Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive145
User:Craesius reported by User:Shirik (Result: 36h)
editPage: Altiyan Childs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Craesius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion was limited to user's talk page both at en:User talk:Craesius and commons:User talk:Craesius (since the problem is occuring on both sites).
Comments:
I would handle this myself, but I consider myself presently involved and would prefer someone else take a look at this. The user has continued to restore usage of a copyvio image that has been deleted several times on Commons. Attempts to resolve disputes at the user's talk page have not gotten us anywhere, and it has become apparent the user is not willing to cooperate in this matter. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Clear 3RR vio. I haven't looked at any other issue concerning this editor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
User:79.97.171.208 and User:Halaqah reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: Both blocked)
editPage: Belgian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.97.171.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]
Comments:
Lame edit war over point of view content--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that, but Gwen you warned them before for edit warring on related articles, so this is still an edit war. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)IP has only been blocked once for edit warring previously, nothing for vandalism--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstood why I posted this, the edit summary said the edit was vandalism, but the edit was straightforwardly not even close to vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that, but Gwen you warned them before for edit warring on related articles, so this is still an edit war. --Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)IP has only been blocked once for edit warring previously, nothing for vandalism--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry thought you were disagreeing with me, its seems we agree this is a edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry but have you looked at his/her activity across wikipedia or only this isolated instance. I think I had good reason to suspect a accused sockpuppet of vandalism. The behavior was that of a vandal.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry thought you were disagreeing with me, its seems we agree this is a edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- comment My interactions [16] [17] [18] [19] with User:79.97.171.208 have shown that they do not know when to go to the talk page. That they use a registered user name would be a step in a good direction. jmcw (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am acting to prevent a disruptive editor who is flying through wiki reverting people. He does not use the talk page even when instructed to. Constantly saying "rmv POV" Now I am trying to protect the work of other serious editors here and the lerdthnerd is bring me (5 years of editing) in with this sockpuppet. I have no intrest in beligian food other than to prevent a repeated vandal. This is why people lose intrest in Wikipedia because you cannot constructive do any work. Without so much as looking at what is going on. If you see an ip address reverting work you can treat it as vandalism.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You are stalking me and reverting all of my edits out of spite. Maybe the fact that someone with 5 years of editing would decide to systematically remove a new editor's constructive contributions out of personal dislike has some influence on people losing interest in wikipedia. And no, you can not treat my work as vandalism simply because I do not have a username79.97.171.208 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can treat it as vandalism if you dont use the talk page and blindly ignore other peoples contributions across many differnt wikipages that why it looks like vandalism. "rv POV" up and down wikipedia. What are people who work hard suppose to think? USE THE TALK PAGE, Be CIVIL. It is bigger than your or my opinion. Follow the rules NPOV has a meaning. Disucss has a meaning, calling me a freak is wrong.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If you read the edits, you would see they aren't vandalism. It's not difficult to check these things before blindly reverting them over a grudge. If you don't want to be called a freak, don't stalk someone. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe your edits were not vandalism but your behavior made me think so. You cannot keep warring use the talk page and compromise. Look at what you did here Islam in Africa why would you do that if you didnt have issues with me? Now they say it is bickering. As oppose to balance and allow resolution they get pleasure from mocking us both. good work ip 79.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Bickering will get you two nowhere.Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)- Bickering? I dont care about Belgian cusine to fight over it. Block me I am sure wiki has tonnes of good editors take a look at what has happened here Islam in Africa This is why I assumed it was vandalism. Now you take a serious user with someone with a history of bad work thats your choice. Question does the ip behave like a vandal --- YES. Does the Ip not use the talk pages - YES. Is it therefore unreasonable for me to assume these were the actions of a vandal?= YES. I have always wiki does more to put of serious people because when he is edit warring i cant do anything about it. Anyone can do what they want unless i dedicate less time to editing and more to talking here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wikistalker? I can't take any admin action on this because I've been in a content dispute with the IP at Fondue. However, edit warring, calling good faith edits vandalism and good faith editors wikistalkers is not on here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is so easy for any person to see why I did what i did, How many times do ip vandals go and do sneaky vandalism. I admit that some of the edits were not vandalism. But at the time it looked that way. When you got limited time and research ref and then someone just wipes out your work it is vexing. from my position it looked like some randomly reverting established editors. We need protection from this now I am up for punishment for sincerely trying to protect other peoples work. Imagine that. How many pages have i created and cleaned up and this is my reward.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The islam in africa edit admittedly looked odd. But that was due to a coding error causing the ref to show up oddly. If you don't believe he's a wikistalker, look at how his pattern of edits started to follow mine. (S)he was simply looking at what I have edited, and reverting it for no reason. 79.97.171.208 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Both editors blocked 79.97.171.208 for a week because they were blocked for edit warring a couple of weeks ago, Halaqah for 24 hours for edit warring, but he hasn't been blocked for it for nearly 4 years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I pointed out that I believed the previous block for 24 hours was unfit [20], I believe this is a bit harsh on the IP. Additionally, the IP is right, he's being followed. What's more, his accusation of "vandalism" was only after Halaqah did it first on the same article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no comment about the durations of the respective blocks, but blocking both editors is definitely appropriate here. Both are more interested with calling the other a vandal and accusing one another of stalking and whatnot than actually discussing the issues that they disagreed about in the first page. As far as I can tell (my run-in with them was at Missing women of Asia; I haven't looked at their contributions elsewhere), neither has made any attempt to discuss article issues at the talkpage, they have just both come to me asking that the other editor be blocked for being terrible or whatnot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Frank Q W reported by Ryulong (Result: declined)
editPage: Pokémon Black and White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frank Q W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 10:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 03:21, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Sounds more like PETA than Knights Templar")
- 03:29, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "They still SOUND more like PETA than Knights Templar. A crazy animal activist is still a crazy animal activist, regardless if they look like knights or beggars.")
- 03:33, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398566416 by L Kensington (talk)")
- 03:46, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "One could say their APPEARANCE is inspired by the Knights Templar, but "who seek to liberate Pokémon." sounds more like PETA than Knights Templar.")
- 05:56, 24 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 398568427 by Alansohn (talk)")
I told the user on his talk page after his third edit to the page to place his prefered content to cease reverting. Since then, he reverted, again, was warned by another user, reverted, again, and then I told him to stop, again. He was reverted on two occasions by myself, once by L Kensington (talk · contribs), once by Alansohn (talk · contribs), and once by JL 09 (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Declined There have been no reverts since a final warning was issued. Since this is a new editor with no previous blocks or history of edit-warring, I do not feel that a block is justified at this time. Any further reverts on the same point should lead to a block, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Kevorkmail reported by User:HD86 (SECOND TIME) (Result: blocked 1 month)
editThis is the same complaint as this one. I don't have time to fill up the same form every time. This is a long dispute, and every time I ask for help a smart "administrator" gives me a lecture about what Wikipedia page I should read, but they never do anything to end the dispute and it continues. User:Kevorkmail does not want to talk about his edits. Perhaps this time someone will find a solutoin for THAT instead of telling me how I should behave?--HD86 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [diff]
- 2nd revert: [diff]
- 3rd revert: [diff]
- 4th revert: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month Neither editor is sinless here (HD86 shows too much of an attitude of ownership), but the recent behavior of Kevorkmail has been so disruptive that I felt a lengthy block is the only reasonable response. The edit-warring that led to this report is only one of several factors motivating the block. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Fitnfun02 reported by Elp gr (Result: Indef)
editPage: Meligalas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fitnfun02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] and [28]
Comments:
The user keeps editing this page in an attempt to promote a historical revisionism favoring the Security Battalions; he tries to conceal their (well-documented historically) Nazi collaborationist nature, present them as "innocent right-wingers" that were only trying to stop the communists from assuming power as the Nazis were leaving Greece and promote a Blood Libel against the Greek Resistance by falsely (there is no reliable historical source that supports his claims; in fact, only Greek neo-nazi bloggers agree with him) claiming that children were among those executed in Meligalas. Furthermore, the source cited at the end of the article is in stark contrast with the entirety of his claims. Elp gr (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked Indefinitely blocked. Editor has done nothing but push POV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will keep an eye on the articles that have received Fitnfun02's treatment, in case he returns. Elp gr (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Protected)
editPage: Michael Welner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Empirical9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Stewaj7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [29]
- 2nd revert: [30]
- 3rd revert: [31]
- 4th revert: [32]
- 5th revert: [33]
- 6th revert: [34]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39][40][41]
Comments:
Came to this article after a question came up at WP:RSN. Tag-team edit warring by two SPA's appear to be pushing POV to make this BLP a puff piece, inserting unsourced positive material, deleting sourced criticism. In this case, 6 reverts in a single day for one editor, two more reverts in the same 24-hour period by the other. Fladrif (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Stale Sorry. I can't do much. The edit war is almost a day old, so a block now would be punitive unless there's evidence of continued edit warring within the last few hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's absurd. Six reverts in less than 24 hours from one tag team SPA, two more from the other SPA, all less than 24 hours ago, and you think that's "stale"? This was reported timely. No one acted on it for 20 hours for reasons I cannot fathom. A block would not be "punative" it would be preventative. And it would certainly be timely. Fladrif (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- And the reversions continue: [42] and so it is most definitely ongoing. Fladrif (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Protected two weeks. I suggest using this time to get a fuller discussion of the 'beautification' issues. If criticism is being kept out of the article by fans of this doctor, it may be possible to document that at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Chelo61 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Declined)
editPage: Michael (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelo61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: link permitted
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelo61&diff=398762022&oldid=398706437 link] (he later copied the same to my talkpage).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
