously submitted to WP:AN3 by Ronz (talk · contribs); result from that reporting was "Warn" ... but the edit warring activity continues.

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

    1. 08:05, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280347778 by Ronz (talk) Ronz please stop spamming and vandalizing Wiki! 5 revs...will report!!")
    2. 22:57, 29 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280423509 by Kelapstick (talk) General knowledge like the rest of the article")
    3. 01:35, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280531625 by Ronz (talk) Reversing Vandalism by Ronz")
    4. 01:42, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280548682 by Ronz (talk)")
    5. 01:49, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280550460 by Ronz (talk) Temperature was already mentioned in the previous versions, and is an impt. factor in preparation")
    6. 02:09, 30 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280554150 by Kelapstick (talk) (removed "the sun or ovens" - disruptive editor does not provide citaitons)")
    7. 04:21, 31 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280782165 by Ronz (talk)")
    8. 04:34, 31 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280798374 by Ronz (talk) Please stop Vandalizing pages on wiki Ronz!~ Have sent you repeated warnings!")
    9. 04:52, 31 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 280800667 by Barek (talk)Follow CIVIL and NPA or be ignored until you're finally blocked, please use discussion page")

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Additional revert not listed above in Pizzle:
    1. 04:54, 31 March 2009
    In User talk:Ronz:
    1. 01:56, 30 March 2009
    2. 2:13, 30 March 2009
    3. 02:23, 30 March 2009
    4. 02:48, 30 March 2009
    5. 04:33, 31 March 2009
    6. 04:37, 31 March 2009
    • Additional diffs of WP:3RR warnings:
    1. 02:17, 30 March 2009
    2. 08:14, 30 March 2009
    3. 04:37, 31 March 2009

    I count six new reverts since the previous report, four in Pizzle and two in User talk:Ronz.

    It's also becoming apparent that this ip address is likely being used by the same person also edit-warring on Pizzle: 98.140.14.63 (talk · contribs) who has admitted to being Avrumelmakis1 (talk · contribs). Avrumelmakis1 is the account that started all the edit-warring on Pizzle, and was previously blocked for edit warring in the related article, Bully stick , where he had a conflict of interest with the links he spammed there. --Ronz (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


