Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bogorm (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 8 September 2008 (→‎Comment and reporting vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

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


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

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

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

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

    Time reported: 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Dojang

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]
    • 1st revert: [7]
    • 2nd revert: [8]
    • 3rd revert: [9]
    • 4th revert: [10]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

    Korean swordsmanship

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Gaya confederacy

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Tribute

    • Previous version reverted to: [23]

    He was warned of 3RR violation in August[28]. But he kept reverting edits without replying to anyone no matter how many times we try to talk to him. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer, This is a malpresented 3RR report by Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs). I've watched the edit warring between Bentecbye (talk · contribs) and Kuebie (talk · contribs), and it is true that Kuebie violated 3RR at Dojang. However, Michael Friedrich deliberately included the above several cases as if Kubie violated 3RR over all articles. That is not so true. Although edit warring over multiple articles is disruptive, Michael Friedrich should have not reported the case like this manner. Bentecbye (talk · contribs) is as much guilty as Kuebie, because he reverted 3 times over all mentioned articles. Bentecbye has only kept edit warring with other editors, I'm wonder how the report omits the fact. Anyway, Kuebie violated 3RR on dojang, so he gets what he has to get. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.143.159.186 reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

    Orpheus (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CalendarWatcher reported by 98.222.196.27(Result: malformed request )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    • 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. Tiptoety talk 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Actually, CalendarWatcher didn't violated 3RR, but 98.222.196.27 did. FisherQueen has blocked 98.222.196.27 for 24 hours for editwarring on this page. 98.222.196.27 was repeatedly inserting an "in modern literature" trivia section, ignoring requests to discuss it on the talk page first. (involved editor) Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:134.241.28.252 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: Both blocked)

    User keeps adding contentious material and ignoring the discussion on the Talk Page.

    Dp76764 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Blocked Tiptoety talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bentecbye reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours)

    Comment: The five reverts listed are all reverts, in my opinion. Each revert removes the words "is widely rejected even in Japan" and inserts a lot of other words. I had noticed earlier today that Bentecbye had violated 3RR, but I figured that Bentecbye had stopped reverting on receiving the warning. Apparently not: Bentecbye has done a fifth revert, after the warning. Bentecbye, I don't understand why you're saying you didn't violate 3RR. Look at the five diffs listed above. Discussing on the talk page is good, but you are still not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. You give diffs for some other edits. They make no difference. Even if you also did other edits, you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you remove words that someone else had put in, that's a revert, even if you change some other things too. I've changed the "previous version reverted to" in this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Energiie reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:Page deleted)




    This user reverted three times further past what is on this report. The speedy delete tag is currently on, rolled back by me. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiptoety has removed the page per the speedy delete tag for reason A7, however, this doesn't change the fact that the user has committed a policy violation. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Since the page no longer exists, there is no need to do anything to prevent editwarring on it. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of this, I simply reported this because this is evidence of a user who aggressively edit wars on their pages to the point of seven reverts, and the fact that it was a speedy delete template being removed makes it all the worse. I added the report under Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption as edit warring is grounds for a block. However, I value the opinions others on the same level as my own, and there is always a large chance that my actions are incorrect. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :D[reply]
    Closing with no action per Coppertwig. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    70.74.213.1 reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:blocked for vand)




    This is being echoed across a few different pages, including Miley's own, in addition to the entire Walt Disney Co. article being blanked and replaced by it. A Google search for "miley cyrus death" turns up nothing of significance, but I truly hope that this isn't another Benoit scenario. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked 31 hours for vandalism, which this appears to have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Boodlesthecat reported by Tymek (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to: see below
    • 1st revert: 23:09, September 3, 2008 (Boodlesthecat removes info about prisoners and Piotrowski's reference)
    • rewriting the article: [48] Boodlesthecat rewrites the lead, this edits includes weaseling of Piotrowski'ref, this version will be reverted to)
    • 2nd revert: 13:39, September 4, 2008 (restoring older lead version seen in his rewritten version and weaseling of Piotrowski)
    • 3rd revert: 13:51, September 4, 2008 (removing a para referenced to Piotrowski)
    • 4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2008 (removing ref claim that "more Poles than Jews have died" and restoring unnecessary weaseling/attribution of Piotrowski)
    • 5th revert: 01:06, September 5, 2008 removing information about Poles being killed in the event, restoring alleged info about Polish officers
    • Diff of 3RR warning: user blocked for 3RR previously several times, familiar with policy