Chelo has been blocked 4 times for edit-warring and disruptive editing. Even though a past edit-war started a topic on the talkpage if this album is or not a studio or compilation (or both), recently he has started to edit war within the article. I recommended him to self revert him to avoid a report to ANI or AN3, but, he instead continued doing other things, including to WP:OWN (see last comment) on the page Carita Bonita, which fails WP:NSONG. This user has violated the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rule, over and over again, in the article and even in the talkpage, and seems like he won't stop. Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not blocked No discussion at any talk page, and you are behaving just as poorly as the other editor. I'm leaving a warning for both of you; start a discussion at the talk page, if either of you reverts again you may be blocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- But a discussion is currently ongoing on the talkpage, did you check something? This is ridiculous, I'll take it to ANI Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see no discussion of this issue at the article talkpage, and you didn't link to one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Damn looks like my block conflicted with this decline (although I suspect I got in first). There was a warning at 05:37[43] followed by a 3RR breach at 05:43. Warnings aside, the user has a history of edit-warring. I agree Tbhotch might have done things better, but he didn't cross the bright line; Chelo did. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 3 reverts is still 3 reverts, with no attempt at discussion and with confrontational edit summaries calling someone a vandal during a content dispute and smug messages saying you will be blocked now. Looks like a clear case of gaming the system from me. An editor shouldn't think he's immune from reproach just because he didn't hit 4 reverts; as an administrator working at AN3 ought to know, 3RR is not an entitlement, and someone can still be blocked without hitting 4 reverts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Tbhotch has done anything blockable. Handling a situation badly is different to edit-warring: 3RR isn't an entitlement but I don't see any cause to block on the basis of gaming. That being said, I've lifted Chelo's block in deference to your view (and your decision that conflicted with my block) that they should be treated evenly. I think that is a fair call and if two admins have reached different decisions simultaneously it is appropriate to defer to the decision that involved the less drastic action.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 3 reverts is still 3 reverts, with no attempt at discussion and with confrontational edit summaries calling someone a vandal during a content dispute and smug messages saying you will be blocked now. Looks like a clear case of gaming the system from me. An editor shouldn't think he's immune from reproach just because he didn't hit 4 reverts; as an administrator working at AN3 ought to know, 3RR is not an entitlement, and someone can still be blocked without hitting 4 reverts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here (linked above) are all our discussion regardless if Michael is a studio album or not. Chelo has only posted some reliable (some unreliable) sources which call it a studio album and most of them call it new. According to him "albums called 'new albums' are usually refered as studio albums". Simone Jackson has proved with much more reliable sources (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Michael (album)) and others at talkpage calling it "compilation". Even he had been told on the talkpage to get more sources of the "studio" concept, he got unreliable sources, as well Sony sources, calling it "studio", Sony could call it soundtrack (and we are not tagging it as soundtrack) and even if Sony called it compilation he has stated (or his comments intended to say it) that this is a studio album becuase all songs are "new" and "unreleased". I told him to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which I do not think he read) and accept that after all it is a compilation of unreleased tracks (see compilation album for further information), he started to edit war (links above). After I warned him, he continued. It's not possible that after 4 blocks for the same and after a warning, the user "needs to be carried to a disruptive resolution", even if I'd tried to talk with him, I'm pretty sure that he would continued reverting me, see Carita Bonita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for why I say this. Happy Thanksgiving TbhotchTalk C. 06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just now found that link; in the future, please format your AN3 reports properly and don't hide the relevant links in piped text. In any case, what I said yesterday is still true: neither one of you had consensus either way for your edits, you were reverting just as much as he was, and you hadn't made any more attempt to take the discussion to the talk page that time (the only other discussion was weeks before). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Semiprotected)
editPage: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 84.83.145.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
This is essentially a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours). In the previous case, User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 was edit-warring in a specific set of infobox images over a long period of time, while refusing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, despite multiple entreaties to do so. After being blocked for this, he avoided the article for a while, but has just come back and reverted the article yet again, and again without a comment on the Talk: page discussion, or even an edit summary. Note: if action is taken, please take it on both the ip and userid; in the past, by judiciously logging out, he's managed to avoid getting blocks logged against his account. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Article semiprotected. If from this point on we observe that a named account such as Rarevogel continues to revert the pictures, I suggest a lengthy block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User:70.19.144.66 reported by User:Gavia immer (Result:24 hours)
editPage: George W. Bush military service controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.144.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but see [51] on the IP's talk page
Comments:
The IP was reverted by 3 different editors; this is a straightforward case of Not Getting It. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- He seems to have eased off the revert button for a while after his last warning 27 minutes ago (although it took a lot of warnings to get there) and perhaps even trying to engage.[52] Let's give engagement a shot first: all I'm seeing from the other side of the dispute (apart from the reporter) is rollbacking and warnings. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok that failed. After the warning, which must be presumed to have been read, a further revert followed: [53]. Blocked for 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User:GQperfekt10 reported by User:Ted87 (Result: 48h)
editPage: Genovese crime family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GQperfekt10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 13:59, November 5, 2010
Oldest revisions
- 1st revert: 12:21, November 8, 2010
- 2nd revert: 14:56, November 8, 2010
- 3rd revert: 19:20, November 8, 2010
- 4th revert: 11:35, November 9, 2010
Newest revisions
- Revision as of 13:56, November 25, 2010
- Revision as of 12:27, November 24, 2010
- Revision as of 15:38, November 23, 2010
- Revision as of 02:53, November 23, 2010
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He deleted warnings from his talk page put there by me and another user
Comments:
He keeps adding material about a supposed mobster. This may violate the rules on biographies of a living person since no reliable sources were used. Multiple users have reverted his edits for a couple weeks, but he still keeps on putting back the info. --Ted87 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Result - 48 hours for adding unsourced negative information to a BLP. User was not warned for 3RR before his last edit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Page: Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.209.149.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- and later IPs: 174.117.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 129.100.179.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Previous version reverted to: 8 November
- 25 Nov, 08:14
- 25 Nov, 09:12
- 25 Nov, 10:05
- 25 Nov, 10:40
- 25 Nov, 22:06
- 25 Nov, 22:18
- 25 Nov, 03:31
- 25 Nov, 03:41
Warning given: [55].
Comments:
Reverting on one of the most long-standing, lamest points of ideological contention in the "Macedonia" topic area, against multiple other users. Also edit-warring on other related articles (List of ancient Macedonians, Macedonians (ethnic group). User is aware of extensive prior discussion and the fact that his edits go against long-standing consensus. This [56] posting shows this is not a naive newcomer, but very likely an experienced agenda editor with prior experience in the area, quite possibly evading an existing sanction (under WP:ARBMAC or WP:ARBMAC2). Attempted a trolling "false-flag" move on talk page by pretending he was a person from a different national background, proposing a POV highly uncharacteristic of editors of any nationality except his own [57]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I still am wondering why reliable sources have been removed from the page stating the the Ancient Macedonians are greek. This is a long-standing wide consensus by scholars in Academia. existing discussion on this topic was clearly not through enough, did not have all the facts, or was over run by POV agenda driven users on the opposite side.
Various reliable sources were given, yet they were silently removed by Fut. Perf., along with ZjarriRrethues, Local hero, and others, who all seem to have some sort of anti-greek or anti-truth agenda. None of them engaged in discussion so they effectively team up to distribute an edit war without discussion.
Adding sources that are reliable, cannot be be agenda driven, it is simply the fact. I provided four sources, both ancient and modern, stating that the Ancient Macedonians were a greek people. This is a long-standing wide consensus by scholars in Academia. If a handful of editors on wikipedia have a POV agenda to suppress this, then of course there is no way that the public will reading credible information when they reach the page.
The spirit of wikipedia is to publish credible sources of information for the public to consume.
Further, I suggest you consider reporting edit-warring against one IP at a time, rather then clumping me in with others, who while I may agree with them, are not the same user.
Future Pref has made zero effort to explain on discussion page why he believes reliable sources stating the ancient macedonians were of a greek ethnos are either, not reliable, or not relevant to the article. I am more then willing to hear his side of the story. Perhaps he has a compelling argument that refutes 2500 years of historical sources, and consensus among over 300 historians at leading learning institutions (also available on discussion page). I have read the discussion page on this, and those refuting traditional consensus have not produced much, if any sources to back their claims. I don't want to see false information on a wikipedia page. --174.117.97.72 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
---
As noted on the template when referring a user for 'edit warring' . --" You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too "--
I have noted with edits that credible sources to back up claims are on discussion page. Fut. Perf. made zero effort to have any discussion, or to link exactly where this 'discussion' already occurred. He has not acted in good faith, and has collaborated with other POV editors to remove credible, reliable sources from the article, with zero explanation. They have simply had a 'discussion' between themselves with a group of accounts all created and collaborated for POV purposes, so that they can automatically just say 'this has been discussed'. Unfortunately, wikipedia is a growing and living organism. Because a discussion occurred in the past, does not mean that it is set in stone. If the discussion was not through, and did not address new issues that have been brought up since then, it must continue. Otherwise any wikipedia article could be hijacked by a small group of POV users who have a 'discussion' between themselves and set that in stone.
I think it is very wrong to remove credible, reliable sources in any scenario.--174.117.97.72 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs appear out of nowhere to start revert warring (in succession) on an article which has been the subject of past disputes, and is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Altogether, they make eight reverts in 24 hours. The IPs are adding material to the article which expresses a nationalist point of view in Wikipedia's voice. All the IPs geolocate to Toronto or Western Ontario, and are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Jrkso reported by User:JCAla (Result: Malformed)
editDisruptive use of the wikipedia notification boards by Jrkso and edit wars because of his political agenda Many editors have told User:Jrkso to stop his frequent edit wars on Afghanistan-related issues.[58][59][60][61][62][63] He repeatedly makes up false "facts" i. e. claiming (regarding the name of the anti-Taliban organization) that "the name "United Front" was created in 2007"[64][65] although it was the name they had given themselves from the beginning.[66] Jrkso's false "facts" create the situation that normal editors are pulled into edit wars if they want to restore correct information. Jrkso ignores reliable sources (plus the consensus reached by editors that the sources used are indeed reliable sources [67][68]) and he ignores consensus reached by editors [69][70] regarding the removing of the tags he added to the sections. He keeps reinserting them.[71][72][73][74]
User:Jrkso has opened five or more topics on the wikipedia notification boards all for the same issue. If people on those boards do not react or do not agree with his assessment see 19 November 2010 he simply opens another topic on another board.
