Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive192

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:68.96.136.158 reported by User:174.70.63.4 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Ed Kosiski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.96.136.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
User 68.96.136.158 resumed edit war after previous temporary block expired. Please revert to [8] and extend protection.

Result: Semiprotected three months. The named IP seems to be POV pushing by inserting an unsourced defence of the subject of the article, who has been convicted in court according to reliable sources. The unsourced defence, though it is for the benefit of Kosiski, risks violating BLP by stating facts not in evidence. The four reverts listed are not timely -- only one of them is even in the last month. A long semi is used since a variety of IPs have been conducting the same dispute since April. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Normal editing by autoconfirmed editors should continue, assuming proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There has only been 1 edit in the past month because the page has been locked as a result of the previous activity. Do we need to go through this 4x each month? Also, I did not revert prior to reporting (I thought this was the proper process) - Can you please revert the prior edit? Thanks 174.70.63.4 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was only semiprotected before. The page history shows the names of four registered accounts who are still able to edit. Consider making your proposal on the article talk page. If necessary use the {{editsemiprotect}} template on the article talk to get assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam reported by User:108.18.174.123 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Mitt Romney dog incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
I oppose this report and I personally believe this is a waste of time. ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor ViriiK says he will take retaliatory action if Arkandam Arcandam is blocked. That seems like a no-no to me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Do not misrepresent my statement. You are trying to insert an WP:UNDUE sentence in that article and are in a current debate over it. I was simply saying that if you took advantage of any block imposed against Arcandam, I will revert until there is a consensus. Thank you for giving me that idea to go make that suggestion over there. ViriiK (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It may be a waste of time, but there is a clear 3RR violation. The only reason he should not be blocked would be if he was not aware of WP:3RR before his last revert; it is possible, as he states he is not a strong English-speaker. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you stating that you intend to edit-war? Please rephrase, if that is not your intention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not involved in any edit-war. My point is that since the piece is an UNDUE, it is a 3RR exemption. ViriiK (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, where do you get the idea that removing undue content is an exemption? There are a few exemptions to 3RR but removing undue material is not one of them. Sædontalk 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Arcandam has previously been blocked for edit-warring (on July 5), so he knows what it's about. My warnings at his user talk (and at article talk) linked to WP:3RR. His English sounds fine to me (unlike ViriiK's).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yaaaa okay. ViriiK (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I remember that. That was funny. Read the comments that followed, like this one and that one. I decided to be kind to that admin, he made a stupid mistake, in general he does good work. Arcandam (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@ViriiK: No worries mate. Admins have a brain. They'll read the diffs and the talkpage. The chance I get blocked is close to zero. That is why I don't even bother defending myself, it is just a waste of time. Arcandam (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't check that. In that case, a 48-hour minimum block should be applied, probably to both parties, as the IP seems also to have reverted that many times. 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs)
Arthur Rubin, are you saying that I broke 3RR?108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think so. I could be wrong, though. I would expect the reviewing admin to check carefully, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
IMHO it is the "Mitt Romney dog incident" page that should be protected for a couple of days, I see a bit of stir there... Cavarrone (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, as long as the tag remains. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Heaven forbid that anyone would ever protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. Arcandam (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, dispute tags can sometimes be added through protection, if it's clear to all concerned that there is a dispute, legitimate or not. As an involved admin, I wouldn't (intentionally) edit through protection, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Arthur has been trouted, this can be closed. Arcandam (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment:. I find this humourous. It happened in 1983, the dog died in 1993, the interview was in 2007, and this is 2012. The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now. They are finally locked in time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Example: [25]

Comments:
Previous report here --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


My defense: The 1st edit that Old Moonraker claims to be a revert is not a revert; it is the conclusion of a long discussion in both the talk page here and WP:RSN here. The evidence for it is that none of the folks on the opposite side who were involved in those discussions tried to revert it and the edit was untouched for one full day. Many users on the talk page under section "Lack of Sufficient Criticism" have seen this edit and stated their consent with it. That being said, the 3rd edit has tried to cover the new concerns brought up by Snalwibma while remaining faithful to the previous discussions. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of those users that you speak of, oddly, have only ever edited that talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Side Note: If a group of users are dis-honoring the discussions of the talk page and trying to edit war in group -possibly to avoid individual 3RR- where should I complain to? Is there a rule that bans group edit warring?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think we are all actually following that discussion, but that is beside the point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I count at least six reverts on this article in the last few days against multiple editors. Using the talk page is not an excuse for edit-warring. Blocked for 48 hours. I would also consider opening an SPI about the brand new accounts on the talk page who appear to be very up-to-speed with Wikipedia policy in their first few edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Hypnosifl reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hypnosifl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 1 August 2012


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:39, 1 August 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:59, 1 August 2012

Comments: WP:REDACT is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, Hypnosifl should have removed the tag only, per WP:RfC#Ending RfCs). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user. In any case, despite my objections, Hypnosifl removed the comment RfC summary a fifth time, (regardless of strikeout).