    This is a 3RR violation, or two - with first four or last four, depending on time frame. This user has violated 3RR before, and it is really difficult to edit the article with him reverting this or that all the time. He should know better, shouldn't he? Tymek (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody explain to Tymek the difference between edits and reverts so he will be more careful not to use this forum for harassment in the future. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pure WP:BURO case. Since when removing false information such as "more Poles than Jews have died" (this was finally acknowledged by original contributor of this incorrect fact [49]) is an offence? Correction of the mistakes makes Wikipedia better, not worse. And it is a part of the editing process, which was very intensive at this article. Boodles contributed significantly to this article, which was expanded more than 5-folds during the last couple of days. M0RD00R (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not convinced those are reverts. Also stale. Another admin can feel free to review but no block from me. I'll be watching the page though and expect protection is there is more edit warring. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeshift9 reported by Rudykruger (Result: Page Protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]

    On September 5, it was widely reported that Peter Garrett rejected Waratah Coal's $5.3billion project in QLD, Australia - a project that the QLD government itself recognized and declared to be "Australia's largest coal project" on July 15, 2008[1]. Timeshift9 felt this was an uncited edit, and despite subsequently adding a Marketwire link to this event, the user repeatedly reverted the edit on the basis that he disputes this. If rejection of a $5.3billion investment in QLD is not a significant event here, what is?


    Page protected Well, this request was done improperly, and investigation proved a two person reversion war. Page protected for two hours, or until participants settle down. Could someone clean up my formatting here? I'm not sure on the new procedures. --Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done: added the AN3 template to the beginning of your message. Coppertwig (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I left a note for both parties, since they are both on the edge of a violation if they continue to make similar edits after the protection expires. I hope there will be a proper discussion on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you both.--Tznkai (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: No violation)

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

    Time reported: 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Comments

    He never replys to me no matter how many times I try to talk to him. He just keeps reverting edits. He reverts edits which he dislikes, saying that there's no source, even when they are actually sourced. He sometimes even remove {{FACT}}s and call my edit an original research even though he's removing {{FACT}}s without showing any sources[53]. It does not make any sense at all.
    He has no intention of avoiding edit war at all. He has been blocked three times already for edit wars[54] and keeps doing it again and again. I don't think only-24-hour block will do. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.
    1. you redirected article title without any consensus.[55] also your reason of article move is "Wrong". you still do not said, any justifiable reason. [56]
    編修 is not only means "Compilation". don't make dictionary by your own convenience.
    2. My change is a revert of banned user version edit.[57]
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[58] Manacpowers (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mispresented 3RR report by Michael Fridreich again There is no 3RR violation on the article at this time, and Michael Fridreich knows it too well per his 3RR warning.[59]. However, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file because it is quite obvious that Michael Fridrich has been rather gaming the system to block anyone with whom he has been disputing on other multiple disputes. Michale Frideich also reported a malformed 3RR file on another editor yesterday as if the user violated 3RR multiple times, but that is totally wrong. This kind behaviors from bad faith are disruptive, and he is also not a saint either to quote others' history per his block[60] and continued edit warrings within Wikipedia. Of course, Manacpower should behave properly, but Michael Fridreich should not be gaming the 3RR policy. This place is not to report Wikietiqutte.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    Comments Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise[67], his last revert would have been 12th revert.

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

    Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
    My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
    Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[76]
    this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. Manacpowers (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.Kumdo, Club for Editing of Korean History, Baekje, Dojang, Second Manchu invasion of Korea. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit.[77][78][79][80] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Michael Friedrich reported by Manacpowers (Result: 24 hours)

    Kumdo

    Club for Editing of Korean History

    He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit.[81][82][83][84] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Any admin who review these three consecutive reports, please block the both users in dispute for the 3RR violations and continued disruptions. (they all violate 3RR)--Caspian blue (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked)

    [85]

    • Previous version reverted to: [86]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

    Unreported case with same editor, same page, can be seen here, here, and here. Also warned at that time in edit line.--Gregalton (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has deleted 3RR warning, so evidently aware of existence of rule, [93]. Or doesn't care.--Gregalton (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Satori Son 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emetman reported by Pinkadelica (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [94]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [102] (2 warnings)

    User has an apparent COI concerning the article and has repeatedly removed sourced content in the article's controversy section in what I guess is an attempt to downplay the incident. User has also taken to adding unneeded information and poor sources (AOL videos, blogs, etc) to back it up. Two other editors (besides myself) have been reverting this guy and his associated IPs for the since late last night. This user has actually been POV pushing on this article for awhile. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected for two days. Charges of COI editing are floating around. Consider opening a complaint at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The talk page here is very short considering the huge volume of edits here in the last two days. I suggest that editors try to reach consensus on some of the disputed matters on Talk before the protection expires. Blocks will be issued if edit-warring continues after that time. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to vandalism, is necessary to be present. Why is there so much Agro details ? These so called editors are I believe all the same, or relevant individual. Any proof at all of COI ? Simply biased individuals.