Is there any possibility for someone to tell Jrkso to stop bothering every existing wikipedia board with always the same stuff and to stop his politically motivated edit wars on Afghanistan-related issues (especially in the main Afghanistan article)? JCAla (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. It's unclear exactly what you're reporting. If you need to report an edit war or 3RR violation, please follow the instructions and try again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Thethirstyscholar and User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Addihockey10 (Result: Declined)
editPage: Same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Thethirstyscholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [75]
- 1st revert: [diff]
- 2nd revert: [diff]
- 3rd revert: [diff]
- 4th revert: [diff]
- 5th revert: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Uh, how can you report 2 people in the same report. 2 of my edits were reverts to that user, and 1 was an unsourced revert...badfaith report of me. CTJF83 chat 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- And the unsourced revert I did has nothing to do with the other 2, and never actually violated 3RR CTJF83 chat 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Declined I'm going to decline for now since Thethirstyscholar seems to be attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. I'm keeping an eye on it. For the record, neither part has crossed the bright line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Users Nascarking and 161.76.98.239 reported by User:Barts1a (Result: Both blocked)
editPage: Hell in a Cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Nascarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 161.76.98.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell&oldid=399044821
- 1st revert: diff
- 2nd revert: diff
- 3rd revert: diff
- 4th revert (By this point I had become aware of this edit war): diff
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nascarking&diff=prev&oldid=399043816
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:161.76.98.239&diff=prev&oldid=399043796
Comments:
- Both editors blocked Nascarking has a previous block for 3RR so he gets 72 hours, 161.76.98.239 gets 24. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
User:69.19.14.26 reported by Theornamentalist (talk) (Result:no action)
editPage: The Video Game Critic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.19.14.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 66.82.162.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 98.27.220.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 02:28, 27 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 02:28, 26 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: None, but warning on the on IP talk page
I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and this user seems to feel the need to stress this bit of information. I also would like to remove this information.—Theornamentalist (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- At least as worded right now, this edit is really just vandalism, so reverting it would be exempt from edit warring policies. There's no way in hell we can accept something written that way. This situation isn't really suitable for an edit warring block with two reverts; if it continues, though, it might be worth blocking for vandalism. For that, you can use this page, or you can request semi-protection here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Digiphi User:Doc Tropics reported by User:Ibn kathir (Result: No vio)
editPage: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Doc Tropics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
you will have to excuse me i don't know how to report specific reverts, i have linked to the section in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha
the dispute is over the accuracy of the primary sources [ women being forced into marriage ] and the accusation of pedophilia in spite of its scientific definition, i removed these and they where reverted by two users, one i think is an editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
i have attempted dialogue on the talk page proven my case with out any counter argument by anyone and these two users have simply reverted the page back stating my case wasn't proven based on nothing else but their preferences in spite of the dictionary meaning of the word in question:
i have proven my case regarding the issue of women being forced into marriage from the sources the article itself quotes and misinterprets as well as shariah law which is essentially how Muslims understand their own religion, but this still wasn't acceptable to them, if Muslims themselves reject this in their own laws what right is their for someone who isn't a qualified lawyer or judge and doesn't understand the principles of Islamic jurisprudence to come along and interpret the law how ever they wish and then accuse them of something they have rejected.
Ibn kathir (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
what about reverts with no discussion at all, i have reverted the page back and will wait to see if they again change it.
Ibn kathir (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The page has been reverted now 3 times in 24 hours, i will refile the complaint if this attempt is considered closed as i don't know if it will be looked at again.
User:Almatinets reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 24h)
editPage: Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Almatinets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [82]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not needed. see my explanation below.
Comments:
Consistently re-inserting YT links on the page. This constitutes spam so my and Mr. Berty's reversions do not count as edit warring. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
User:99.151.57.125 reported by User:LiteralKa (Result: Semiprotected)
editPage: Imageboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.151.57.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am currently in an edit war with this user, who is repeatedly adding blatant advertising of non notable imageboard softwares and the like. LiteralKa (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [89]
Comments:
- Result - Semiprotected three weeks. Long-term edit warring (four days) to insert mention of an imageboard whose importance is not demonstrated by reliable sources. The IP does nothing but add their material to this one article, and does not discuss on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Rafaelluik reported by User:Schapel (Result: 72h each)
editPage: Mozilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafaelluik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [93]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I tried to do this on the user's talk page.
Comments:
I've tried to resolve the issue on the user's talk page, but he's bound and determined to continue an edit war until I can present "proof" that the information he's deleting is factual. I have presented proof, but as I suspected, the user considers the proof insufficient. It looks to me that this user is trying to promote the Opera browser on Wikipedia and is retaliating against or threatening retaliation against those who stand in his way. As examples, I found that the user moved Opera browsers to the top of the Acid2 compliant browsers list [99] and made the threat "if these images be removed again I will remove Firefox from every page I find it on Wikipedia." in a comment [100]. I should add that the edit war started after I undid [101] an edit of Rafaelluik's about Opera in the Mozilla article. Rafaelluik's deletion followed immediately afterwards with a similar comment as mine with a smiley at the end indicating a lack of seriousness. It's looking to me that he's vandalizing the article in retaliation.
- Well, In my point of view Schapel has used rollback inappropriately, even though this is a one-off, he's applied this edit several times within the past week or two. In-fact it's what I call a false positive on reverting page-blanking. Minimac (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Reporter's rollback removed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: Protected)
edit| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Page: Bristol Palin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [102]
Comments: 184.59.23.225 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment on this Palin stuffeditSorry about the spreading wildfire. Started with Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned, from there to WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, and then WP:ANI#Sarah Palin community article probation. Puppy usually stays on top of the flames and stomps on them before they turn into time-wasting infernos, but she seems to be away. Could someone else please step up? Kelly hi! 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
|
User:112.205.7.91 reported by User:MFIreland (Result: 2 weeks)
editPage: Éamon de Valera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 21:48, 26 November 2010
- 1st revert: 15:00, 28 November 2010
- 2nd revert: 12:11, 28 November 2010
- 3rd revert: 07:15, 28 November 2010
- 4th revert: 12:55, 27 November 2010
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:112.205.7.91 (warning removed by user)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Éamon de Valera
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Length of block due to IP's 2 previous and very recent blocks for edit warring. MFIreland, only because the IP was clearly the provocateur were they blocked and you not. Please watch your reverts more carefully in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
User:94.66.165.113 reported by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) (Result: Declined)
editPage: Antidoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.66.165.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- Original removal of content: [122]
- 19:30, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399344184 by Greekboy (talk) ( they are known for you, provide a source)")
- 19:47, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399374496 by Grk1011 (talk) (you don't provide again any link)")
- 19:49, 28 November 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 399374852 by Grk1011 (talk) (that's not a point, someone want to see true sources not to by the album)")
—Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Declined They haven't reverted since you warned them and there's no violation of the bright line rule, so I'm declining for now. Come back if they continue to revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
User:BHillbillies who is also User:89.215.148.48 reported by User:Crohnie (Result: 24h)
editUser being reported BHillbillies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has reverted at least 5 times. The editor was requested to go to the talk page but has refused per this conversation on my talk page. The user has been informed of this filing at his named account here. I haven't filed one of these before so I hope I did this the correct way. Thank you for your time. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Woogle72 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Declined)
editPage: Warrenpoint ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woogle72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [124]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
Editor was obviously previously editing as 95.144.219.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) before creating an account. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Declined The editor is clearly a new editor, so make an effort to discuss it with them and point them to WP:EW and the article's talk page rather than biting by looking to get them blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Sheodred reported by User:Barts1a (Result: 31h)
editPage: U2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sheodred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Comments:
The user Dream out loud has been given a [130] threat about posting "False Notices" to Sheodred's talk page. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours per AIV report. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Alaney2k reported by User:Dolovis (Result: Permissions revoked)
editPage: Waivers (NHL) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alaney2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [131]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]
Comments:
Alaney2k is repeatedly adding into the waiver article his opinion that Wade Redden was waived to minors for reasons of only salary cap. He is apparently trying to argue within the article that this is a new trend in the NHL. I gently edited his additions to keep out his opinions (which are better suited for and all ready covered in Redden's article), but he edited them back in again. I reverted his edits and asked him to discuss the matter [135], but Alaney2k has continued to edit war without first discussing to reach a consensus. Dolovis (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to have missed the part about giving them a warning for 3RR/Edit warring... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 22:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the place to respond? I asked Dolovis to explain on his talk page and he just pasted my request onto my talk page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- The request to discuss was posted to alaney2k's talk page prior to my report. I did not specifically warn him to stop the edit war, but I did specifically ask him to discuss the issue to reach a consensus before continuing to add his inappropriate opinions to the Waiver article. I also left specific and detailed edit summaries. Alaney2k chose to ignore my request to discuss the issue, and instead reverted to his previous inappropriate edits to the article. It is clear to me that he wants to push through his edits without regard to reaching a consensus. Dolovis (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did reply to your talk page? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey I'm happy to work this out. I thought it was merely a missing cite, so I put one in. The article as it stood was missing cites completely so I've added them in. Dolovis deleted my cite and I reverted. I then edited the caption to the photo to remove the 'to save salary cap space' which I believe is the contentious issue. (Is this not gone now?) This may have been interpreted as warring, but I think I just took the simplest route to get back the cite. I'm not sure if that was wrong, but in any case, I'm sorry about that. If there is something further to edit, I am -completely- open to it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have asked to to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and I have also asked you to first discuss the issue. I have started such a discussion at Talk:Waivers (NHL). Please reach a consensus before adding your edits to the Waiver article. Dolovis (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- The request to discuss was posted to alaney2k's talk page prior to my report. I did not specifically warn him to stop the edit war, but I did specifically ask him to discuss the issue to reach a consensus before continuing to add his inappropriate opinions to the Waiver article. I also left specific and detailed edit summaries. Alaney2k chose to ignore my request to discuss the issue, and instead reverted to his previous inappropriate edits to the article. It is clear to me that he wants to push through his edits without regard to reaching a consensus. Dolovis (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- No violation Only 2 reverts. However, I have revoked Alaney2k's rollback and Dolovis's access to Twinkle for abuse of the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the place to respond? I asked Dolovis to explain on his talk page and he just pasted my request onto my talk page. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you revoke things if there was no violation? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because rollback and Twinkle are not to be used to gain an advantage in a content dispute and you were both abusing them. There was no violation of the three-revert rule, which is why nobody was blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you revoke things if there was no violation? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, what happened to AGF? I did a revert/rollback to retrieve a cite, and edited out the part that was contentious? I was not discussive enough, certainly. I think calling it abuse just goes a bit too far. In fact, the articles did not even change that much. A few sentences back and forth. I did no wholesale chopping out of whole sections or wholesale reversions. That I would call abuse. Vandalism, that I would call abuse. It was a misunderstanding, a mistake. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I was too quick to take the matter to the notice board, and frankly, I am very confused about what the procedure is when someone disagrees with edits being made to articles. As Alaney2k wrote on his talk page[136], it was a case of Alaney2k not taking the time to discuss the issue[137]. I have no doubt that the edits made to [[Waivers (NHL) by Alaney2k were made in good faith, but it is my opinion that the extra comments about the Salary cap and Wade Redden are superfluous to the article and should be place in more appropriate articles. I explained this to Alaney2k and, following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines, I reverted and tried to discuss the issue with Alaney2k. Please tell me what else I should have done before making a report of my concern after it became clear that Alaney2k was going to continue to make his contentious edits without discussion and consensus? Dolovis (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, for a report to be actioned here, there would need to be at least 3 or 4 reverts on the part of the person being reported, but the bigger issue is that you should make as much effort to resolve the dispute amongst yourselves before bringing it here. Opening a discussion on the article's talk page is always a good step and if the discussions between the two of you deadlock, you could get a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. When all attempts at discussion have failed and they've continued to revert up to or beyond 3RR, then it would be appropriate to bring things here, because the only useful thing admins can do is fully protect the disputed page or block the edit warrior(s). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Humaliwalay reported by User:Supertouch (Result: Both blocked 24h)
editPage: Hadith terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humaliwalay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Hadith terminology]
Comments:
I would like to make it clear that I am not tagging any thing in the article Hadith Terminology after you added the references but am specifying that Sunnis believe that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim books are authentic. Humaliwalay (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User:96.57.187.186 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 1 month)
editPage: Human Rights Watch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.57.187.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:11, 30 November 2010 (edit summary: "Iron Cross was fixed.") rv of [142]
- 19:53, 30 November 2010 (edit summary: "NGO monitor is a reliable source. Almost all the information on this page should be gone if you insist on reliable sources") rv of [143]
- 19:54, 30 November 2010 (edit summary: "Sure it is. Google Israel site:hrw.org , then google China site:hrw.org") rv of [144]
- 20:50, 30 November 2010 (edit summary: "NGO Monitor is reliable") rv of [145]
- 20:51, 30 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399790254 by Ravensfire (talk)") labeled as a rv, consecutive with the above
- Diff of warning: here
The same IP has been blocked in the past for edit-warring over this article. The IP continues to insert unreliable sources and original research into this article, reverting any user who removes such material. While this is clearly a 3RR violation, I would note that the material falls under the 1RR imposed on all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict under the discretionary sanctions of ARBPIA. nableezy - 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that last year this editor was blocked for edit-warring on this page, and has zero edits on any article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month This IP address has done little else but edit war on Human Rights Watch and has not got the message since the last 1 week block, hence I'm giving a much longer block this time round. CT Cooper · talk 22:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Dnkrumah reported by User:Cptnono (Result: Indef)
editPage: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dnkrumah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, this article is under 1/rr.
A request for enforcement was opened the other day at AEWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dnkrumah (although requests are supposed to come here according to involved admins) based on his reverts. No action was taken since he reverted. First reverts:
He did it again today.
There is a discussion on the talk pageTalk:Gaza War#Incident and another editor even added in at least a couple lines that he was looking for.[150] Two violations of 1/rr and not using the talk page to seek consensus despite a repeated request. The edit needs to be reverted. Cptnono (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Editor blocked for 24hrs.Cptnono (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dnkrumah was indef blocked by User:PhilKnight for abuse of Wikipedia email. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
User:AnemoneProjectors reported by User:Paul2387 (Result: No action)
editPage: The X Factor (UK series 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [151]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]
Comments:
I don't know if any action should be taken, however, AP didn't use rollback appropriately in this edit. I might notify him for that. Minimac (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- They're all completely different reverts. The first example was because it was an unrefereced addition, the second and fourth were because of unreferenced additions and the wording of the previous edit went against WP:CRYSTAL (we had a big discussion on the article's talk page about that). The third was fairly trivial. But the others were violations of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. That's all I was trying to avoid. I thought this was a valid reason to revert something. I didn't realise I was breaking the 3RR rule. I'm sorry. AnemoneProjectors 19:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Result -- No action. Seems to be adequately explained. All editors should be careful in these situations, even admins. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) No action necessary at this point. Technically a 3RR violation, yes, but there was a consensus at WT:EW that IAR should be invoked in cases of reverting crap from high-profile pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I promise I'll be more careful in future (especially with rollback). AnemoneProjectors 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
User:PolvoMexicano reported by User:BrendanFrye (Result: Stale)
editPage: Jesse Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PolvoMexicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [157]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] [163]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]
Comments:
Basically Polvo keeps reverting the Jesse Vargas page and refuses to add sources. I've seen a lot of this behavior concerning nationality [165] from him and his second account User: Tabcash before [166]. I would have been happy to discuss the issue with him/her but posted that on his/her talk page and not the article talk page. I reverted the page as a blp page but have stopped and filed this report. Adding a source would be the end of this dispute and hopefully the end of the reverts. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Stale No activity in about 18 hours and reportee is editing elsewhere. To block now would be punitive, not preventative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh that makes sense. I'm sure he won't do it again. No need to do anything because he edit warred and broke 3rr over repeated warnings. I'm sure he learned his lesson. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Taiwan boi reported by Walter Görlitz (talk) (Result: 48h each)
editPage: Immersion baptism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taiwan boi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 10:39, 27 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence */")
- 10:55, 27 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence */ Don't delete before answering questions and explaining actions")
- 10:56, 27 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence */ This is all we need, not the whole lot")
- 01:25, 28 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence: views */ As per editorial agreement on Talk")
- 01:26, 28 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence: views */ Title change")
- 01:26, 28 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence: conclusions */ Merg")
- 01:27, 28 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Archaeological evidence */ Merge")
- 05:33, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399469553 by LoveMonkey (talk)Not directly related to archaeology; moving to appropriate section")
- 05:47, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Later use */ More relevant title")
- 13:56, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Immersion in various denominations */ This section is specifically about denominations in which immersion is normative")
- 14:08, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399518655 by Esoglou (talk)Ferguson is reliable; you are not")
- 15:19, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Immersion as normative in various denominations */ Removed editorializing; let the sources speak for themselves (and you quoted the ODCC twice_")
- 15:19, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Eastern Orthodox Church */ Formatting")
- 16:06, 29 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Partial immersion in various denominations */ Here you go")
- 02:40, 1 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Immersion in various religious traditions */ Edited sections, added details to Greek Orthodox Church")
- 03:02, 1 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399850066 by Walter Görlitz (talk)POV")
- 03:11, 1 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399852824 by Walter Görlitz (talk)You already explained your motive is WP:IDONTLIKEIT")
- 03:19, 1 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Immersion in various groups */ Christians")
- 10:07, 1 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Groups that use immersion baptism */ You changed the text of the quotation, and quoted it out of context")
- Diff of warning: here
—Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed on the talk page. An entire section is devoted to the discussion.
- The results of the discussion were: a) Four independent editors agreed with my edits (Swampyank, Leadwind, Sankari, woofboy), and rejected Esoglou's, at which point Esoglou finally agreed to let my edits pass without reverting them; the previous edit war ceased at this point, b) today Esoglou agreed to keep the wording of mine to which you objected, and there is no current edit war.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Cleaghyre reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 48h)
editPage: Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cleaghyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [167]
- 1st revert: [168]
- 2nd revert: [169]
- 3rd revert: [170]
- 4th revert: [171]
- 5th revert: [172]
- 6th revert: [173]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174] [175]
Comments:
User has been warned and refuses to discuss [176] [177] the matter, claiming consensus isn't important. Dayewalker (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Users TheThomas and Baseball Bugs reported by Barts1a (Result: protected)
editPage: List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Baseball_Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: link
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff and diff
Comments:
Page protected for a period of 1 month10 days Slow moving edit war, no blocks are warranted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
These aren't reversions. These are edits. I believe I've reverted one thing in my history.
The problem on this page is that two users Baseball_Bugs and Cresix are repeatedly deleting sourced information of all sorts. These are inappropriate actions
Upon deletion by one of these two I improve/expand my sources per request then reinsert. If no complaint/request was made, I wait five days to ensure the discussion is dead, then reinsert. These are both appropriate actions.
For one --still unaccepted-- sentence I have five links, three for appropriateness in this article, two for truth of the inserted statement. This is a ridiculously high burden to meet. These two are unreasonable when it comes to things they don't know or understand. TheThomas (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Hmbr reported by User:RolandR (Result: 8 hours)
editPage: 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, this article is under 1/rr.