“[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosifl (talkcontribs) 16:56, 1 August 2012

does not suffice for:

“Summary of comment request: Question about the metaphysical view known as Eternalism (philosophy of time), namely, whether the given sources justify the statement "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory", or whether this should be changed to a weaker statement that eternalism is only "sometimes known as" the block universe theory, because of the possibility that some philosophers define the meaning of the term "eternalism" differently from the meaning of the term "block universe". Hypnosifl (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)”

Also, please note there's currently a dispute resolution discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism_discussion.—Machine Elf 1735 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs does not indicate to me that there is anything wrong with removing an RfC (both tag and summary paragraph) an hour or two after adding it, before anyone has actually commented on the issue. I have already said to Machine Elf that my reason for removing it was that Machine Elf had said I misrepresented his/her position on the talk page, and since I wasn't sure what specific characterizations Machine Elf was referring to, I was worried that my RfC summary might contain an inadvertent misrepresentation of Machine Elf's side of the debate too, so I wanted to remove the whole thing until that was cleared up (I have also said that if Machine Elf approves the summary, I would be happy to put back both the RfC and the summary). WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them, but no one had yet responded to the RfC or the summary; WP:REDACT also says it's OK to remove a comment and replace it with a "placeholder" summarizing the former comment in brackets, which is what I did with the summary paragraph after Machine Elf complained about my removing it. I don't see anything in the rules that requires that I leave the full paragraph up, if there is please point it out. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
None of the previous attempts to get that "cleared up" at the dispute resolution notice board, on the article talk page and on his talk page have altered his misrepresentation of the dispute. The fact is, he removed it an hour later, after it had already posted to everyone's watchlist. It's confusing and inconsistent for it to simply vanish, and replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.—Machine Elf 1735 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hypnosifl claims “WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them”. However, what WP:REDACT actually says is: “It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.” —Machine Elf 1735 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence starting "Other users may have already quoted you" is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments". Furthermore, the page then immediately goes on to list acceptable alternatives to total deletion, including the option of putting a "placeholder" in brackets which briefly summarizes what was in the comment. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments about "misrepresentation" on the talk page haven't told me what specific views you think I am attributing to you that you don't actually hold--see this request for clarification. And my placeholder doesn't say you are "responsible" for its removal, it says that I chose to remove it out of concern that the issue of misrepresentation needed to be clarified first: "[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]". I'd be happy to change the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way (as long as I feel the proposed change would still be accurate) if you have any suggestions. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not true, his "request for clarification" is ad nauseum and WP:TENDENTIOUS. What would give him the impression that I'm interested in negotiating the "the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way"? Clearly I want the 100% accurate RfC summary to be restored.—Machine Elf 1735 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If it's "ad nauseum", I'd say that's primarily because you refuse to ever actually answer these requests by clearly spelling out how I have misrepresented you (see Wikipedia:Etiquette, "Do not ignore reasonable questions.") If you think you have already done this adequately, perhaps it would help others to judge if you quoted one or more of your own previous comments that you think clearly states some specific way I have misrepresented you, and I can point out if I had any followup questions indicating I thought your statement was unclear, and whether you responded to those.
I offered to change the placeholder because you made a specific complaint about the content of the placeholder, 'replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.' I wanted to defuse that as a possible issue, so the only remaining issue is whether it is broadly unacceptable to remove an RfC you just created (and which hadn't yet gotten any responses) and replace the summary paragraph with a bracketed placeholder.Hypnosifl (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hypnosifl, see my responses. That's not true, but I refuse to continue to do so, ad nauseum. Perhaps no one cares because it's irrelevant to your 3RR violation? The basic issue is whether or not they'll block you for it.—Machine Elf 1735 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that my "3RR violation" is the reason you're asking me to be blocked, rather than the basic issue that I deleted my own RfC summary and didn't go along with your attempts to replace it? I think the 3RR refers to reverting other editor's changes rather than your own (the statement of the rule says "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"), so you initiated the back-and-forth of undoing my attempt to delete it and my re-deleting it, and you did so more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (here, here, here and here). Hypnosifl (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And of course I admit that I also undid your own attempts to put my summary back more than three times (I hadn't been thinking about the three-revert rule so I didn't keep track), although with the first one I was hoping that by adding a bracketed placeholder I would be satisfying your request that I not simply erase all record of the summary (likewise, the last of your four edits above was perhaps trying to satisfy my request that you not put a strike through my text without permission by replacing the summary but not putting the strike through it). Hypnosifl (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, since both of us did end up violating the 3RR (though in both cases, one of the four edits included an attempt to accommodate the other's complaints, as noted above), if either or both of us end up being temporarily blocked by the admins, can I request that the admin also give some comment on how to handle the issue of my having deleted my own RfC summary (which again, no one had responded to yet, and which I replaced by a placeholder to try to make sure I wasn't violating WP:REDACT) once the block ends? Is this or is this not in itself a violation of any wikipedia rules/guidelines? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Undoing your own edits is an explicit exception to WP:3RR, which is a policy. WP:REDACT is only a guideline. In my personal opinion, violations of 3RR on talk pages are blockable, but they have to be changes or removal of *others'* comments. There is an ongoing discussion of this topic at WP:DRN and hopefully the underlying dispute can be resolved there. As a mechanical matter, if you agree with the previous wording of the RfC and want it restored, you can add that to the talk page as your own comment. Rather than continuing to war over the RfC I recommend participating at DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Khazar2 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: No easy answer here; the editor has been reverting everyone else all day long.