    I have proposed language settlements on the 5W edit page - Lets settle it there today and call it a day and leave the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These individuals are posting ad naseum against all 5w entrees on other pages. Its clear bias and Mosmof and others should be banned.12.103.203.218 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please continue this discussion at Talk:5W Public Relations. Anyone who is very concerned about this article who doesn't yet have a Wikipedia account, please register. IP editors who don't edit outside of the 5W article do not start from a position of great credibility, when they suggest that others may have a COI. If you make such charges, then you should be willing to say whether you yourself have an affiliation to the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    76.117.6.149 reported by magidin (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [103]


    The link added to the page was considered irrelevant and spam by three different editors, independently, and removed twice by two of them (I was one of the two). The user was warned before his latest revert (the sixth time he added the link to the page). The user has been adding a link to the same page to numerous other pages; it has been reverted in some, in others not yet. For example: [112] (Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything), [113] (Apprentice (software)), [114] (The New Atlantis), and [115] (Bacon's cipher).

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [116]

    Magidin (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned to stop spamming. There are a couple legitish, test style edits in there in places, maybe.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user just added the link to Squaring the circle yet again [117]. This is his sixth revert. And he continued to add the link to other pages where it does not belong: e.g. [118], even after being warned. Magidin (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And again. Magidin (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Made a final warning. Use my talk page if it happens again--Tznkai (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Previous version reverted to: [119]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [124]


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

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

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [125]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [130] In addition, a warning in an edit summary at [131] was also given.

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

    Comment: Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy. Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it. I posted a 3RR warning at 16:47 7 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The warning seems to have stopped the edit war; we'll leave it at that. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been busy on other wiki-topics, see my list of created pages and long-standing contributions of high-quality. The user User:North Shoreman, from Ohio, originally made the POV alternations to Virginia in the American Civil War, on off-topic news articles, and various details below the level of detail appropriate for the page. As a Virginian, and member of the Virginia Task Force and Civil War Task Force, I stick to contributions of my locality. North Shoreman has a POV on the Civil War that he wishes to put in almost every page on a Southern Locale. Several times I have had to undo off-topic out-of-scope edits that North Shoreman has INTENTIONALLY put in only for the sake of being bothersome, not in the INTENT OF GOOD WIKI SPIRIT. In my humble opinion, the Revert-Violator and well beyond 3RR has been North Shoreman. I have called his attention to look at himself introspectively, to see his own conflict of interest on the topic (An Ohio-man with a POV editing Virginia pages, disputing with a published Virginia Historian). In conclusion, there are both POV and COI problems here. I have advised him that if he wishes to diatribe or blog on Lincoln and Fort Sumter to PLEASE ... PLEASE ... go ahead, but to do so on pages on THOSE topics. As a retired instructor from Marine Corps University, and curriculum developer on topics such as this ... I'm frankly apalled ... but thus is the nature of Wiki to deal with bothersome folks such as this. Good day, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:AzureFury reported by Tony1 (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [132]


    Note that the first edit was not a revert. That was the first time I added the POV-section tag. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing, the three actual reverts were restoring a NPOV tag that was removed with personal attacks as justifications, such as calling me "feisty" and requesting my concerns be placed on the talk page after they had already been placed there. Another called me "queruous" and said I placed the tag because of "individual idiosyncrasies". - - My attempts to address the issue on the talk page have met with little response to the issues with the article, as Tony1 has repeatedly chosen to attack me personally instead.[137][138] - [139] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, this was his original posting of the NPOV tag. He has posted it five times now. Tony (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, rather than tag the whole article, I tagged only the lead. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (e.c.) Aggressive behaviour not conducive to collaborative editing; disregarding of reasonable calls for cooperation by other editors. Four reverts replacing his NPOV tag, a tag that is regarded as quite inappropriate by other editors. Previous blocking for 24 hrs and calls for improved behaviour noted on the offender's talk page.Tony (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this is not a warning, he is informing me that he has reported me here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It's arguable whether this was a 3RR violation or not. AzureFury posted a "npov" tag at 08:53 6 September, and after it was reverted, posted a "POV-section" tag at 09:08. If posting that second tag counts as a revert, then there were four reverts and a 3RR violation. The last three reverts were re-posting the POV-section tag. On the talk page, 3 editors oppose the tag and one other editor seems to support having the tag. Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the edit war over the tag is finished, blocking etc. would serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours)