User being reported: Hmbr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181] and the whole section Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#"ethnic_cleansing"_in_second_sentence
Comments:
This is an ongoing dispute, with the text in question being inserted and deleted by several editors, with much discussion on the talk page. Most editors have observed the one revert rule, but Hmbr twice within less than three hours reverted other editors inserting this text. RolandR (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted only once, as did Roland, in the middle of a discussion on the talk page, which was not yet resolved. --Hmbr (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have listed both reverts above. Count them. RolandR (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- These are not reverts, I am afraid you forgot your spectacles. --Hmbr (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have listed both reverts above. Count them. RolandR (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - you both look really childish when you template each other like that. Both of you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, I've gotten to block 2 editors in the past 3 minutes on this article. Anyone else want to hit the revert button? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Shortened block for only partial revert. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Aldux reported by User:Dinkytown (Result:no violation)
editPage: Justinian I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aldux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186]
Comments:
At the second "revert" link above, I tagged the section with an {ActiveDiscuss} tag and asked him to start a conversation on that talk page. He started a hostile discussion, but continued to edit war, even after I told him "Lets not edit war" here. He reverted the material, including removing the {ActiveDiscuss} tag that was placed there. He claims that the material removed was not sourced. In fact, they were linked to several wiki pages that were already sourced. Dinkytown talk 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to make the editor understand, apparently not very successfully, is that new content, especially in GA or FA articles (and Justinian is a GA), but really all, must be sourced per WP:V. As for what's just said up there: "He claims that the material removed was not sourced. In fact, they were linked to several wiki pages that were already sourced.", I think everybody knows here that the sources must be provided directly in the article page not somewhere else in wikipedia. Also I think an answer to the concerns I had raised on the talk page before he reported rather than, so I must disagree that I haven't tried to get my points to be understood. Well, there's always a first time to get reported I guess ;-). That said I'll admit I'm not faultless; I don't take reverting back to unsourced content very well, so I'll probably have to concede I became a bit peevish. :-( Oh well, I hope now Dinkytown will accept to adress my concerns on the talk page, and really proceed to make a better article. That's all I can reall say, honestly.Aldux (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation No 3RR breach (only three reverts and not within 24 hours) and Aldux's reverts were of unsourced material. per WP:BRD the burden was on the reporter to take it to the talk page and demonstrate that the edits were justified. Please continue to discuss it there without continuing the reversions, and seek a third opinion or other outside input if necessary. Mkativerata (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Thunderbird L17 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: No vio)
editPage: Nazi concentration camp badges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thunderbird L17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Despite multiple dissentions by other authors, and his own admission that a small percentage of others also wore the purple triangle, Thunderbird L17 insists on removing any mention of all but Jehovah's witnesses. I took this to 3O, he still immediately undid me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 02:19, 23 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 397468646 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) Still have not seen one source mention Dawn, Free, or Reformed Adventists."
- 17:22, 28 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 399215727 by 71.105.168.233 (talk) This is still under discussion in the talk page.")
- 06:07, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400233308 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk) Still awaiting response on talk page.")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nazi concentration camp badges#Purple triangle were not just for witnesses?
I have generated the diffs using 3rr.php since the original report by User:Kintetsubuffalo lacked them. The 3RR warning came after all the reverts. I am leaving a note for Thunderbird L17 to see if he wants to respond here. No 3RR violation is present. If there is anything at all for this board to consider, it must be a question of long-term warring. —EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Kintetsubuffalo has something against me, and is trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist. I started a disussion regarding the topic early on the article talk page, which Kintetsubuffalo responded to a couple of times, though making the issue personal against me instead of commenting on the article itself. There has since been further discussion on the article talk page by other users and it appears a comprimise has been reached. This edit in particular shows Kintetsubuffalo's bias on the matter, without any discussion put forward on his end. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation Marking this as no vio because those three reverts are the only reverts by the respondent I can see in the article's recent history. I can't find four reverts in a fortnight, let alone 24 hours, so I don't see anything actionable at this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:O_Fenian reported by 92.231.46.139 (Result: No vio)
editPage: Zastava M21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: O_Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [188]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]
Comments:Sufficient sources have been provided, everything has been explained to him so he can follow and understand it, but he still undoes my entry every time. And it is not because of wikipedia policy, because he ignored the wikipedia policy for the other entries on the page which, according to his standards would also violate wikipedia policy (which they don't, it is simply impossible to provide written documents for these kinds of things, we can not get ahold of the actual shipping documents, but pictures in a specialised magazine are enough proof). Therefore it can be concluded that he has a personal bias with that one entry I am trying to make, even though I have obviously enough sources. I have tried to resolve the matter on the talk page, but he just keeps ignoring every logic and closes his eyes to reality and instead goes on inventing reasons to undo my contribution. This is the first time I try to contribute something to wikipedia and I keep getting shut down by some snob who thinks this site is his property and he has any power on here. Please resolve this matter, it is just frustrating as hell trying to contribute and getting punched in the face for no reason.
92.231.46.139 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation He's reverting unsourced and poorly-sourced material, which he's within his rights to do. That doesn't exempt him from 3RR, but he hasn't hit three, never mind four, reverts in a 24 hours period. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Patruns reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: 24h)
editPage: Yahoo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patruns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 19:19, 2 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- 20:04, 2 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- 20:34, 3 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- 20:38, 3 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- 21:00, 3 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- 21:03, 3 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Chatrooms and message boards */")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments: User is trying to tell the world he's noticed an error message on some Yahoo pages, and appears to be ignoring his talk page, which got up to a level-three OR warning and eventually a 3RR warning. --McGeddon (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not really reverting, but re-adding something after it has been removed is the same thing for EW/3RR purposes. First offence, but four reverts, so 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Magnagr reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: No vio)
editPage: Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Magnagr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:32, 2 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Wholesale reversion of well-sourced content unjustified-see comments")
- 21:09, 2 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Ok, live my version meanwhile")
- 21:03, 3 December 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "See comments")
- Diff of warning: here
—McGeddon (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation Three reverts over two days is not enough to justify action at this board. Continue attempts at dispute resolution and seek a third opinion if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:MikeNicho231 reported by User:Anthonyhcole (Result:24 hours)
editPage: Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikeNicho231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [194]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]
Comments:
This is my first time at 3RR. If this is not appropriate, please let me know. But this editor is insisting on inserting unsourced OR and unsupported assertions into an FA medical article. Claims to have read WP:3RR. Anthony (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours See report further down the page. Mkativerata (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Jayseer reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: 24h)
editPage: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jayseer: Jayseer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [201]
3RR warning: [206]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207][208]
Comment:
Requests have been made to the editor to use the Talk page to discuss what should be said about Dr Johnson, but Jayseer has instead made reverts and shown little interest in working out the text on the talk page.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:MikeNicho231 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result:24 hours)
editPage: Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikeNicho231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 18:03 28 Nov
- 1st revert: 10 edits, thru 20:08 3 Dec
- 2nd revert: 20:54 3 Dec
- 3rd revert: 21:27 3 Dec
- 4th revert: 21:44 3 Dec
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on 17 Aug for another article, advised at 21:35, added another
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209]
Comments:
MikeNicho231 is claiming that Asperger syndrome, a featured article, contains libelous material and is removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced anecdote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Separately, I've never known how to determine when Rollback is used, but he was previously warned about using rollback to edit war, and I think he also did so here; if so, could rollback be removed from this user, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The first 10 edits, collectively, constitute a revert. Even then it is disruptive edit-warring and there have been warnings for edit wars on other articles. Rollback has been removed. Mkativerata (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- <Comment removed> Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- @ Barts1a, Um, no; perhaps you placed this comment in the wrong section? By the way, could you please rview WP:SIG; your sig is long and disruptive. Thanks, Mkativerata. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you think mine is long and disruptive you haven't seen anything... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- @ Barts1a, Um, no; perhaps you placed this comment in the wrong section? By the way, could you please rview WP:SIG; your sig is long and disruptive. Thanks, Mkativerata. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Mr_Miles reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: No action)
editPage: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Miles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [215]
Comments:
I'm more sympathetic to Mr Mile's views, but he has also been violating 3RR. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure of the protocol of these 3RR warnings however... In my defence, I was reverting unconstructive edits made by a person banned for previously creating multiple Sockpuppet accounts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MisterAlbert
...and who has again created two more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayseer&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johnh677&action=edit&redlink=1
- Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not blocked Although there is a technical breach of the 3RR, in this instance, I'm not going to block because the material being reverted was arguably a BLP violation and possibly (an explicit exemption from 3RR). I will add, however, that calling somebody a sockpuppet does not make it so and such an allegation without evidence is a personal attack so if you have a case to make, take it to WP:SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Anyuse110 reported by User:贾宝玉 (Result: 48h)
editPage: Cousin marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anyuse110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Version before most recent edit by user: [216]
Edits before a third opinion was given:
Edits after a third opinion:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]
Comments: User:Anyuse110 has been attempting to make several edits to cousin marriage for the past week as detailed in the talk page discussion. First it was just him and I and so although many of his edits removed sourced material and were clearly contrary to policy, I asked for a third opinion on WP:3O and requested page protection once and then a second time after the dispute started again. Finally someone else, User:Bxj, replied and said that Anyuse110's edits were unproductive. Now Anyuse110 persists in removing sourced content like the paragraph beginning with "The US state of Maine" in the most recent diff above and making other changes opposed to consensus, despite everyone previously being warned by an admin after the second full protection about getting blocked. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've had enough of the edit warring on that page. Any more of it will result in further blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Materialscientist reported by User:Danjel (Result: no violation)
editRoentgenium Roentgenium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) * note that WP:Canvas is the issue, not necessarily the reverts on this page.