Others can probably be found given this user's activity if necessary, but at least these seven were explicitly labelled as reverts.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor exceeded 3RR long before I arrived at the page tonight.


Khazar2 keeps removing something that has already been decided on the talk page. Another editor was removing the same content yesterday before I posted all the sources on talk page. Then, Khazar2, unaware of what happenned, and apparently unable to check the talk page start removing it again and again despite the information I gave to him. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Given his rage at my report, someone might speak to Daniel about WP:CIVIL as well.
"It is not my fault you are completely unable to read a talk page. You should maybe restrict yourself to you automatic tool helped citations fixing." [34]
"If only you was able to read." [35]
"You are butthurt from being unable to read a talk page and for making yourself look bad for editing out something that was discussed and sourced yesterday? I understand it" [36]
"It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand." [37]
Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Repeat offender, revert-warring on several articles in parallel, got away with a warning just a few days ago. Any further blocks should escalate in length very quickly. Fut.Perf. 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs reported by User:92.40.253.189 (Result: removed)[edit]

Report by block-evading vandal IP removed. 92.40.253.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evidently the same as earlier vandals 92.40.254.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc. Fut.Perf. 11:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Opinedsenior reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: 48 hour block)[edit]

Page: Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opinedsenior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: previous version


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments: See the history of the article and history of the talk page of this user. This user also doesn't AGF and violated WP:NPA and was warned several times (which [s]he ignored).


(Non-administrator comment) - My opinion is that this is just inflaming the situation. On top of that there isn't technically a violation of 3RR as one of the edits was not an undo. Plus the fourth and last revert happened about 30 mins ago (sorry it was more than that - I was looking at the wrong edit) and was one minute after the user was given a level 4 vandalism warning (so there is no way to know if they had seen it before they reverted). As well the user has not edited for more than 30 minutes, I would advocate a wait and see approach. Callanecc (talkcontribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours There was more edit warring than indicated in the above edits, and the edit warring was in any case just one dimension of a wider pattern of unacceptable editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:68.37.29.229 reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on 3 user talk pages: [43] [44] [45]

Comments:
The IP editor continues to add copyrighted material to an article, (copy&pasted from a television network website) arguing that the text is not subject to copyright because it is promotional in nature and/or it qualifies as Non-Free-use, despite being told by 3 editors (myself and 2 others) that this is not the case. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [46] (first, unexplained revert)
  • 2nd revert: [47]
  • 3rd revert: [48]
  • 4th revert: [49]

User claims (in second revert's summary) that the matter was fully explained on the article talk page; that's not correct--they made their case, but did not wait for any other input, let alone consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50], in edit summary--after user had warned me for edit-warring, here; note also that last message on their user talk page was a warning for edit warring and that they were blocked for edit warring last year. In other words, we can safely assume they know what it is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]. See also edit summaries of my reverts and comments on my talk page--and I take full responsibility for using the term "jackass" (in reference to their math: a templated 3R warning after my second revert).