    Discussion

    The only person edit warring here is Ronz as can be evidenced by looking at the history of the Pizzle page! He has made 14 edits to the page in the last 2 days! Could someone please warn or block him? It appears on his talk page that he is also engaging in edit warring on other pages in Wiki as well. I am just trying to add content to the encyclopedia which makes sense, not spamming, not adding links, nothing but adding content. Additionally, I have been civil in using the discussion page something which is not being done by Ronz at all; please look into this! Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Jamesworthy/User:123.2.149.117 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    The Quinten Hann article has seen large portions of referenced text removed and replaced with unreferenced text. This has occurrred all through March: . The edits were originally carried out by User:Davidmorris666 whose edits are solely limited to the article. After breaking the 3RR on several occasions and being warned, the exact samed edits continued being made by an anonymous user User:123.2.149.117. After warning the anonymous user today, the anonymous user 'stopped' editing and User:Jamesworthy started making the exact same edits. The edits Jamesworthy has made are also limited to the Quinten Hann article and I am positive they are the same person, so am reporting them cumulatively as a 3RR violation. I have tried to negotiate with this person on the talk page but he insists the information is 'wrong' despite the references, and has offered no alternative references to validate his claims. He simply changes the information and excises large chunks of it. I've run out of reverts now so I would appreciate it if the information was restored and the user dealt with. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Annoynmous reported by Tundrabuggy (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Fifth revert:
    • Sixth revert:
    • Seventh revert:
    • Keeps re-adding two removed quotes, one by Zangwill "Palestine proper had already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews." and one by Weizmann "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes and for those there is no value". Annoynmous is not a new editor, he has been editing for over two years, and has been blocked for 3RR violation 4 times before. His talk page is full of warnings from just this month about edit-warring on this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    First off I did not revert more than three times. After I reverted the first time I restructered the article some more and tried to satisfy the other editors demands. The last time I added back the information and made some more changes. We have settled those disputes and I agreed that certain quotes were innapropriate at this time and removed them.
    Plus all the warnings on my talk page were part of attempts by other editors to bully me into going away. Several times the editors falsely accussed me of violating the 3rr when I hadn't.
    Anyway, it doesn't matter, whe have settled the dispute. annoynmous 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I would also like to say that I was trying to make some edits at the same time as hertz. This ended up in an edit conflict. I didn't technically revert him. I simply re-added the material, although in different parts of the page.
    This specific issue with the article is resolved. I'm willing to except a 24 hour block even though I don't feel what I did was technically a revert. annoynmous 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, the dispute is not "resolved" - you've just out-reverted everyone else. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Yes it is. The dispute was not just over the Zangwill and Weizmann quotes. There were several quotes in the article by the author Amos oz which I agreed were innapropriate for the article right now, but the Zangwill and Weizmann quotes are relevant to it. I removed the Oz quotes and kept the others. No one else from the talk page has disputed it. You weren't involved on the talk page so who are you to say the dispute isn't resolved. annoynmous 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I would also like to say that currently I am in dipsute with and editor named Historicist that is seperate from this dispute. It started after the other conflict was resolved. It was over the wording of a quote. Sense that dispute has begun I have made 3 reverts only. annoynmous 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    User:annoynmous has been edit warring on this article for weeks and seems bent on being disruptive and annoying. I'd support a lengthier block than 24 hours because of prior history and that this may be under Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. DVD 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Annoynmous is up to his seventh revert now. Jayjg 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Just because DVD doesn't like me is not sufficient reason to block me. The dispute he's referring to is over. I conceded the point of tags at the top of the article weeks ago. I am currently satisfied with the page as it is. After this I plan on taking a long break from editing. annoynmous 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    Those last 3 reverts were not about the same topic as the one above. They are about a dispute with Historicist about how to word a quote. annoynmous 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Annoynmous and Historicist were both edit-warring, but Annoynmous (who's been blocked before for such things and knows) has six clear reverts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and maybe another one or two partial reverts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Arcayne reported by User:Dream_Focus (Result: No action, editors warned)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    You can see he has erased the exact same information at least four times. Older edits I think he did it more than that, but proving it four times is all that is required. Dream Focus 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Pardon me, but two things are glaringly obvious: 1) only threetwo edits occurred within the 24-hour period (and the four are over a three day period); 2) the 'warning' was tendered many hours after the third edit; and, 3) this user has been actively involved in an edit-war in that article, having just finished a block for edit-warring less than a week ago. There is a discussion at AN/I regarding a particularly bad set of actions by another editor in this matter. - Arcayne () 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    The number of reverts, as well the time they spanned are not set in stone; you cannot hide behind the rules. It is the intent of 3RR that matters and it is clear the intent was quite disruptive. Arcayne removed information, I reverted; that is the time Arcayne should have stopped, which he ddidn't. He has been reverted by me and another editor. — Edokter • Talk • 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    I was not actively involved in an edit-war in that manner. After filing this report, a short time later someone erased the information again, so I reverted it. That is the only time I have edited that article at all. The edit war problem I had was when I reverted a vandal from erasing Rescue tags, but some didn't consider that vandalism so a short block was done. That has nothing to do with this article, or anyone involved in it. And I didn't notice it wasn't within a 24 hour period. So as long as you only erase the same exact information from the article, once or twice a day, you are safe from the rules. Dream Focus 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    • No action. The technical 3RR has not been violated here; and it takes more than one to edit war. I also note four reversions by User:Edokter of Arcayne's edits in the recent history (and he has also been reverted by more than one editor); if a sanction was to be applied on one it would have to be applied on both, and I do not see that as productive. Both editors may take this as a warning not to continue this course of action. Furthermore, I am watchlisting the page and will fully protect it if this edit-war, which now includes more editors, continues. Black Kite 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    List of common misconceptions/Hippo43

    User:Hippo43 reported by User:Rracecarr (Result:warned)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    (this is actually a diff, showing addition of "Seasons" entry, after it had recently been deleted.