Materialscientist Materialscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 23:34, 2 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400219942 by Leonard G. (talk) - claim notable? source reliable? Let us wait please")
- 01:41, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400238030 by Danjel (talk) reliable sources please")
- 03:59, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400256112 by Danjel (talk) no evidence of notability")
- 22:41, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 72.38.13.169 (talk) to last version by Headbomb")
Also, Canvassing (in breach of WP:CANVAS)
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Need_quick_help
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Need_quick_help
The canvassing, in a biased (ie, non-neutral) manner, in this case is the primary issue. I believe his reverts were good faith (at least from a deletionist perspective), even if he wasn't participating meaningfully at all in any discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A (See Comments)
Talk:Roentgenium#New_discovery_of_natural_Rg_by_Marinov Talk page at Roentgenium
User_talk:Materialscientist#Roentgenium My attempts to negotiate on his talk page
User_talk:Danjel#Re:Roentgenium
Comments:
This is less an issue of 3RR, and more an issue of the Canvassing. The Canvassing was heavily biased, by personally attacking me and misrepresenting the position that I had been trying to present in discussion. This resulted in at least one user going in half-cocked, as seen in User:Headbomb's reaction in the Talk and his/her subsequent revert on that page.
I'm sorry that I didn't respond to this sooner, but I have only just been informed of the WP:CANVAS issue by a third party. Then again, I'm a user and Materialscientist is an admin (interesting that WP:CANVAS was apparently raised in his RfA), so he should know about it more than I.
The discussion regarding the edit that I wanted to put forward moved on to a reasonable interim conclusion due to the input of other editors, against the backdrop of Materialscientist's actions.
I also haven't issued a warning because I am obviously closely involved and he is an admin who should know the policies better. I would prefer an uninvolved third party to consider the situation. My doing so may be coloured by my feelings regarding this situation and I wouldn't want to be seen to have done the wrong thing.
Thanks. - Danjel (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation The last of the reverts is a simple vandalism-revert, to which 3RR does not apply. What Danjel is doing here is trying to game the system in order to get material into the article that blatantly violates WP:RS. There is going to be very little tolerance for further tendentious editing of that sort. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Kekkomereq4 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: No action)
editPage: List of films considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kekkomereq4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [226]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]
Comments:
User constantly reverts to his preferred version, even though multiple editors have challenged his edits.
- While this does indeed appear to be a slow moving edit war, there is no 3RR and the editor has posted a lengthy explanation on the article's talk page; your response does not appear to be helpful there. I also do not see any reverts after your warning, which was placed ten minutes before you posted here. Is there a reason you're labeling what appears to be a long time editor as a SPA? I can't help but feel that there were quite a few details left out here. Please also note that your own edit warring here follows the same pattern. Please stop and engage in discussion. Kuru (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Sumbuddi reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48h)
editPage: Bernard d'Abrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sumbuddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 22:22, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 22:24, 3 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 00:04, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 10:20, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "restore sourced content")
- 10:44, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 10:44, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 11:34, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "I could not find a reliable source to support the claim that he is refered to as 'Dr.'; removing irrelevant opinions of other creationists")
- 11:36, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 11:55, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 11:55, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 11:56, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 11:57, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 12:32, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Criticisms of Evolution */")
- 12:34, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Criticisms of Evolution */")
- 12:35, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Criticisms of Evolution */")
- 12:47, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 12:57, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 13:00, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 13:01, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 13:03, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- 13:47, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400480497 by Hrafn (talk) This appears to be a direct quote, and there is not afaik any reason to doubt its veracity.")
- 15:04, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Criticisms of Evolution */")
- 17:29, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv to last version by me, subsequent edits are not constructive")
- 20:43, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Education and career */")
- Diff of warning: here
- Note that there are 8 separate groups of edits, and the edit summaries establish that there are at least 4 reverts no matter what one makes of the other edits (undid, rv, restore, removing).
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:LemonMonday reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result:72 hours)
editPage: Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LemonMonday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 11:28, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400402165 by Fmph (talk)Revert per WP:BRD - the climate is not like most of "northwest" Europe. Please discuss first")
- 20:07, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400516644 by Fmph (talk)Please discuss meaningfully at the Talk page, first.")
- 20:40, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400541742 by SarekOfVulcan (talk)If it's accurate find a reference. See Talk")
- 21:38, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 400550714 by Fmph (talk)Ref makes no mention of Belgium or Northwest Europe, see Talk")
- Diff of warning: here (Not exactly a warning, but really, given the circumstances...)
—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I'm seeing a very clear breach of 3RR. The editor had only just reported another editor here so he/she obviously knows our rules on edit-warring. Given that there is one entry in the block log for edit-warring in the past, 72 hours is the block length. Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Rainbowofpeace reported by User:Phoenix_of9 (Result: 24h each)
editPage: Template:Discrimination sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rainbowofpeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: keeps deleting heterosexism from general forms and moving it to specific forms.
[233]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2 warnings: [238] [239]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar#Heterosexism
Comments:
Also note that, perhaps, editor seems to try to WP:OWN the article. Phoenix of9 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Fmph reported by User:LemonMonday (Result: no 3RR violation)
editPage: Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [240]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]
Comments:
I applied WP:BRD but no discussion was forthcoming. The user has also applied similar tactics to my BRD revert at Climate of Ireland on an identical matter. LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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. BRD is a guideline but not a policy, and there is no 3RR violation here. I suggest posting a neutral message at an appropriate WikiProject to seek input from other interested editors. This is really not important enough to edit-war over. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am reporting edit warring not 3RR. Are you suggesting I come back here after working up to 3RR? LemonMonday Talk 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit you listed was not even a revert, it was an addition of content. This editor has made one revert on the article. According to BRD it would have been better if the editor had not made even that one revert, but there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or precedent that would justify issuing a block at this point. I'm surprised that an editor with your experience is confused about this. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the first edit was a revert - mine. This page is obviously a waste of space if it can't deal with an editor who won't engage in meaningful discussion and just forces his point-of-view. Maybe you could advise how I deal with his reference to me as LemonMonkey, then again, maybe not. LemonMonday Talk 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
@LemonMonkey@LemonMonday No. I think what is being suggested is that you find someone or something to support your point of view, or to give a third-party view. Perhaps WP:EUROPE, WP:BELGIUM or even WP:CCTF might be useful forums to try? Let me know which one you choose. And be sure to give them the full story, i.e. that this is the 2nd article from my recent contributions that you have foolowed me to and reverted a hugely uncontentious edit just to make a WP:POINT. What not just find some evidence that the evidence I have introduced is somehow 'wrong'? Fmph (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)- Sincere apologies for naming mistake Fmph (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the first edit was a revert - mine. This page is obviously a waste of space if it can't deal with an editor who won't engage in meaningful discussion and just forces his point-of-view. Maybe you could advise how I deal with his reference to me as LemonMonkey, then again, maybe not. LemonMonday Talk 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit you listed was not even a revert, it was an addition of content. This editor has made one revert on the article. According to BRD it would have been better if the editor had not made even that one revert, but there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or precedent that would justify issuing a block at this point. I'm surprised that an editor with your experience is confused about this. Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am reporting edit warring not 3RR. Are you suggesting I come back here after working up to 3RR? LemonMonday Talk 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Note - (I have left a similar note at Talk:Belgium.) FWIW, after this, user Fmph made this and this edit, the latter inserting exactly the same content in a different article (Geography of Belgium)after that content was removed in Belgium. The user also just opened a help request about this, but did not mention that the discussion is mainly about whether the countries belong to Northwest Europe or not. I have left a note at the help request page.
Now, technically this might not be a case of 3RR, but I do think this can be considered as edit warring. Just my 2 cents. DVdm (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note? What's a Note when its at home? Is it different from any other response?