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nguyen1310 reported by User:Shrigley (Result: article protected)[edit]

Page: North Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nguyen1310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] actually from a few weeks ago, but involving the same page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] and user talk[62]

Article protected for 3 days, seems there were two editors guilty of 3rr violation here. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm suspecting discrimination by the reporting user, because the reporting user has pointed only myself out for edit warring, but did not extend the same action to other parties involved in the dispute.Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not involved but just pointing out that neither you nor Zeraful have been penalized for the edit war, the page is just being protected until you guys sort it out on the article's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The administrator who chose to take action in this case[63] was involved with this editor in a non-administrative capacity, editing together on articles[64] and posting friendly user talk messages before[65] and after[66] I filed this case. This involvement might explain the lenient judgment, which is why I am requesting the attention of an uninvolved administrator.
To answer why I didn't report both users: that's a limitation in the template. The bad behavior of the other user was obvious in the diffs, anyway, and I'm not defending anyone's behavior. In many such cases on 3RRN, both users are sanctioned. However, I considered Nguyen the principle edit-warrior since the other user initiated the talk page discussion first. Also, I have noticed that Nguyen uses repeated reverting with uncivil edit summaries (e.g. [67][68][69][70][71]), rather than civil discussion, as a matter of solving editorial disputes. Since this user has been warned for edit-warring before, I don't think continued warnings and education about policy are much more useful here. Shrigley (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, for most of the examples that Shrigley pointed out of the "uncivil edit summaries", it was made in response of undoing POV edits and vandalism committed by the same user, who changed their IP 4 to 5 times to evade IP blocks sanctioned upon them. That IP user has been posting quite insulting, even sexual, comments when editing on various Vietnamese related articles, and when I started to undo the POV and vandalism they made, that user went on some vengeance attack on me, and made personal attacks on my user page, and I had to run to various admins to block the IPs used, and even semi-protect my user page temporarily. No one can possibly compromise with an editor whose only mission is to vandalise and put POV into articles, not to make constructive encyclopaedic contributions. Looking back, I did see that those edit summaries were quite uncivil, but I hope everyone understands that I was very frustrated, and felt seriously insulted, and at times even helpless, when I was making those reverts. Concerning my recent edit summaries over the North Vietnam article, I was quite annoyed when the user Zeraful who kept deleting quite significant amounts of content in the article, regarding that country's diplomatic isolation before the 1970s, and kept changing the words used in the article. Somehow, that user didn't want the article to mention that the North was largely isolated and unrecognized by many countries worldwide, esp. by non-communist and democratic nations, and only had foreign relations with other communist and some developing countries. I know for a fact that this is true, as I came from Vietnam myself, and it makes no sense that the North, a communist country, had diplomatic relations with numerous democratic nations before the 1970s. Even China (PRC), a powerful and prominent country, was isolated from the worldwide community because many non-communist countries refused to recognize China because of it's political system, and it only managed to establish relations with countries like the US until around 1972. As well, this whole section about North VN's diplomatic isolationism is long-standing info, it has been on the article for a long time now, even before I was a member of Wikipedia, and I believed that the info was correct, and there's nothing wrong with it as it has been there for a long time without any controversy or dispute, until now with Zeraful. I felt that I cannot accept something false to be true or right, that's why I kept reverting it. And, Zeraful was changing the terminology used in the article, like instead of calling communist countries "communist", which accurately described the political systems of those countries at the time, the user changed it to "Warsaw Pact" countries, which is grossly wrong because the North had relations with other communist countries outside the Pact, like Cuba or N Korea or P.R. China. Zeraful also changed the term "non-communist" and "anti-communist", to "Western", which is again wrong because not only did non-communist Western countries didn't Recognize the North and were only diplomatic with South VN, non-communist Asiatic countries also did the same thing, like S Korea, Japan, ROC Taiwan, Thailand, New Zealand etc. It seems like Zeraful is deleting the whole North VN diplomatic isolation thing, and changing up terminology, primarily out of their own POV and wanted to remove facts that are true but are negative about North VN, and wanted to censor those things out. One of Zeraful's disputes is that the North VN article lacked citations, so I suggested that Zeraful put citation needed templates beside content that didn't have enough sources, instead of just deleting some of the content outright, until enough sources are found, just like what I saw on many articles in Wiki, however, Zeraful kept deleting some of the content. But even through all the disputes I had , I still lead efforts to make compromised changes to the article to address Zeraful's problems with the article, which can be found on my last several edits on the North VN article. But regardless, and from now on, I'll continue to use the article talk page to discuss and develop compromised edits when an article dispute arises, and refrain from constant reverting, and as well try to contain my emotions when I find myself in difficult situations. So yes, lesson learnt, but I just felt I need to explain the whole situation out first. I wish to thank the admins involved for their understanding and efforts in this.Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{uninvolved|conduct|7 reverts in 24 hours in one article by one user, with a particularly egregious pattern of conduct. another user warring with him.}}
Nguyen1310, an admin has already taken action on this report and nothing more will be done here. Though the article is protected, nothing prevents you from trying to reach agreement on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for what to do in case of a stalemate. Brevity is desirable on any admin board. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Ryulong (Result: No action taken)[edit]