    • First revert: removes "Seasons" entry
    • Second revert:

    (the first of these not a revert. The second is the same edit a few minutes later, after reversion by another editor)

    • Third revert: removes "Seasons" entry again
    • Fourth revert: removes "Seasons" entry again
    • Fifth revert:

    (two removals of "Dark side of the Moon" entry)

    Discussion

    I removed unsourced and badly sourced examples from this list, in line with the discussion that has been ongoing there and the article's intro. Rracecarr has reinserted them repeatedly, despite general agreement in the discussion that only well-sourced examples would be kept. I am not looking for an edit war at all here - in the 'Seasons' examples above, I discussed it with another user on the talk page and we came to an agreement about sources. I didn't realise I had edited the same article so often - since RRacecarr posted on my talk page, I haven't edited the article. --hippo43 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Only 4 reverts there, as consecutive uninterrupted reverts are not counted separately. I'll take Hippo's word per WP:AGF that this was pure accident (let's face it, it happens), but future accidents like this will most likely lead to a block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Sifilis122 reported by The Ogre (Result: Both parties blocked, 24 and 12 hours respectively)





















    This user seems to have a strong POV agenda that makes him edit war in a diversity of articles, as can be seen above. His mais objective is to change, against consensus, the references to Iberia and Hispania to the modern country of Spain, ignoring that those geographical and historical realities, that comprehend not just the modern territory of Spain, but also of Portugal, can not be equated with the modern reality of that specific country. It would be the same as just calling England to Great Britain. He also tries to change references in Portuguese language to Spanish ones. Furthermore, he tries to change the complexity of the procees leading to and subsequent to the Iberian Union as a simple domination of Portugal by Spain. He also rapidlly acuses other users (such as XPTO, who he seem to be harassing, and myself) of vandalism and chauvinism, and as comited some sort of vandalism in my user page by his abuse of warning templates (he has done a wholesale removal of warnings from his talk page and placed them on mine: see 1 and 2). This needs dealing with. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Both Sifilis122 and The Ogre with vios. 12 for The Ogre and 24 for Sifilis122, the latter getting more for accompanying bad behaviour. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Allstarecho reported by CENSEI| (RESULT: 72 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Fifth Revert:

    Allstarecho has made 5 reverts in exactly 28 hours and none of them were accompanied by any comments on the talk page explaining or justifying inclusion or exclusion of the content until I did so prior to my first edit. CENSEI (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Talk about lieing. My comments are plainly visible on the talk page as well as in my edit summaries. The fact is, CENSEI and User:Ejnogarb are hell bent on whitewashing the article by removing valid sourced content. They should reach a consensus on the talk page BEFORE removing valid, SOURCED content. They are 2 conservative editors who are trying to remove content pertaining to a study which shows gay people and straight people have pretty much the same amounts of promiscuity. Censoring content is vandalism and reverting vandalism is not edit-warring. Myself and other editors have reverted these changes but these 2 editors want to remove the content and THEN discuss it on the talk page? How about discussing it on the talk page first to come to a consensus and then if the consensus is to remove it, remove it. If anyone has been "edit warring", it would be those 2 editors, especially Ejnogarb who has 4 reverts in 24 hours. I would also point out that these 2 editors are working in tandem based on this edit. Additionally, Ejnogarb and I were already dealing with this issue today until CENSEI came along to disrupt it all over again.- ✰ALLST☆R✰ 20:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    This is not about content, which by reviewing the talk page you are completely wrong about, but is about your editing behavior. CENSEI (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    My edit behavior? It's apparent you 2 have an agenda so it's really more about your own editing behavior. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    In my not-so-humble opinion, CENSEI and Enjongarb have been blatantly pointy-- and no less than four other editors have felt the need to undo non-neutral edits performed on articles which had been improperly modified in the past few days. I don't mind having their POV all over the Talk Pages because i think it's very useful for them to collaborate openly, but i am rather distressed by the way their POV efforts seem to be showing up in the main Article spaces particularly on topics related to men who have sex with men, promiscuity, and LGBT issues.... without being discussed openly first. The issue of collusion is secondary, the issue of non-neutrality is primary. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~~4-1-1~ 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    CENSEI, Allstarecho made only three reverts in 24 hours. And you are edit warring on the same article. Pot, meet kettle. — ] (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Malik, as you well know (with your own recent edit warring) 3RR is an electric fence, not a God given right. Its the behavior associated with the Rv's as well as their frequency, Allstarecho had 5 in less than 30 hours indicating a certain degree of Tenditiousness that is the issue. My 2 Rv's are hardly an indication of edit warring, unless the standards have been rewritten. CENSEI (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    From the very Tenditious page you linked to:
    Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Misplaced Pages, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.
    Ejnogarb and your edits have been resisted by other editors and yet, you all keep insisting. Hello again pot, meet kettle again. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    As you should know—look higher up this page at #Malik Shabazz reported by CENSEI (Result: no vios)—your two reverts are edit-warring. So sorry, but thanks for playing. — ] (talk · contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Concerned by the edit-warring by Ejnogarb and CENSEI too, but Allstarecho is clearly the disruptive force in the article, so we'll see how it goes with him on a break. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner (result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    To see why the first one is a revert: observe the reinsertion of the words "the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by..." To see why the second one is a revert: observe the readdition of the words "one time Neo-Nazi" - the same was done in the first revert. Offliner (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    To see why number three is a revert: notice the readdition of the words "The committee has been noted for its anti-Estonian sentiment and neo-Stalinist viewpoint.": . The same was done in the first and the fourth revert. To make this more clear: here's the series of edits before Martintg's third revert: note the addition of "Estonian journalist Heiki Suurkask has accused the committee of anti-Estonian sentiment" This piece of text is removed and replaced with ""The committee has been noted for its anti-Estonian sentiment and neo-Stalinist viewpoint." in Martintg's third revert: Offliner (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    The words "the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by..." are not in the "previos version reverted to". Given the quality of the next report by the same user, one should be careful. Colchicum (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Read again. The words are there like I said. Offliner (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Oh yes, the words "and", "in", "with", "to" are there too. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Offliner himself was a part of edit warring in both articles. I believe this is a part of coordinated effort by Offliner and Russavia to follow edits by Martintg and others - see this diff. Perhaps this should be addressed at another noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    The alleged first revert is newly inserted material, so it is not a revert at all, while another alleged revert relates to correcting spelling and inserting text in an unrelated area. Martintg (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't personally see much 3RR here, without further diffs. However, I did notice that WP:BLP addition of material describing living people as Neo-Nazi's. I would urge an admin to go thru both Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Johan Bäckman to ensure that potential WP:BLP violations are removed, and when included that they are suitably sourced and attributed, rather than presented as matters of fact. --Russavia 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Suggest protecting affected pages for a day or two to cool down tempers. There is edit warring on both (more?) sides, but no 3RR violations. Yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    1, 2 and 4 are reverts. Can't see why 3 is. If this keeps up someone harsher than me, or me tomorrow morning, is going to block you all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Following further info from the reporter, #3 is indeed a revert. 24h. Cautions to others remain William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Back2back2back reported by Robert Stevens (RESULT: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:

    Article contained factually incorrect information, apparently a distortion of the history of Tyre in order to provide a better fit to a Biblical prophecy alleging the city's permanent destruction (the city still exists). Faced with the choice of providing counter-apologetics or simply deleting the inaccurate information, I chose deletion (though I'm prepared to provide counter-apologetics, I feel that this would break the flow of the article, which is apparently an overview of claimed Bible prophecies). On the talkpage discussion, User Back2back2back refuses to admit that the information is inaccurate, refuses to check references available on the Tyre (Lebanon) article as requested, and insists (without justification) that the information I removed is "historically accurate".

    Actual paragraph reads:

    "The island city was destroyed by Alexander the Great during the Siege of Tyre and its residents were enslaved. Alexander used the debris from the destroyed mainland city to build a causeway to the island city. The Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre. Numerous other empires and countries have rebuilt the city at or near the site of the original only to have them destroyed. The fishing village of Sur is now located at the original site of Tyre."

    ...But most of this is simply false (Alexander did not "destroy" Tyre when he conquered it, he didn't enslave ALL the residents, the city recovered and was rebuilt, it has since enjoyed many centuries of prosperity, and it still exists today: and "Sur" is simply the Phoenician name for the city the Greeks called "Tyre"). Also, there is no mention of Alexander in the prophecy anyhow, it's about Nebuchadnezzar's earlier attack on TYre, and only Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians are mentioned by name, not Alexander or the Greeks: so this is irrelevant except as an attempt at misdirection.

    All of this has been explained. Back2back2back doesn't care.

    Discussion

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner (no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Fifth revert:
    • Sixth revert:

    Also note the case above. Offliner (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Care to show that these are ideed reverts? At least and are clearly not reverts, the others probably too. Colchicum (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Seems all of the diffs are related to different edits in different sections, one even being just a correction of a spelling mistake and the other a missing space. Also there was no warning given for 3RR either. Martintg (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Offliner himself clearly was a part of edit warring in both articles. I believe this is a part of coordinated effort by Offliner and Russavia to follow edits by Marting and others - see this diff. Perhaps this should be addressed at another noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Good catch. This is definitely not for this noticeboard. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Seeing the diffs, and considering the message pointed out by Biophys, this entry and the one below it are not sanctionable cases of edit-warring. These articles are of highly controversial people, full of WP:BLP risks. The diffs are cherry-picked diffs from a path of incremental improvement of the article. This not a case of edit warring; it's a case of attempting to eliminate content opponents via bad-faith EW reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I would like to draw the attention to the supposed reverts and , which are ... spelling corrections. This fact alone is enough to question the motives of the author of this report. Second, I would respectfully suggest Offliner to read what "revert" means in WP: one has to revert THE SAME THING. Simply making 3 edits that you don't like on the same article does not constitute repeated reverets, unless they REDO EXACTLY THE SAME (in meaning; might use synonims, etc) VERSION. Do you see anything like that in the edits you cite?? Dc76\ 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


    One should take into account, that these are not isolated incidents, but only part of a steady stream of edit warring on Martintg's part. Here, for example, Martintg makes 3 reverts within 24 hours on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, (wisely) stopping just short of breaking 3RR: . I think a short block is in order here to discourage such behaviour. Offliner (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I think one should closely examine Offliner's own edits and block log before. Colchicum (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    That "2 intermediate edit not shown" business again. What are these about? You can't just claim any random edit (or series of edits) you don't like as a revert, you know.
    What next? Randomly combine a content opponent's edit with a random vandal's, and then use the diff to "prove" that he or she vandalised the article? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, what are we talking about? This is from two weeks ago. Colchicum (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Silly me, assuming good faith again. I should have become a pessimist, then I'd only be surprised in pleasant ways. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Please also note that Offliner is edit-warring on Soviet deportations from Estonia against the discussion on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    This is stupid. is a minor grammar correction and is a spelling corection. Why are you reporting them as reverts? I can only conclude that you are desperate to get your "opponents" blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Colchicum reported by User:Offliner (result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • First revert:
    • Second revert:
    • Third revert:
    • Fourth revert:
    • Fifth revert:

    Offliner (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    To see why number three is a revert: see this addition by User:Dojarca: . Compare this to C's third revert (also notice the edit summary:) . To see the why number four is a revert: take look at it series of edits before Colchicum's first revert: . Note the addition of the words "Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates..." These words are removed by Colchicum in his fourth revert: . Number five seems to have been a mistake on my part: it is indeed not a revert (I think.) Offliner (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    The fourth one is certainly not a revert, the fifth one is also certainly not a revert. Get real, your efforts to get rid of your opponents look ridiculous. Colchicum (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not ridiculous. This is working. He already (almost) get rid of me, and he now started WP:Battle with Martintg. Offliner is clearly disruptive.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    Nonsense. I have nothing personal against these editors. In fact, I respect them both. I especially respect the fact that Martintg has been recently seeking compromise in articles such as Putinjugend. And I don't think I've ever had a single argument with Colchicum. I just wish they would stop edit warring in the two articles mentioned. 3RR is an absolute limit. I'm just the messenger here - do not shoot me. Offliner (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    There were no edit-warring, and we were nowhere near 3RR, because more than a half of your diffs are not reverts. Also what about "N intermediate revisions not shown"? What is this? Who made them? Colchicum (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    If you do respect us you would have warned us first if you believed 3RR was breached, but instead you run to this board without warning. Martintg (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    The diffs given relate to different parts if the article, which is under an intense WP:BRD development cycle. Oflliner has come late into this and appears to be attempting to disrupt this. No diff to 3RR warning has been given because there is no 3RR going on. Martintg (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Seeing the diffs, and considering the message pointed out by Biophys, this entry and the one above it are not sanctionable cases of edit-warring. These articles are of highly controversial people, full of WP:BLP risks. The diffs are cherry-picked diffs from a path of incremental improvement of the article. This not a case of edit warring; it's a case of attempting to eliminate content opponents via bad-faith EW reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Same as in the above report of martintg: I would respectfully suggest Offliner to read what "revert" means in WP: one has to revert THE SAME THING. Simply making 3 edits that you don't like on the same article does not constitute repeated reverets, unless they REDO EXACTLY THE SAME (in meaning; might use synonims, etc) VERSION. Do you see anything like that in the edits you cite??
    What are the motives of the author of this report? Dc76\ 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    I can understand why the report was brought here, but looking at revert 3, 4 and 5, without additional diffs, I wouldn't view myself this as WP:3RR. I would suggest that this is closed with no action. --Russavia 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    However, as I noted above, there has been a lot of WP:BLP characterisation of people as Neo-Nazi's and the like, such as in this diff which is part of this report, and I would urge an admin to review the two articles and ensure that BLP is adhered to. --Russavia 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Number 3 is definitely a revert. He says it himself in the edit summary: "(rv. not a historian)". He is reverting this edit by Dojarca: . The fourth one is also a revert. Take look at it series of edits before Colchicum's first revert: . Note the addition of the words "Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates..." These words are removed by Colchicum in his fourth revert: . As for number five, it seems I was mistaken: that one is indeed not a revert. Offliner (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    You should be really desperate... I am so sorry for you. In the fourth edit a duplicated paragraph is removed, here is it, if you don't see: 

    Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates Estonia and Latvia and will act accordingly 
when the Nashi comes to power in Russia, leading to end
of the Estonian statehood shortly afterwards
He speculated that most of the Russian youth all over Russia, including children, hated 
Estonia and denied it the right to exist. Bäckman went on to predict that in ten years 
at most, the Nashi comes to power in Russia, leading to end 
of the Estonian statehood shortly afterwards.

    Colchicum (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    No evidence presents that most of the "reverts" are indeed reverts. Reporter is encouraged to study the text For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary. If you can't be bothered to do this, don't come back William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Matthew reported by Magnius (Result: 24 hours to both )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    User has entered into edit war over image use in article. Despite repeated requests to discuss the issue before removal, the user continues to vandalise the page without discussion. It is also worth noting that the user blanked their own talk page after warnings were applied, new warnings were added.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 
    magnius (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours What a surprise, the reporter had also violated the rule. Hopefully a break from reverting the "vandalism" of their opponent will do each some good. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Sickofdoublestandards reported by User:Brianyoumans (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user may not be technically in violation of 3RR, but they are clearly edit-warring and paying no attention to other editors' attempts to work with them. (See the edits by User:Suziesiegel and User:Printexas, for example.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User hasn't violated the 3-revert rule and hasn't edited the article again since his last warning, and has been reverted. I've warned the user not to continue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    DavidOaks reported by Nukes4Tots (Result: no action)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: <-- reverting same edit by another user


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User was warned only after reverting another user's deletion of his edits. Though he has not reverted 4-times in 24 hours, he has reverted two editors and did not engage in good-faith discussion nor addressed the clear points against his inclusion of the content. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    No violation There's like 4 reverts over nearly 3 days. A stretching of the BRD cycle, sure, blockable or warnable, no. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Parvazbato59 reported by User:Geo Swan (Result: no action )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    The second of the three contentious edits here is from an IP address, not from Parvazbato59. But it shows the same idiosyncratic wording. I do not think Parvazbato59 was trying to obfuscate their identity, merely that they forgot to log in.

    This is my first 3RR report in my four plus years of contributing to the wikipedia. It is not clear to me whether I could have reverted their edit one more time, or even multiple times. I had pointed out to them, on Talk:Shahzada, the guideline for disambiguation pages recommends the wikilinks on disambiguation pages not be piped. So, could I have reverted it on the grounds that ignoring policies and guidelines constitutes vandalism?

    Background: Parvazbato59 nominated a recent version of the Shahzada page for deletion, and has objected to me trying to restore the version of the page that was a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    • information Administrator note The "warning" you issued, is really not a warning, it is a link to this thread. I recommend leaving {{uw-3rr}} and attempting some communication with the user seeing as they have not made any edits since your message on their talk page. If they continue to revert I will block, but for right now I recommend trying some good old communication. Tiptoety 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Colchicum reported by Russavia (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    In addition to this report, Colchicum posted this to Digwuren's talk page, possibly (??) in a WP:TEAM type of way in order to get around 3RR, and Digwuren too has removed sourced information. Additionally Digwuren has stated at that it is basically ok to remove sourced information, and to insert unsourced information, and that if others don't like it, stiff, they can WP:SOFIXIT. --Russavia 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I was cleaning up after an edit-warrior, who blindly reverted against the discussion on the talk page. And where is the fourth revert, my dear stalker? Colchicum (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The warning was given after the reverts (I am well aware of 3RR, though) and was clearly aimed at trolling. Anyway, given this and the three bogus reports above by the same team, I think some sanctions agaist Russavia and Offliner are warranted. Colchicum (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Nice job talking about me behind my back. Real class act.
    As for the WP:TEAM -- take a look at how User:Russavia inserts neo-Nazi claims about Estonian police into Misplaced Pages after Offliner did it twice (, ). Obviously, the tactic is to troll articles with silly or outrageous content, skirting the borders of WP:V, and then count reverts. I concur that sanctions are in order -- both on Russavia, of this report, and Offliner, of two reports above. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Colchicum, 3RR doesn't entitle you to 3 reverts. Also, I unfortunately had to advise you after the violation. BTW, there is no team on my part, particularly with Offliner, we operate independently with our edits on WP, and there is little to no actual interaction between us. Now, the information was totally sourced, and was neutrally written, and was attributed. As another editor obviously has seen fit to include said information into the article, there obviously is not consensus to exclude it. But at least you weren't whitewashing the sourced information completely as Digwuren attempted, and inserted unsourced information like Digwuren has, and refused to provide sources like Digwuren has. If it were up to me, I'd rather bring Digwuren here, rather than yourself, but given your message on Digwuren's talk page, which considering his past seems like a call to WP:TEAM in order to defeat WP:3RR I have no choice but to bring that here. --Russavia 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Considering their history of mutual coordination, it is indeed suspicious that they both landed there at the same time, though they have never edited or shown any inclination to edit those articles before, but let's assume good faith for the time being ;) Colchicum (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Is this the best you guys can do? Honestly! What do you see there? A message from one editor to another editor who has been involved in the same article in the past, with a note alerting them to the insertion of materials which were challenged in the past and removed, and encouraging him to discuss this on the talk page. That's some damning evidence right there. This alleged call to arms resulted in Talk:Web_brigades#Reversal_to_old_versions_of_text, which if below it one will notice certain editors insertion of Arbcom decisions into the article, and constant re-addition of said information, even after it was pointed out on several occasions that WP is not a reliable source. But what does any of that have to do with this? About the same as your link to a talk page message on a totally unrelated subject. Nothing. Additionally, you will notice above in the other reports that I have clearly stated that I don't believe 3RR has taken place; I guess this means our team is now defunct Offliner *insert rolly eyes here* --Russavia 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • And yes Martintg, I would rather bring Digwuren here, because as far as I am concerned inserting unsourced material into an article, and then tell another editor to source it himself, goes against verifiability, and as the assertion he has made is absolutely contentious, then I regard such things as more heinous than 3RR, but I can't bring Digwuren here for that, and in fact, there is little I can do about it, and he basically knows that. Recognising something like this as genocide or a crime against humanity is a pretty controversial thing to do, but there is no source for this contentious content, and there still is NO source. But please, don't continue with the battle accusations, as all one has to do is show this in which Colchicum stated "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia", which resulted in him receiving this warning, which he ignored. What we have in this article is an editor inserting sourced, neutrally worded information into an article, and then the pack descends upon it, and causes crap like this. --Russavia 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Here's your source: . The resolution's passage was all over the news. I find it strange that you'd be unable to find it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't look like a vio to me. Cautions all round re edit warring; continuation will bring trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    The removal of the question could have easily been answered here ya know William. I have always been under the impression that only 3 reverts are allowed. Given that, my apologies Colchicum for bringing this here, I will know for next time. --Russavia 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Hrannar reported by User:Inmysolitude (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    User has been warned about edit warring on this page in the past.Inmysolitude (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:Robert Stevens reported by User:Back2back2back (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I did not warn the user as he was already aware of the three revert rule.Back2back2back (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    GHcool reported by Cryptonio (Result: 24 and 12 hours respectively)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    Did not warn the editor, for he intended reporting me if I were to abuse 3RR as he did.

    Cryptonio (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    information Administrator note Two vios on the page, one indeed by the reportee and one by the reporter. 24 for the former (2nd offence) and 12 for the latter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    User:189.75.33.106 reported by User:Troy 07 (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Note: the most recent of many block-evading IP socks. ~ Troy (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oliver Hardy's link

    3rr and edit warring, same thing? I'd like to report mkil http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oliver_Hardy&diff=281358387&oldid=281338745 this link is important, he has been removing it, instead of changing its name, as an indepdendent observer mkil had tons of problems before, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#3RR, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#Rocky_Marciano_Golden_Gloves its obvious wallace fight was very close, still he revertd it, again 3rr time n time again http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MKil#Boxrec.com so it's up to you to fix article, if you want it to look good. I will not reply or comment to my post, i've said enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.166.74.91 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference den was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Add topic