    Gregalton reported Misessus for edit warring on the same article (diff). -- Vision Thing -- 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The information provided doesn't establish a violation: the first and fourth "reverts" may not be reverts, leaving only two reverts. The information "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." has been there at least since August 23, and you haven't provided a "previous version reverted to" which doesn't contain this information. You say the last revert deletes information, but actually it only moves it from one part of the article to another, and again you haven't provided a "previous version reverted to" that would show that this is a revert. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." has not been in version 16:18, 24 August 2008 (version I listed), and as for forth revert - by moving content from introduction to other section he partly undid action of other editor, and such action is considered a revert by our definition. -- Vision Thing -- 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, he's kept on edit warring this evening, so Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, unblocked as two of the reverts had nothing to do with edit warring - one was in fact a clear case of vandalism.--Gregalton (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.109.150.169 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [144]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [149]

    --Yopie 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    Does not appear to be 'vandalism' as claimed by IP. Blocked for 24 hours.

    User:Verdadeverdadeira reported by User:The Ogre (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [150]


    • 1st revert: [151] 18:24, 3 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: [152] 17:58, 5 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: [153] 16:19, 6 September 2008


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [154]

    The Ogre (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing "more than three" reversions, nor do these occur within a 24 hour time period. I'm also not seeing any reversions after the warning (which you placed one minute before reporting here). Kuru talk 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needlepinch reported by Fugu Alienking (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [155]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [160]

    We've just had a deletion discussion for this article, with the user in question being the only one in favour of keeping the article before the discussion was closed as no consensus. They are now reacting to the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced content (such as unverifiable resume details from LinkedIn) by removing other content which they don't like, and restoring the unreferenced content, despite two other editors requesting that they discuss their concerns on the Talk page. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been previously alerted to the 3RR rule. Blocked for 24 hours. Kuru talk 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    98.209.199.182 reported by dunkerguy89 (Result: Incomplete report)



    • 1st revert: [link] Changed some characters
    • 2nd revert: [link]Changed some characters
    • 3rd revert: [link]Changed some characters
    • 4th revert: [link]Changed some characters


    He continues to change the characters with no proof and does it more than 3 times a day! Also check out his history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.209.199.182 he changed playable character 5 times on auguest 30th and i've tried to warn him but he doesn't answer back

    Comment: Assuming the other IP edits are different users, there doesn't seem to be a violation. If two consecutive edits count as one edit, then 98.209.199.182 has had only 3 edits in a recent 24-hour period; it takes four reverts to violate the 3RR rule. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is Stale anyways. Tiptoety talk 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arilang1234 (Result: Malformed)


    • Last version before Arilang1234 started making revisions and reverting attempts by other users to revert Arilang1234's changes: [161]



    This user's additions are not childish vandalism but are incoherent, incorrect, largely irrelevant and on the whole bizarre. In the course of the last 4 days this user has made over 150 changes to this article. These changes have been reverted by various users (including me) only to be reverted in turn by Arilang1234, a few of (Arilang1234's) reversions are listed above.

    84.74.150.48 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    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) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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



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

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

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

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

    (ec)Strict enforcement of WP:BLP is not disruption, I'm sorry. I'm heading to bed now, hopefully by tomorrow this will all have blown over and we can work forward constructively. But a read of Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#Israel will explain the problem well, if anyone has time. Kelly hi! 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not BLP violations as per Mastcell and many others that have warned you. This is getting simple out of hand. Where s the admin that would do the right thing and block this editor for blatant disruption? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please don't fight on AN pages.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I have been looking into this for a little while now and here is my (uninvolved) opinion. What Kelly is doing seems to be a bit controversial, but at the same time barely within the scopes of WP:BLP and based simply on that reason he should not be blocked. But then when you look at the way he is going about it, it is clear that it is disruptive and is causing un-needed disruption to the article, and based simply on that reason he should be blocked. I like Jossi am a bit biff'd by the fact that Kelly reverted again after being warned, but think a block would cause unnecessary drama and so for the time being I think it best the article left protected and everyone left unblocked. Tiptoety talk 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you checked the reversion? [167] How can you call that material, sourced to the Washington Times to be a BLP violation? Or should I copy here what is considered to be a BLP violation? I was instrumental in making BLP into policy way back with other editors, I monitor BLP/N, and I am not buying that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, but her disruption and WP:BITE of newbies is making these new editors to trip as well on 3RRs. This has to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We all know you are having a spat with Kelly jossi. This is NOT the proper location to continue your crusade against him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make this report, three other admins warned her/him. And I do not have a crusade against her/him. And your comments here ignore the facts and are most unwelcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I forgot! Its the pile on Kelly show. I'll just go edit List of edible fruits. Being supportive of someone who's done a shit ton more to keep these articles NPOV than all the administrators of wikipedia jointly is a crime. I forgot. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyaa, consider this your only warning, and further uncivil comments will result in a block. Unless you are here to discuss the article in question and the edit warring going on, do not comment at all. Tiptoety talk 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Arilang1234 reported by Hawkins1969 (Result: Editor warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [168]

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


    • 1st revert: [169] Benjwong reverts Arilang1234 edits of the last 2 days restoring August 31 version.
    • 2nd revert: [170] Arilang1234 reverts Benjwong's revert.

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

    User Arilang1234 reverts these edits:

    User Transparent1 again attempts to remove Arilang1234 material:

    User Arilang1234 reverts this:

    User Enochlau reverts Arilang1234's revert:

    User 76.103.204.232 attempts to edit out Arilang1234's work:

    User Arilang1234 reverts this:

    User 76.103.204.232 then reverts again:

    And Arilang1234 reverts again:

    User 91.171.113.10 attempts to remove Arilang1234's changes:

    And Arilang1234 reverts this:

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

    These are reverted by Cluebot and Arilang1234 makes further additions:

    User Enochlau again reverts Arilang1234's changes:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [185]


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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Factchecker123 reported by User:Journalist23 (Result:Malformed )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    User is constantly removing information calling it unfactual, even though the information is verified in a news article that is referenced. He/she also keeps putting. false information that the show has been postponed indefinitely, when there is no verifiable reference for his/her claim.

    • 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. Tiptoety talk 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    86.158.238.188 reported by Bogorm (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [189]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Further disruption

    Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    68.52.36.127 and Sox23 reported by Neo16287 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [195]


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

    • Version before edit summary war: [199]
    • 1st subsequent edit: [200]
    • 2nd subsequent edit: [201]
    • 3rd subsequent edit: [202]
    • 4th subsequent edit: [203]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been notified of 3RR on talk page. No response as of yet.

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

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



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

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

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

    Comment and reporting vandalism

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

    • here
    • and here.
      The section was obviously inconvenient for the user, since on the talk page he blames the Iranian and Russian source and utters derogatory comments towards established medias as Press TV, overlooking that there is one Ukrainian and Israeli corroborating the information, and ostensibly being reluctant to search for refuting sources in lieu of disparaging the available ones.
    • Here he offends three renowned Russian sources (RIA Novosti, Vesti.ru and Russia Today) simply for being Russian and and blanks the section. Since vandalism needs not to be present 4 times, but only one for a complaint, I would like to complain against Grey Fox's biased and offensive edits for at least four renowned medias which he erases. Bogorm (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "is extremely hard to deal with" - this is considered (hopefully not only by me) as Argumentum ad hominem. Bogorm (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've violated 3rr Bogorm, 3rr is like an electric fence. I've given valid reasons in the summary, always referring to the talk page where you didn't respond. You've been reverted by multiple users on inserting dubious material consisting of exceptional claims completely based on dubious sources, so to pull that off as "vandalism" is absurd. Grey Fox (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bogorm, not only you made 3RR violation, but you also accuses another user of "vandalism", which is against WP:CIV and only makes things worse. That was obviously a content dispute, not a vandalism. This user considers Russian sources unreliable because Russia was a combatant side in this war, and because those media are state-controlled and involved in extensive propaganda campaign. So, he actually wanted to remove something he perceived as garbage. Please always assume good faith.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But according to him Israel is not involved, and according to every sensible person neither is Ukraine, but he removed Ukrainian, Israeli and US source, how about that? Bogorm (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I accuse, since he blanked a whole section simply by belittling the sources, and I even do not know whether he at all knows Russian to remove them! How about if I now begin to remove every, let's say, turkish source with no knowledge of the language, simply because I do not like the content, would that be vandalism???? Your "valid reasons" are but a disgust for every Russian and Iranian sources, and I'd rather desist from drawing a conclusion (for reverence for ¨WP:NPA), but it is obvious. Bogorm (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ [212]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=237117055"