Page: User talk:Coren (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Youreallycan has sought fit to add his own personal (although minor) addition of a wikilink to a comment I left on User talk:Coren. I told him in an edit summary that I did not give him permission to effectively edit my comment. After he reverted me, I left him a message on his talk page regarding the fact I did not want him to do this. After I reverted, again, he reverted me and I left him a sterner message (the one in the diff above), but he put back the content in the first place. I do not care if it is helpful. He is adding it to my message on Coren's talk page in a way that makes it appear that I put the link there. This is getting way too bothersome and pedantic, and it is edit warring plain and simple, particularly when I expressed my distaste in his actions in regards to the text I left for another editor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh gosh someone please just ban YRC already for this crap. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Better yet, just create a permanent noticeboard for him like they have for long-term disruptive users. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) has offered to YRC to close this because he has effectively resolved the issue by reverting him, and adding the link in a way such that it does not appear to be from me. I do not find this satisfactory because it rewards him for his deleterious behavior.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've got to say you are both being ridiculous. YRC shouldn't have added the content and shouldn't have edit warred to keep it in Ryulong was correct in removing the comment, but shouldn't have edit warred once he realized YRC was. Instead, Ryulong should have moved the text and placed {{unsigned}} after it. We allow things to be escalated on this wiki that can easily be dropped. Let's please choose the latter in this case. Ryan Vesey 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that YRC's reverts were WP:LAME, but I had hoped to resolve this without a block since, as Ryan said, this was a fairly trivial issue. If a more experienced admin (someone who has been an admin for longer than three days, in other words) thinks that YRC should be blocked for this, I'll defer to their judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I notified YRC multiple times to either not repeat his edit, but he ignored me completely. And this may be trivial, but this is just one of several repeated incidents in which YRC was unnecessarily disruptive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I have seen his name coming up quite a bit on the admin boards lately, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI would be better suited to deal with his overall conduct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
            • It was not just lame but combative of Youreallycan. He should have manned up and left an honest talk page entry with his signature. YRC is experienced enough to know what kind of needling he can apply without penalty. Still, this kind of disruptive editing should be firmly countered. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
              • @Mark Arsten: this issue just came up twice (edit warring on user talk pages), and it was bad enough that I brought it to WP:AN, where there was a substantial portion of the community that said YRC should receive a long block. If this were a first time offense, I'd say call it WP:LAME, but it is not. Didn't he just receive a 1RR sanction? If not, he needs to have one, like yesterday. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
                • A 1RR restriction would probably be a good idea, I agree. It would have to be proposed at WP:AN though, right? At this point I'm a bit out of my depth, having been an admin for less than four days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Vnlstar reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Sansha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vnlstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Comments:

  • Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:GSorby (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Poppy Meadow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [82]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]. This was attempted but the user removed my warning and said: "Not interested". [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Poppy Meadow#Em dash vs en dash

Comments:

User:BickerstaffeC2 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Bus Services in York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BickerstaffeC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [94]

Comments:

User has been edit warring to insert advertisements for Transdev York's prices and services, and is certainly another sock of Josh24B. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; I haven't formally looked into the sockpuppetry case, although at a glance it looks convincing. I'll defer a longer block to the admin who reviews the WP:SPI case. Alternately, if this account resumes edit-warring after the 24-hour block, let me know and I'll block it indefinitely. MastCell Talk 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Gimmetoo (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Talk:Sean Combs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


A comment I made on the talk page was moved by User:GFHandel without my permission (see WP:TPO). I objected and tried to move it back, and then to delete it. User:Malleus Fatuorum has restored my comment in the moved location four times.