- WRT my question at Assistance/Requests, DVdm (talk · contribs) has synthesised my request into a question he seems to think needs answering, in so doing probably spoiling any chance I have of getting an answer to my question. And who is being accused of being disruptive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs)
- The problem is that you seem not to be listening to feedback. There is a discussion going at Talk:Belgium#Climate. You should try to find backing for your edits there, before you go around to an additional country adding its membership in a climate zone that you have figured out. You also asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Can a diagram/map be primary source, but without mentioning that there is a current dispute at Belgium, as well as a complaint about you at the 3RR noticeboard. Not mentioning the other discussions looks like forum shopping. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I was listening to feedback. The feedback I had when I made the edit was that this thread was closed, the prime mover of this thread LemonMonday (talk · contribs) had been blocked and the only other contributors - SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) and GoodDay (talk · contribs) - seemed to be agreeing with my edit. It was only after I made the edit, that I noticed DVdm (talk · contribs)s contribution, disputing my version. You may feel I was forum shopping, and it may look like that, but I have to say that I was asking a simple question - Can an image/map be used as a primary source? - and wanted a simple answer. Yes or No, prefereably. You don't happen to know the answer, do you? I didn't see the point in getting into a long convoluted argument of he said/she said. It's a simple enough question. That's why that particular venue was chosen. It was not about dispute resolution. It was not about edit wars. It was/is just a simple question. And BTW, I did not add an additional country to the membership of any climate zone. I - rightly or wrongly - added context to the zone it was already in. Fmph (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that you seem not to be listening to feedback. There is a discussion going at Talk:Belgium#Climate. You should try to find backing for your edits there, before you go around to an additional country adding its membership in a climate zone that you have figured out. You also asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Can a diagram/map be primary source, but without mentioning that there is a current dispute at Belgium, as well as a complaint about you at the 3RR noticeboard. Not mentioning the other discussions looks like forum shopping. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
User:NorthernCounties reported by User:Qwerta369 (Result:72 hours)
editPage: John Rocha (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthernCounties (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [400517931]
- 2nd revert: [400674807]
- 3rd revert: [400678107]
- 4th revert: [400678583]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245][246][247][248]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [400491867][400673011][400676342][400677340][400678048][400678853]
Comments:
User continually removes sourced text with fiction. User seems to believe that John Rocha is an Irish citizen, on the incorrect and unsourced assumption that marriage to an Irish citizen confers automatic Irish citizenship. User ignores warnings and polite attempts to education user. Qwerta369 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Could the investigation admin please take note of the recent contributions of Qwerta369 when deciding. I have also warned him that he was partaking in edit warring and further to this, the ref he kept citing did note actually support his claim. Many thanks --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours NorthernCounties clearly violated 3RR. Qwerta369 made four reverts in 26 hours, disruptively Twinkling some of them as vandalism and leaving templated vandalism messages on NorthernCounties talk page. Edit-warring and disruption from both sides. Both editors have form. Mkativerata (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Chelo61 reported by User:Moxy (Result:2 weeks)
editPage: Michael (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelo61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [249]
- 2nd revert:[250]
- 3rd revert: [251]
- 4th revert: [252]
- 5th revert [253]
- 6th revert [254]
- 7th revert [255]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Chelo61#You are now at risk
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michael (album)#Studio vs Compilation: A Compromise Proposal
Comments:
User does not care .. will not stop . was already ban for this on this page User:Moxy
(additional comments from non-report filing editor) I was the editor who warned Chelo61 but when you try and engage in discussions you get responses such as "I'm trying compromise while this discussion goes on and it is you who do not "get the point" or "Seriously! You guys always try to find something just to block me. What, are you guys scare to "lose" or something? I don't make edits for no reason". This user has no grasp of the community nature of wikipedia or of the need to address the formal concerns raised on the talk page about his editors or on his talkpage about his responses. Its not a good look considering he's been blocked for the same issue before. When Chelo61 was unblocked, an admin told him "You need to participate in discussion at the article talkpage and not edit the article in ways that you know do not have consensus" additionally per Chelo's talkpage he was warned after his block for once again reverting the article without discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks User:Ending-start will be formally warned for edit-warring (not a 3RR breach but edit-warring that would have resulted in a block if it wasn't a first offence) and have rollback removed. Mkativerata (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I should note I think I have been quite lenient here setting the block at 2 weeks. Largely I have done so because there was aggravation by the other side (use of rollback). For future offences, we may be heading into indefinite block territory. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:XLR8TION reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: both 24 hours)
editPage: The Limelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [256]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [262]
Comments:
Explained 3RR, and WP:BRD to editor, but they continued with their final reversion anyone. They seem convinced that I'm in some way connected with the people whose names he or she is trying to remove from the article, but my history is clear: I edit many articles about historic NY buildings, and this is just one of them. In my opinion the information is relevant, and a Google search showed that it was accurate, but that's neither here nor there -- the point is that the edtiro was asked to stop removing the information until there was a consensus on the talk page to do so, and instead went ahead with their reversions.
Also, the editor claims to have asked for mediation, but there's no indication in their contribs of requesting mediation (which would not likely be accepted in any case, because talk page consensus was never attempted.) The editor clearly needs a short, sharp, shock to let them know that their behavior is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize until now that I had been reported by XLR8TION above, or I would not have filed this apparently dueling report. It's my impression that the editor has a bit of an ownership problem with the article -- perhaps legitimately so, I don't know how much vandalism he's had to deal with in the past -- but in this case, the best result would be to return the article to the state it was in before he began trying to remove the information from it, and letting a consensus discussion develop, something that's not been allowed to happen. I've put neutral notices on the NYC and Architecture project talk pages looking for more input. If XLR8TION would agree to allow the talk page discussion to make the determination, that's fine with me, I don't need for him tobe blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- User Beyond My Ken, clearly is not acting civil in this dispute. There is clearly a visible connection between editor and the two non-notable names he wants to add to an article about a NYC nightclub. This is not a vanity project or page. This is an article about a nightclub. I have informed editor, that egos and work experience should be promoted on a resume. Press releases clearly are promotional fodder and may not be valid for all articles as they paint a sometimes biased view of a subject. Let's talk about the Limelight, and not about two nobodies who have not had a lasting influence on this club such as Peter Gatien or Michael Alig. Shameless plugs are simply shameless plugs.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- These individuals are nobodies. They have nothing to do with the Limelight's extensive history. Shameless plugs are shameless plugs. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. Stop adding promotional garbage form a press release that simply is biased advertising to promote the agendas of companies and non-notable individuals. I have worked on this article for several years and have removed vandalism and other shameless plug attempts. This is nothing new and the inclusion of two highly non-notable names raises flags on why you are doing so when the article's focus is on the club and it's history. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, this article is about the Limelight NOT about James Mansour of Mansour Design and Melisca Klisanin, Creative Director. Are you aware of that? This is clearly a shameless advertising plug. Keep the article clean of all promotional reference. This is about the Limelight and the notable personalities that brought it's fame during it's heydey as a nightclub. Mr. Mansour and Ms. Kilsanin are only involved with the Limelight due to profitand puclicity. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It very clearly states at the top of this noticeboard "Do not continue a dispute on this page." This page is not for settling content disputes, it's for reporting clear cases of edit warring, which this appears to be. I warned you above in your report you were also edit warring, this report is equally valid. Dayewalker (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Paulbright8 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: resolved)
editPage: Colombo International School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paulbright8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 08:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:40, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 17:55, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 18:10, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 19:04, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
- 19:11, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 19:13, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
- 19:14, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 19:18, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 19:20, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
- 19:22, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 19:36, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
- 19:45, 4 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
- 03:57, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* History */")
- 04:22, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 04:34, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Curriculum */")
- 04:36, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Expansion */")
- 04:36, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* History */")
- 04:50, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Model United Nations */")
- 07:30, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Model United Nations */")
- 07:33, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Model United Nations */")
- 07:51, 5 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Digital Art & Animation */")
- Diff of warning: here
- The first three edits in this list involved addition of unsourced material, quickly reverted by Hrafn (but repeated by Paulbright8). I warned the editor about 3RR at 21:18 last night and tried to overlook the first couple of edits this morning (which merely rearranged some material and added a source), but it has now become clear that he is simply ignoring the notification. Also worth noting COI, see here.
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
didnt know i was doing something wrong. i saw you had asked for citations so i rearranged it and tried to put the needed info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbright8 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Also I didn't disregard Hrfan. I took his advice to add references if placing info and redid that section. Paulbright8 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note I find this report not very easy to understand, but my impression is that the edit-warring has now ceased. Is that correct? Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think we now have his attention and he is waiting to see what the outcome here is (I don't think any real effort was made to understand the 3RR notice last night). The remaining issue is COI, as noted above. I'll place a notice; perhaps an admin can reinforce w/rt 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think that Paulbright8 understands the community norms here a bit better now - welcome, and happy editing. The key points, just to recap, are that all content must be sourced (personal knowledge can help, but it is important to search for both confirmatory and disconfirmatory sources), and that articles are written collaboratively. When there is any disagreement regarding the best way to write an article, just click on the Discussion tab at the top of any page and work it out there; most people are pretty reasonable once all the relevant points are presented. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: both blocked 24 h, see below)
editPage: The Limelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Limelight&diff=400773553&oldid=400726385
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Limelight&diff=400773553&oldid=400741328
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Limelight&diff=400773553&oldid=400772108
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Limelight&diff=400773553&oldid=400773157
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Limelight Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User refuses to understand that the article is about the Limelight and clearly has a connection with the individuals he wants to include an article. Have informed him that this is not ad space or places to promote egos. Refuses to ccoperate.XLR8TION (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)--XLR8TION (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: XLR8TION, you do realize you're also guilty of more than three reverts in the last five hours, don't you? Dayewalker (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Daye, I am aware that I have reverted the article, but also be aware that I have made civil attempts to have conflict resolved via mediation. The editor clearly has some connection to the non-notable inividuals he is trying to include the article. This is about a nightclub, and is not a vanity project or page. Red flags are waving as a conflict of interest is clearly visible here.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may offer you some advice here, you're also clearly edit warring. You've tried starting a discussion, but you're still reverting. The best way to handle this is to self-revert your last edit, and let an admin take a look. Dayewalker (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please be careful of the terms that you are using. Claiming that the editor is connected to the group when he has quite clearly stated that he is not violates WP:AGF. Also, talk page back and forth and constant reverting is not Wikipedia:Mediation. MarnetteD | Talk 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may offer you some advice here, you're also clearly edit warring. You've tried starting a discussion, but you're still reverting. The best way to handle this is to self-revert your last edit, and let an admin take a look. Dayewalker (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If I may offer a correction: XLR8TION did not open a discussion on this issue, I did, on his talk page, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs), see below. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:211.30.186.126 reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: protected)
editPage: Newington College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 211.30.186.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [263]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [268]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [269]
Comments:
IP seems to be edit warring against several other IPs over external links/citations then calling them vandals, edit war seems to be slow going over several days--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Page protected Semi-protected for three months. Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:NotePC reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: blocked 31 hours)
editPage: Ryokan (Japanese inn) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NotePC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NotePC is editwarring, removing images at Ryokan, despite myself and Nihonjoe (coordinator of the Japan Project undoing the removals.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [diff]
- 2nd revert: [diff]
- 3rd revert: [diff]
- 4th revert: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I don't see a 3RR violation as NotePC reverted three times rather than four, but with a comment like this after she/he has been warned, referring to the contributor twice, should this warrant a block? Also, I've seen poor use of rollback from Kintetsubuffalo (see this). As Kintetsubuffalo has been blocked in the past for edit warring I request his rollback privilege should be dropped from his/her account. Minimac (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- NotePC's en ability seems to be poor, and his ja is rough and impolite, but he is correct. As a native ja editor, I think the image is terrible. The room is not a genuine Japanese room. As NotePC pointed out, it looks like a renovated room, turning a western style room to a tatami-matted room. Furniture is clearly cheap. See other ryokan room images. The one in the article, commons:File:Ryokan-hakone-en-1.jpg and commons:File:Ryokan-hakone-en-2.jpg. No, the image NotePC removed is not a typical ryokan room and is inappropriate to put into the top of the article. It's a cheap one for student travelers or salesmen who want to sleep a night under the roof. I googled and found the ryokan is this one. Their six-tatami matted room's wall is metal paneled. The price is ￥2500 per night without meals. It's definitely a cheap motel class ryokan. I don't understand why Kintetsubuffalo and Joe disagreed with the removal. See also the talk page. Another native ja editor supports NotePC's edit. Oda Mari (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Jalapenos do exist reported by User:Rami R (Result: not blocked, ARBPIA warning added to article)
editPage: 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 15:09, 6 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision: that there was a spate of arson attacks during the fire is not a suspicion or an opinion but a non-disputed fact, so WP:DUE doesn't apply. Pls take to talk if you still disagree.")
- 17:28, 6 December 2010 (edit summary: "Compromise version where any statement that could possibly be disputed is attributed to the source and not in the voice of the article.")
The edits fall under the scope of WP:ARBPIA, as the edits involved accusations of terrorism committed by Arab Israelis. Articles within the scope of ARBPIA are under a 1RR limit. —Rami R 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? First, as I understand, ARBPIA articles are marked as such on their talk pages, and this one isn't. I try to stay away from those articles. Second, the second edit in question isn't a revert but a compromise suggestion that took Rami's concerns into account. Third, the editing of this article and the talk page discussion based on this disagreement are neither chaotic nor acrimonious, so what's the point of this (unannounced) complaint? Why not just sort it out the regular way? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- The terms of the 1RR restriction (linked below) don't say that a talk page notice is mandatory, but I would venture to guess that the absence of a warning on a borderline article that an editor genuinely believed was not within ARBIA might be something that the reviewing admin could take into account.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? First, as I understand, ARBPIA articles are marked as such on their talk pages, and this one isn't. I try to stay away from those articles. Second, the second edit in question isn't a revert but a compromise suggestion that took Rami's concerns into account. Third, the editing of this article and the talk page discussion based on this disagreement are neither chaotic nor acrimonious, so what's the point of this (unannounced) complaint? Why not just sort it out the regular way? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note to the reviewing admin (I can't decide this because I'm involved in ARBPIA): Jde has been notified of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions,[272] but is not currently under any personal editing restrictions. "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" are under 1RR (see here). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not blocked I have however added an ARBPIA warning to the talk page of the article, so that the consequences of any future reversion should be clear. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:JCAla reported by User:Jrkso (Result: No vio)
editPage: Northern Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [273]
- 1st revert: [274]
- 2nd revert: [275]
- 3rd revert: [276]
- 4th revert: [277]
- 5th revert: [278]
- 6th revert: [279]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]
Comments:
JCAla is very disruptive, he was blocked once in September for 3RR in the Afghanistan related articles and once in October for 3RR violation, I think he enjoys violating 3RRs, edit-warring, POV-pushing, spamming, adding Youtube video links in articles, etc. To play it off, he removes and ignores the 3RR warnings given at his talk page.[281].--Jrkso (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- His opponent was blocked as sockpuppet [282], soon after the edit warring. Can this serve as an excuse? Biophys (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation Reverts were of vandalism by a now-blocked sock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User 88.110.250.206 reported by User:Barts1a (Result: stale)
editPage: The Howling III: Echoes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 88.110.250.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.129.175.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
- 1st revert: diff
- 2nd revert: diff
- 3rd revert (By this point I had become aware of the edit warring): diff
- 4th revert: diff
Comments:
- Stale - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:71.111.127.39 reported by User:Richwales (Result: blocked 24 hours)
editPage: Anchor baby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.111.127.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [283]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [289]
Comments:
IP user appears frustrated regarding how to discuss the issue and seek consensus; seems convinced in good faith that his edit is right and that people reverting him are wrong. He may end up responding more reasonably to the latest discussion on the article's talk page, but I'm lodging this notice in order to put the matter on record and (hopefully) protect me and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) from possible accusations that we are edit-warring rather than trying to get the problem fixed in a more proper way. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Although I completely agree with that IP that you are reinserting some mad weaselly language. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:RT101798 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)
editPage: 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, this article is under a one revert restriction.
User being reported: RT101798 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [290]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been long discussion and several edit wars over this edit in the past few weeks.
Comments:
This editor is also edit-warring over spelling at Bolshevik. RolandR (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:96.237.129.44 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 72 hours)
editPage: Gold standard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.237.129.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [[294] (version before IP edits)
- Initial change: [[295]
- 1st revert: [296]
- 2nd revert: [297]
- 3rd revert: [298]
- 4th revert: [299]
- 5th revert: [300]
- 6th revert: [301]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302] - note that multiple edit summaries have warned about the 3RR and that the IP editor is aware of 3RR. See edit summary on this diff.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gold_standard#Bobrayner - what synthesis - entire talk page section of concerns being explained and ignored during EW
Comments:
Semi-protection may also be needed - this editor is quite determined.
Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours If user returns under another username before block is expired, please make request for protection at WP:RFPP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Shockingly enough, he IP-hopped and continued his war. I've requested page protection as you suggested. *sigh* Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have semiprotected Gold standard for 2 months due to the IP's apparent evasion of the 72-hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Shockingly enough, he IP-hopped and continued his war. I've requested page protection as you suggested. *sigh* Ravensfire (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:130.49.117.51 reported by User:Anomie (Result: blocked 31 hours)
editPage: List of best-selling game consoles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.49.117.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 22:43, 6 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- 22:54, 6 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- 23:06, 6 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- 03:19, 7 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- 17:31, 7 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- 19:13, 7 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Video game and handheld consoles */")
- Diff of warning: here
Note the article talk page has contained a notice since September 2007 pointing out that the source the IP is warring to add is not considered reliable.
—Anomie⚔ 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours If the user returns under a different IP, by all means ask for semi-protection here or at WP:RFPP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Chartinael reported by User:Lagoo sab (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)
editPage: Pashto language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chartinael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [303]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [309]
Amānullāh Khān did not speak Pashto as his mother tongue. BTW I know a few Pashtun that are unable to speak the language of
Comments:
Chartinael is distorting by trying to make his point with his edits at Pashto language. His edits appear to have heavy Persian-ethnocentric tone. He is telling me weird stuff like: [310] "According to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan their ancestors.". This guy is very determined
to express his own personal POV and opinions into the article by cherry-picking books as sources.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
OPTIONAL: On a separate note, I have reasons to believe that Chartinael is a sockpuppet of someone who constantly attack Pashtun ethnic group, (i.e. [311] [312] User:Sommerkom and possibly User:Cabolitae, User:Tajik).--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note Reporter Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruption and what appears to be gaming the system; refusal to contribute collaboratively even after Chartinael, not Lagoo sab, initiated WP:3O, is especially demonstrated by edits like this. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Xyz231 reported by User:Spacexplosion (Result: 48 hours)
editPage: PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xyz231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [313]
- 1st revert: [314]
- 2nd revert: [315]
- 3rd revert: [316]
- 4th revert: [317]
- 5th revert: [318]
- 6th revert: [319]
- 7th revert: [320]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322]
Comments:
This user has repeatedly been a problem, as seen in AN/I. The user's previous (blocked) account, User:Planeshift_rpg, was also been blocked for 3RR before it was blocked for naming policy violation. The problems have consistently been WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, and I don't know how to address it anymore. Spacexplosion[talk] 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the page is a battleground of trolls, who are continuously bashing the game just for the sake of it. There is ample evidence of that in the logs. An evident example is the following edit set. The addition of more criticism is seen as something perfectly fine, in fact this change was seen as a good one and reverted here saying that the article is a very important reference. But then when I added positive text from the same article, then that's something to revert and not acceptable anymore. This evidently breaks NPOV and people are just not capable of using the references properly. If we want to state something on the article it has to be endorsed by multiple sources, and by consensus. If there is no consensus, then the change should be omitted. Xyz231 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would like also to mention that I'm one of the few who actually contributed real content and reference to the article, improving it. Only this fact should be evident enough who is disrupting information and who is contributing. Xyz231 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Added some more revert diffs. I have places to be. I won't be responding to anything until tomorrow at least. Spacexplosion[talk] 00:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours as this is a second offense. Content disputes or "no consensus" reverts are not exempt from 3RR. I would strongly encourage you to read the policy to avoid future problems. Kuru (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Added some more revert diffs. I have places to be. I won't be responding to anything until tomorrow at least. Spacexplosion[talk] 00:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Religious Burp reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:31 hrs )
editPage: Hamish & Andy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Religious Burp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [323]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [328]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [329]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Ckatz. KrakatoaKatie 05:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
User:98.122.101.52 reported by User:HXL49 (Result: 31 hours)
editPage: Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.122.101.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [330]
- 1st revert: [331]
- 2nd revert: [332]
- 3rd revert: [333]
- 4th revert: [334]
- 5th revert: [335]
- 6th revert: [336]
- 7th revert: [337]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [338]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [339]
Comments:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I will admit to doing my share of reverts, BUT given my warning of the user at hand, and the posting of such a discussion on the article talk page, this user has ignored the issue completely. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Dear Administrators, The user HXL is attempting to use a block to further propagate his pov edits when the previous edits by other editors had no problem with the article page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.52 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
- Blocked — mainly because of the clear disruptive editing nature of the edits, themselves. The user ignored warnings and there seems to be consensus against the changes. On top of that all, for some reason they started linkspamming in edit summaries. However, I've also revoked HXL49 (talk · contribs)'s rollback flag due to both its use in a content dispute and using it to edit war a user who was rightfully allowed to blank warnings from their talk page per WP:BLANKING. --slakr\ talk / 11:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)