Diffs of warnings: 05:49 05:54 06:07

Comments:

  • Someone really should look at the totality of Gimmie's disruption on talk:Sean Combs over the last some months. What happened in the last bit is that Gimme "cut in" above a comment of mine and Mally and GFHandel were restoring proper threading. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Gimmetoo has also violated WP:3RR,
Per WP:TALK and WP:TOPPOST Gimmetoo's comments should be placed in chronological order, and since they were responded to, struck if he wishes to retract them. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I first tried to restore my comment to the place I had put it, and then tried to redact it in different ways. Editors kept undoing my attempts to resolve the inappropriate modification of my comments. Per WP:TPO, my comments should not have been moved over my objections, and the reverts by GFHancel and Malleus Fatuorum prevented resolution. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Bzzt, You've been trolling that talk page for more than two months. You cut in above my comment deliberately and inappropriately. No one modified your comments, they just moved them to where they belonged and restored your inappropriate removal of comments that had been replied to. You're the disrupting and baiting party here and are overdue for a block for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Malleus responded to the comment, and only then did GFHandel move it. As soon as I objected to the comment move, something else should have been done. Your repeated accusations are a behavior issue that I hope another admin or arbcom will take a look at. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm quaking in my bare feet ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm involved because I tried to restore the conventional chronological ordering of talk page comments, but please note that neither I, nor Malleus altered context in any way as it was possible at all times to see who was replying to whom. The talk page comment added by Gimmetoo today has been responded to by a number of editors now, and needs to remain to show context of the ongoing issues on the page (hence the reversions). Speaking of which: today's troubles are the natural consequence of the tendentious editing that Gimmetoo has been engaged in at the page for a number of months now, and I would please ask the admins here to judge this action in the light of what should have been a dead issue a long time ago. In that light, could an uninvolved admin here please assess and suggest a possible course of action in relation to Gimmetoo's recent editing behaviour—especially in the context that he is editing at odds to a number of other admins, and an editor (Diannaa) who has worked so hard to move the article to GA status despite the horrendous obstacles she has faced from Gimmetoo (and Gimmetoo alone)? I really do try to assume good faith at all times, but I'm being forced to conclude that Gimmetoo is engaging in baiting on the Sean Combs article talk page (how else does one explain his recent inability to edit the article to address what he claims are obvious problems?). GFHandel   06:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If "tendentious editing" is to be reviewed here, I can provide further evidence. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • GFHandel modified his comment above after I had commented. Again, I will provide further evidence concerning "tendentious editing" if that is to be reviewed here. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Nice try, but ... I'm entitled to modify my comment because you posted at the same indent level as mine, and I made sure that I didn't alter the claim of your tendentious editing (so as not to alter the context of your comment). I trust that's cleared things up for you (and given independent readers here a huge view into the trouble that so many editors have been faced with recently). GFHandel   07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale - The diffs supplied are now over 24 hours old. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:94.200.20.34 reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.200.20.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [95]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:


User was warned about imminent breaking of 3RR on article history page in summary of revert. Yet he chose to continue with the revert, ignored the discussion in the talk, gave no rationale for his revert et cetera. Not really much to talk about here. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected Syrian Civil War two weeks. The IP keeps adding a claim that Kosovo is supplying arms to a faction in the Syrian Civil War, but is unable to provide a reference. The IP feels that others should do the work of finding a source, but per WP:BURDEN the task falls on his shoulders. Reverts continued after the ones listed above. The same person uses multiple IPs, so a block is impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:69.231.38.16 reported by User:Instaurare (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: God Bless America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.231.38.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Comments:
The user has been adding the same unsourced material to the article for weeks now, despite warnings. Instaurare (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Madifrop reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hour block.)[edit]

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Madifrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:56, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: Jerry you nuisance, the counterattack was the main aspect of the reason for this article's title. Moving back to Union name!")
  2. 18:58, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: moving back, see my REASONABLE comments Jerry! :p")
  3. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're making me laugh at this ridiculous conflict")
  4. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "me too.")
  5. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo RIDICULOUS edit")
  6. 19:06, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'm British, Jerry!")
  7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo YET ANOTHER ridiculous edit by colleague")
  8. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: I see how well you annoy me")
  9. 19:11, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undoing MORE RIDICULITY")
  10. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I WON'T stop, OK?")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Phan Ni Mai reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hour block.)[edit]

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Phan Ni Mai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:55, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove: battle was a victory for the Confederacy, regardless of counterattack; rename to Belle Grove")
  2. 18:57, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: I disagree, see my last comments")
  3. 19:02, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "OI I cna't move it so I'm going to change the text to the RIGHT information")
  4. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I STILL stand by my first comments. I've replied to your email")
  5. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'll probably be doing this all day")
  6. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're so anti-South")
  7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "i h8 r'guin wiv u <3")
  8. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I hope we don't bicker all day, ya know.")
  9. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: STILL DISAGREE")
  10. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: stop being ridiculous! <3")
  11. 19:12, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "stop it")
  12. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you make me sick")
  13. 19:14, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do we have to bicker")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On close examination of both editors' history, something fishy is going on: they were created at the same time and show simultaneous activity. I've left notes on both talkpages asking for explanations. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Beanatascha reported by User:Duhon (Result: Blocked pending OTRS confirmation)[edit]

Page: Beatrice Rosen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beanatascha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [110]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beanatascha&pe=1&

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
The following user has been warned several times about reverting the birthdate on the article as per her talk page. In addition this user appears to be using ip sockpuppets to continually revert the date of birth when the consensus has been set on an appropriate date to cite as well as what constitutes reliable sources. May be a case of WP:BIOSELF Duhon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Battle of Ankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [116]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123],[124],[125][126];Attempts by Antidiskriminator, [127],[128][129],[130],[131]

Comments:
User:71.178.108.23 has continually removed Stefan Lazarevic and the associated references from the Infobox, using the edit summary,"Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates".[132] Attempts by myself and Antidiskriminator to discuss this issue was met with these type of responses:

  • "What was outdated and what is not, I do not want to discuss with you for seeing you as a person of no education and academic attitude."
  • "You have to be capable of demonstrating clear knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss. Calling upon Wikipedia rules does not support your insertion of the knowledge of tertiary importance here.".
  • "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude."
  • ""I think that Moravian Serbia ..." is yet another nonsense and ignorance."

Here the IP can not even read the proper page and is quick to assert that Fine's book, "The Late Medieval Balkans", is a falsified source, "For example, The Late Medieval Balkans, page 449 is visible online here: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch8.pdf The whole page did not ever mentioned Lazarevic".[133] When shown his error, replies, "*"So, what? You are caught cheating."[134]

Regardless, of the time(5 days) you have been reverted by 3 different editors. You have NOT proven the sources used for Stefan Lazarevic fail verifiability on Wikipedia. All you have done is respond in an aggressive attitude to my and Antidiskriminator's attempt at discussion. Wikipedia has its own rules regarding reliable sources and you making up your own rules(ie. requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge) means nothing here. You are edit warring, plain and simple, to push your POV. --Defensor Ursa 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The IP has now reverted Vrok, for the 2nd time! Using the edit summary, "This user did not participate in discussion, no contribution to this article."

IP response

  • My response: all reverts were done in the span of FIVE days. My the only reason is not to revert, rather to remove text that has no value. My article improvements are removed without a reason, which needs explanation here, too. So, this is a nonsensic accusation and attempt to promote irrelevant and tertiary data, data that vary in thousands, made by the rule of thumb, by different chroniclers - as the important ones. These two, Antidiskriminator and Kansas Bear, do not have any relevant knowledge of this subject, their use of Google search is highly particular, their responses, i.e. "discussion" is just an endless spamming of the talk page whose the only goal is to sidetrack discussion, invalidate serous approach to this battle. I requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge and never get any serious response. For more details, read my comments in full on the article talk page.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposed closure: The latest 18 edits by the IP at Battle of Ankara are as follows. I present them here because this appears to be a case of long-term edit warring. This war is a surprisingly intense dispute as to the exact size and significance of the admitted participation of Serbian forces led by Stephen Lazarevich at the Battle of Ankara, which took place in 1402:
List of the IP's edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

  1. 01:34, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */ Not a relaible reference. He was just editor of that book. No confiration in any other reference for these numbers")
  2. 01:36, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Anzulovic is not historian")
  3. 01:44, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Falsely referenced sources. There is nothing from J. Antwerp Fine on page 449 of his book")
  4. 21:22, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504374200 by Kansas Bear (talk)Please, avoid falsely referencing sources!")
  5. 21:54, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504498383 by Kansas Bear (talk)Falsely referencing sources is a grave break of the Wikipedia's policy!")
  6. 22:33, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504499822 by Kansas Bear (talk)Frivolous playing with references, no effective knowledge of subject, use of pamphlets out of context")
  7. 19:39, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504550443 by Vrok (talk)Frivolous playing with references, no effective knowledge of subject, use of pamphlets out of context")
  8. 20:03, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
  9. 20:12, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
  10. 20:23, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
  11. 20:26, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "Nonsense removed. Serbia was a minor player")
  12. 00:10, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */")
  13. 00:22, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Forces */")
  14. 06:37, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates")
  15. 23:35, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "References without primary sources, rule of thumb data removed")
  16. 20:47, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505179833 by GM83 Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates")
  17. 21:08, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* Background */")
  18. 22:38, 3 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505643595 by [[Special:Contributions/Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates")
My idea for closing this is to impose a long-term semiprotection, probably three months. I'll wait a bit to see if other admins object. The edits 1-5 above where the IP removes what appear to be sensible references to academic works previewed in Google Books don't inspire confidence. The IP's objections at Talk:Battle of Ankara#Falsely referenced sources are extremely indignant but also very hard to understand. In response to two editors who disagree with him, the IP states "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude." My good faith is wearing thin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Big phrases like "My good faith is wearing thin." tell a lot about you, EdJohnston. Above I proposed reading and understanding completely all my comments on the article talk page, not just sentences showing my loss of patience in "discussion" where the opposite side demonstrated just rejection anything that goes above a plain Google search. Learn the simple thing: any academic reference must show us its primary source and the way it was validated. There are many other academic references, that can be located by the Google search engine, not accepting your "don't inspire confidence" phrase. If you want to attract people who are with strong academic background, then elevate yourself above strong-opinion-no-knowledge attitude, just supported by phrases I put under the quotes. The best way to do it is to keep yourself out of discussion and judgements about topics that are outside of your education and knowledge.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. Long-term edit warring by an IP against the talk page consensus. If you can't persuade your colleagues on the talk page that you have a valid point, you should not persist. Claims of expertise from a totally anonymous contributor are hard to evaluate. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:EllsworthSK reported by User:DanielUmel (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EllsworthSK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War_%282011%E2%80%93present%29&oldid=505709166




Comments:

This user made 6 reverts today on the same page. I was myself blocked for 48 hours for having reverted too many times on another page. But this user is also not respecting the rules and is edit warring. I restrained myself this time and respected the rules, but it is frustating to see that this user is not doing the same and is always deleting sourced content like he wants. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no one, including yourself, made any attempts to warn him about edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Furthermore I see that three of his edits were reverting vandalism by the 94. Ip. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not warn him but also he is aware of the rule as he has filled a report above about an IP. And nobody warned me before filling a report a few day ago (but really it is not about me). I was against the IP addition of Kosovo as belligerent but it was hardly vandalism as he had a source. It perfectly count as an opinion revert --DanielUmel (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is cute. Removal of Kosovo was after discussion and was also removal of unsourced content. IP ignoration of discussion was a clear vandalism, hence exception of 3RR (WP:NOT3RR) It is also mentioned above. The second one is also sourced, first diff was also not revert of user action and second two do not violate 3RR. Discussion about that has been ongoing for longer time than our fortunate period since you registered, as here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)/Archive_9#Military_infobox_and_civil_infobox and here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)#Al-Qaeda_now_listed_as_party_to_the_conflict, no one once has something against removal of Fatah al-Islam based on the source which makes itself very clear. But still, it´s cute that you try so hard. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not even mentioning that I was not warned, not even after Sopher99 pointed you have to do it. Not just warn about edit warring but warn about reporting myself on this very page. That is mentioned on the report template and it is also mentioned on the project page. Without it, the report is incomplete as you just tried to get this over without me even noticing that something is going on and giving my own opinion. Nice going there. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing how little respect you have for other editors and their opinion. For you a talk ongoing mean that your opinion is validated, eventhough it is not at all the case as you are in clear minority for Fatah Al Islam, Al Qaeda and others. These talk show even more how much it is edit war. You don't listen to anybody else and just revert like you want. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard about this? WP:AGF. Had you, I expect that you would stick with arguments and not your baseless accusations. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This is just a sloppy attempt for User:DanielUmel to 'get even' after being blocked (the user isn't even showing the diffs, let alone an actual example of 'edit warring'). These edits by EllsworthSK aren't even disruptive, which is really the point of posting something on the admin noticeboard. حرية (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the header of this report. This is a dispute about the Syrian Civil War article, not its talk page. Updated the page name to its new title. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale – The reverts listed above are from August 4. If there are ongoing disputes about this article, try to work out the problem on the talk page. If you are still deadlocked, consider making a request at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The report was from 4 August but for some reasons was not noticed earlier. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User: