Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive214

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Srkris reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2] - Previous
  2. [3] - Previous
  3. [4] - Previous
  4. [5] - Previous

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

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

Comments: The user is continuously adding Non-Neutral content at Mughal Empire without reliable sources, or no sources at all. He has altered the content in many ways. In violation of WP:ES, he provided no edit summaries for his alterations and changes. Despite several warnings, he replaced the term "Mughal Empire" with "Mughal Sultanate" in the lead, removed religions from the infobox, removed the "Kingdom of Mysore" from infobox, removed referenced info about Kings, with much more serious alteration of other text, without citing any source, at all. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I am trying to add referenced content to Mughal Empire and the user above (ganging up with his friends) tries to vandalize the article by repeatedly removing large portions of the article (see [8], [9], [10]) without giving any reasons. I have tried to provide reasons for my edits and many of my additions that the user above has tried to revert, were actually references that I tried to add to the article. Bad faith reverts, edit warring and vandalism to the article are what I am trying to avoid here. Srkris (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The diffs you have provided are already there up, there was no need of them. Where you provided references for your edits/reverts? Where the reference for the term usage of "Mughal Sultanate" was provided? Where you cited your removal of infobox content? You provided no references at all, instead removed them. Your blocklog shows that you have been active in edit conflicts before too. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The block was based on the violation of WP:3RR, as well as the edit warring outside the 24-hour window, and the unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism directed against other editors. The blocks from 2008 (too remote) had no impact on my determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bodinmagosson reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: No action)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. @Kaiyr, I don't think you know what you are doing. Part of the problem is a language issue. I suggest you continue discussing the content problems with the other editor, either on your talk page (already begun) or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:24.149.8.77 reported by User:The Interior (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Metropolis at Metrotown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.149.8.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments: This is regarding a "controversy" section for an article on an urban mall in Burnaby, British Columbia. It involves an incident from last year where a youth was detained for taking video of security staff in the mall. I removed it per WP:UNDUE - this is a minor incident by any reasonable definition; no one was injured, no one was charged, no one was fired. Myself and another editor removed it on May 11; the section's author has re-inserted now four times, stating in his/her edit summaries that talk page discussion is not necessary. Note: my talk page post was made after the reverts. The editor has now made a post to my user talk speculating that myself or Emarsee (talk · contribs) is a mall stooge suppressing this info. [18]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19] First edit, unexplained removal of content, reverted by Materialscientist
  2. "Yet another lack of explanation? I'll give you mine, then: I don't see where Pepsi themselves use "pepsi" or "PEPSI"."
  3. "Wow, really?! Are you kidding me?! Do you even know what a "stylization" is? Yes, we can completely ignore the logo because Pepsi themselves don't actually write..."
  4. "Get all the admins you like, I've stated the facts already. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this change in the context of Wikipedia."
  5. I've provided valid /everything/, and you have provided nonsense. Overriding.
  6. *Please* don't mindlessly revert without an explanation. See talk page. (after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pepsi#On "stylization"

Comments:

Also consider this, as this user tends to edit-war ([20]). Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I should be reporting you, I just didn't know how.
This user has completely dodged all of my questions and sent me mostly drivel instead. I've tried to answer what I can as well as I can and he dodges those efforts too. Observe him linking to a so-called "edit war" which was handled pretty quickly by simply finding the facts, which not even the other editor had at the time.
While I admit I'm (very!) aggressive with what I do, Tbhotch is impossible to deal with on a basic level, which is mostly why I was more aggressive than usual. That is a mistake on my part, but admitting that isn't going to solve the problem with the article, talk of which needs to be kept there. Which, by the way, probably isn't ever going to be resolved because he refuses to actually discuss further, and is instead opting to be sneaky about it by spamming bureaucratic threats until I'm silenced. I'm not even sure he understands what the proposed issue is.
I'm not even going to get started on the ridiculous "mirror accusations". All I'm going to say is that I'm still waiting for a reply, Tbhotch. Despatche (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply what? You are clearly edit-warring. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You see? This is what I'm talking about. I don't think this guy understands what's going on. Even now he's still dodging the actual discussion, going on about this stupid edit war, determined to get me blocked, hoping I give up.
Tbhotch, you haven't properly explained your case. I have responded to all valid points as well as I can, and there has been nothing on your end except threats and this. There is a reason I keep reverting at all, and it's obviously not to "win". Despatche (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, report me for what? The one who has broken the 3RRule and violate the WP:NPA policy is not me, is you. "There is a reason I keep reverting at all". There is no reason to edit-war, read WP:3RR which you deliberately decided to ignore with this edit, even when there is a report. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Admins note this person is disruptively editing: [21] (WP:NOTBATTLE), [22] (WP:NPA). (edit conflict)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♠ 02:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Goodsdrew reported by User:CoCoLumps (Result: )[edit]

Page: Haitian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Haitian Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Hispanics/Latinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goodsdrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23] 10 May 2013‎
  2. [24] 10 May 2013‎
  3. [25] 10 May 2013‎
  4. [diff]

User Goodsdrew and I are debating rather Haitians should be considered Latino are not. I insisted that Haitians are Latino and should be included in the Latino/Hispanic category. Every time I add a Latin category on Haitian Canadians and Haitian Americans, he/she removes them without showing any evidence that Haitians are not Latino. I already explain on the talk pages (Talk:Haitian_Canadians, Talk:Haitian_American, and Template_talk:Hispanics/Latinos) why Haitians are Latino however he/she is not being coherent. Can you check this out please? --CoCoLumps (Love yourself) 12:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

Temporary fully protection for these page is what I recommend. Theres is a debate that is moving forward - just need theses 2 to stop editing the pages in-question and just talk. It is going to be a long debate as both parties have sources backing both claims ,,,, so lets lock up the page till the debate is over. Both have reverted to many times and blocking both will not move things forward,,,, talking will. Moxy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor fails to engage on talk page or list sources to back up his position. With his latest actions, he has reverted four times within close to 24 hours (his fourth edits on each article was just outside the 24-hour window).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The user engaging in edit warring is CoCoLumps, not me. CoCoLumps has violated the three revert rule--I have not violated it. I have tried to engage with CoCoLumps on the talk page. CoCoLumps refuses to provide sources to back up his contentions, but instead continually reverts. (See report of CoCoLumps below for further details).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I've combined the reports. We can see both of you on the pages at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
User Goodsdrew is a liar. I have engaged and provided evidence that Goodsdrew choose to overlook. This editor is causing a disturbance that needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoCoLumps (talkcontribs) 02:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When my report of CoCoLumps was combined with this one, all of my links to diffs of CoCoLumps's violation of the 3 revert rule and of my attempts to resolve the problem were removed. I wanted to make sure that they remain accessible. Here they are:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 reverts on Haitian Canadians

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]

4 reverts on Haitian Americans

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

4 reverts on Template:Hispanics/Latinos

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38], [39], [40]Goodsdrew (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012reported by Tritomex (Result: PP 1w)[edit]

Page: Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [diff]

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

[45][46] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
The article Zionism is under 1 revert rule-The overriding of my (and others) editions through POV pushing, for many consecutive times, combined with removal of other sourced material and its replacement at least twice in 24h in the same article, though violation of 1RR is edit warring. Not to mention the clear context dispute to which user Pluto2012 is very much involved and where he accused other editors of edit warring and "propaganda" while reprehending them for the violation of 1RR, which now he commits.[48] Regarding context dispute: [49],[50].The two edits, removal of long standing material and its replacement with other, came after a removal of huge portion of material by the same user in the same day.I made my best by notifying the editor and asking him for self revert which he after asking for specifications simply ignored.--Tritomex (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani[edit]

On Pluto's page, Tritomex raised his suspicion, and was informed by two very experienced editors, User:Nableezy and User:Sean.hoyland, who have great familiarity with 1R that he had misread the evidence. Nableezy, for one, has often hauled me over the coals when I have inadvertently erred on 1R, and told me to revert, and never allows personal feelings to disturb his judgement. I myself suggested Tritomex crosscheck with a third party or admin before bothering this forum. He didn't. If the admin confirms that their judgements were correct, I would suggest a word with Tritomex over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and vexatious complaining be appropriate.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that all 3 editors are friends making together numerous edits related to Palestinians. However, removing my material and material from other editors, by Pluto2012 in one day, in the article under 1RR, later replacing it with his own material is edit waring. As I said all of this happened after he reprehended other editor (who was sanctioned for the same behavior) for 1RR violation.[51]--Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
False, and don't personalize this as a POV-battle. None are 'friends' (as far as I know), and in any case, as I said, Nableezy has often confirmed the reading of 1R against me made by a partisan 'on the other side'. Neither Sean, nor Nableezy. nor Pluto have in the past had the slightest hesitation in challenging me if they think I have made a dubious edit. Please look up Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that I hate everyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been plenty of edit warring at that article but diffs 2 and 3 cited above are not examples of the edit warring. They are the 2 consecutive edits shown below.

  • 2013-05-12T17:25:28‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,022 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (don't mix this with Israel. Israel came long after.)
  • 2013-05-12T17:21:46‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,890 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎History: moved up)

The edits replaced an image that was added here @19:57, 27 February 2012 by user R-41 more than 14 months ago. It is I suppose technically a revert of a 14 month old edit but I don't think it can reasonably be argued that it is edit warring. There has been no edit warring over the image. Pluto was not edit warring with anyone by making these 2 edits. The 1RR restrictions and this noticeboard are in place stop edit warring, not prevent article development and improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 1 week. I see a huge multi-user edit war going on. King of ♠ 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nataev reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48h)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [52], 20:12 12 May 2013, restores POV template earlier deleted by different editor
  2. [53], 11:14 13 May 2013, same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article is subject to WP:ARBPIA rule on 1RR, with notice prominently displayed on talk page, on which Nataev has participated.

Comments: Note that whether the editor removing the POV template should be doing so is a separate question from whether there is a violation of 1RR here. Also please look at this ANI discussion, where Nataev is seen talking about the subject of this article in very derogatory terms. In addition to a sanction for 1RR, I would request that Nataev be banned from editing this article, on grounds of repeated BLP violations.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

When I came across the article the other day I realized it was very biased. After reading the discussions on the talk page I became convinced that Goldblum himself has been editing the article. I find this alarming. Now Goldblum and Nomoskedasticity are trying to get me blocked. I have asked a dozen of experienced users who have access to CheckUser to help us determine whether Goldblum is indeed writing about himself. I honestly don't find this subject interesting at all. My only concern is that I believe it's wrong to write about yourself and try to get blocked anyone who questions what you're writing. I wish I could be left out of this entirely. I have far more important things to do. Now that I have notified more than a dozen of experienced users about my concerns, I hope they will take appropriate action regarding Goldblum's use of two accounts to edit the article about himself. I leave it to them to decide where the article is biased or not. Nataev (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48h mainly as a result of continuing the BLP violations at WP:ANI after the above post ([54]) as well as the 1RR claimed here. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note Per this ANI discussion, a topic ban has been enacted, "Nataev is indefinitely banned from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum everywhere on Wikipedia." Zad68 14:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Joshuabcohen reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] Protection of the page has been requested: [61]

The user in question is also currently being investigated as a likely sockpuppet - a number of single-purpose accounts and IPs have been reverting well-sourced negative material out of the company's article in a whitewashing attempt: [62]

Comments:
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof here. There has been a series of such edits by a number of single purpose (and almost certainly Sock-puppet) accounts on the article. Also, I myself reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours but I hope 3RR does not apply in my case since this is obvious vandalism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverts of sockpuppets of blocked or banned users are exempt from 3RR. Most of yours were reverting User:Eyeteststar and User:Thenightchicagodied, both of which have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I would think that would cover it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, two of my reverts are for already-blocked users. Which is why I reverted again. I hope there are no further reverts, after the semi-protection. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This can be closed as Moot - the user in question has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:IranitGreenberg (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Culture of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]
  5. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Solntsa90 shows a problematic behavior regarding this article (see also here). Culture of Israel should be under 1RR, but if not, the user already violated 3RR.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This isnt a revert. Further, most of those are contiguous edits, counting for only 1 revert. This and this are contiguous, as are this and this. Id also invite people to look at the rest of the talk page that IG linked (here) nableezy - 13:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a revert. This is a revert. This is a revert... and there are more. Culture of Israel (which relates to Arabs) should be under 1RR (just like Palestinian people), but Solntsa90 also broke 3RR. Funny now you don't seem to be so strict (like you are with me) about these rules.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Those first two are contiguous, they only count as one as one revert. If you want to lecture others on the rules then go read the rules. Contiguous reverts are counted as a single revert. So no, the user hasnt broken 3RR. nableezy - 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The first one was a revert of my edit. The second one was also a revert (he eliminated a picture). It's very clear.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you really not understand what the word contiguous means? It's very clear. But in case its not here you go. nableezy - 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Just let the administrators be the ones to decide if there's a violation or not. --1ST7 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. There's been no WP:3RR violation. I'm not going to construe the very last edit as a revert because it was a good-faith correction of what the editor had done earlier. As for whether the article should be subject to WP:ARBPIA, I'm not going to make a determination on that now, but even if it were, for a new editor to be sanctioned when there's absolutely no notice, would be unfair. As a nit-pick, the word is "consecutive", not "contiguous", but you have the concept down, nableezy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sigiheri reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

This user has reverted two edits today to put the article back to a state that they placed it in on May 6. I reverted their May 6 edit and reverted their first reversion so am reluctant to go to 3RR. They got the article to that state by reverting User:Blue-Haired Lawyer1 and User:Srnec reversions of the same or very similar edits [[71]]. The edits remove important material about what a Corporation is - well sourced content that is so basic that it does not even need to be sourced - Shareholders are the owners of a Corporation. The issue has been covered on the talk page. The editor got a 32 day hour block for similar edits recently. I'm requesting that someone else consider reverting their most recent changes and consider administrative action on this. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This person, Legacypac, saw that I posted on the Dissolutions (?) page and, based on that, reverted got into an edit war with me. I would think that editors are not supposed to find the trouble (on dissolution page) then create more trouble rather than help to resolve the issue. You can see where Legacy and I have discussed the issue on the TALK page for Corporations. You be the judge and let me know how to handle the situation in the most productive way possible. Thanks.Sigiheri (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw the topic posted on Resolutions. Came and read the arguments and offered my view in an attempt to help resolve the dispute. Instead of accepting my view as an editor not involved in the debate, you debated me. I suggest the best way to handle this productively is to cease removing well sourced basic material and stop inserting junk that can't be supported by any law textbook or article. Every editor you have encountered across multiple pages (that I have seen) disagrees with these edits. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the template. Afraid to mess this up even more! Info is here, just not pretty like it should be. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]
  4. [76]
  5. [77]
  6. [78]

And more - see the history page

Addition: Since this request was presented User:Sigiheri has made another reversion [1] that disrupts the article and reverts the efforts of User:AzureCitizen to fix the erroneous info he introduced with reverts above. This further revert was reverted here [2] by User:AzureCitizen.Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
This user has reverted two edits today to put the article back to a state that they placed it in on May 6. I reverted their May 6 edit and reverted their first reversion so am reluctant to go to 3RR. They got the article to that state by reverting reversions of the same or very similar edits (sometimes in smaller sections) by User:Blue-Haired Lawyer1 and User:Srnec. The edits remove important material about what a Corporation is - well sourced content that is so basic that it does not even need to be sourced - Shareholders are the owners of a Corporation. The issue has been covered on the talk page. The editor got a 32 hour block for similar edits recently. I'm requesting that someone else consider reverting their most recent changes and consider administrative action on this. Even without a 3RR in 24 hours, this is edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also see [[80]] for a recent block and the reasons which include edits to this Corporation article.


Just a note (from a neutral DRN volunteer) that FWIW there is a request pending at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#corporation.2C joint-stock company.2C shareholder.2C share.2C finance.2C corporate finance.2C and others concerning a related matter, though it appears that there is a good chance that it will be closed without assistance from DRN due to lack of response from the participants other than Sigiheri. Also note that Legacypac was not added to that request until after this EW complaint was filed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacypac-Why do you think I'm wrong when neither you nor any other editor who disagreed with me provided ANY evidence to the contrary. ZERO. Does Wikipedia based its decisions on the number of editors who on one side or do the weigh the evidence? If it's the latter case, then you don't really have a good case against me.Sigiheri (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
We base our opinions of what the text should say on refs that has been removed repeatedly and ANY business law textbook. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't see you making any cites at all. Second, peer reviewed legal journals clearly trump what is in a textbook. Third, why do you pretend to speak for others?Sigiheri (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:THOMAS MILADINOFF MATOFF reported by User:Laveol (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Miladinov brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: THOMAS MILADINOFF MATOFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [82]
  2. [83]
  3. [84]
  4. [85]
  5. [86]
  6. [87]
  7. [88]
  8. [89]
  9. [90]
  10. [91]
  11. [92]

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

Comments:
The user refuses to respond to any of the notices left on his talkpage. He has been reverted by 6 or 7 other editors only in a matter of 24 hours and shows no intention of giving up or, indeed, communicating with anybody.--Laveol T 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:121.44.61.173 reported by User:Lonelydarksky (Result: Brief semi-protection of article)[edit]

Page: City of Life and Death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.44.61.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [95] (10 May)
  2. [96] (11 May)
  3. [97] (13 May)
  4. [98] (14 May)
  5. [99] (15 May)

The main issue in the edit war is the IP user's insistence on using the term "propaganda film" to describe the film instead of using less controversial terms such as "historical film" and "historical drama film". He/she has received three reminders (in edit summaries) from User:Jonathanfu and I to stop reverting, discuss the issue on the talk page, and provide references to support the "propaganda claim". Our words were apparently ignored. About three hours ago, the IP user changed "historical drama film" to "war film", stating in the edit summary that the use of "war novel" to describe The Red Badge of Courage is the basis for the change. I reverted this edit because I feel that it is going off-topic.

The IP user has a dynamic IP address which starts with "121.44" so we can only communicate through edit summaries and on the talk page. But, clearly, the IP user has seen our edit summaries, based on his/her editing pattern. He/she did not make any response on the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:


Given the variation in address I don't think action against the offending editor will be effective. However, I semi-protected the article for one month, which will prevent IPs and new accounts from editing. Zerotalk 03:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. LDS contact me 04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:50.72.139.25 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.72.139.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 10 May 2013‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:51, 13 May 2013‎
  2. 04:49, 14 May 2013‎
  3. 05:05, 14 May 2013‎
  4. 20:20, 14 May 2013‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

User 50.72.139.25 / 50.72.177.136 gets into a tremendous snit, and launches into extended ranting tirades and pointless personal attacks, if everyone doesn't agree with him 100% about everything. His actions have already resulted in semi-protection for the article and a temporary ban for himself. The natural place to ask for help about his current assault on the article talk page would be "Requests for page protection", but they've adopted some kind of policy of deliberate intentional ineffectuality in this type of case (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection), so I'm coming here... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am enjoying the edit war because I know for a FACT that Kurgan Theory is a fringe theory for NON-linguists who actually fail to understand that language works as a series of waves, not like in genetics where there is a clear ancestry and a clear direction of inheritance. If I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS DETAILED AS BRITANNICA and this asshole is telling me that a single book from a single author 'has more weight' (POV!) , yeah I tell you to fuck yourself because WP becomes a video game. So let's play! Rock on!
The majority think Wikipedia is stale and shoots itself in the foot. I want to help the necrosis along by arguing in favour of most widely accepted academic views while telling assholes to fuck off and die. LOL! This obviously means that I am "bad" to the simplistic talentless unacademic WP admin trolls because they want to live in a digital ivory tower where their mediocrity is left unchallenged. Aw poor babies. Have a hot dog. Lol. Ah this is fun. (By the way, if you want to silence me, just block all of 50.72.*.* and stop *all* Canadians from editing. Stop everyone too! YAY! Good job.) 50.72.139.25 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. I blocked .25 for a week. .136 hasn't edited since May 7, so I left them alone. The article is already semi-protected. If necessary, I will semi-protect the talk page as well. I've put it on my watchlist, but just in case I miss it, please alert me if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [103] (removing the word Circasians from the infobox)
  2. [104] (again)
  3. [105] (again)
  4. [106] (removing pov tag)
  5. [107] (again)
  6. [108] (again)

DragonTiger23 displays typically wp:own activity during the recent 24h in the specific article. The reverts started when D.23 wanted to remove the word "Circassians" from the infobox and the lead, claiming that the relevant (wp:rs) citation that supports this, is for an unexplained reason wrong. Although I wasn't the only user that advised him that this isn't enough to reject the specific claim so easily, he responded by making aggressive comments in his edit summaries [109][110], removing even the pov tag, without waiting for the discussion to reach an end. I've tried to resolve the issue in every way possible: on the article talk page, as well as advised him kindly that he should calm down. I even told him gently that a pov tag needs to be removed after the issue is settled [[111]] but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_Greek_users_trying_to_cover_up_a_Greek_massacre_of_Turks_during_Greco-Turkish_war_1919-1922 User Alexikoua is extremely pov pushing and source abusing, he is trying to justify, cover up, deny and shift the blame to others in a massacre of Turks by the Greek army. This massacre is documented by an inter allied Neutral Western report. Still he is trying to cover up the massacre, he states that he is of Greek ancestry this may explain his non neutral denying behavior.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have talked pages on the talk page see here but they are not neutral so it has no effect. Talk:Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacresDragonTiger23 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added an additional dif of the latest (6th) rv, since DragonTiger23 still reverts the pov tag placed by various users.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathaniel Glover jr reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: The Kidd Creole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nathaniel Glover jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [114]
  2. [115]
  3. [116]
  4. [117]

Comments:
This is a bit tricky; after removing Category:Black American Emcee's from The Kidd Creole, I received an eMail from User:Nathaniel Glover jr saying 'please don't edit my article', and that he had reinstated the category. I just reverted on the grounds that it was a ridiculous request and currently, I'm at three reverts and he's at four. The following is the eMail conversation:

  • I'm sure your trying but PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (The Kidd Creole) any more I DO NOT need you to contribute to it no one knows more about subject than me so I repeat PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (plus you keep taking out Black American Emcee's stop this it's annoying....it's like you have something against this category?....you shouldn't because most of the rappers are Black American) your not adding anything so I wish you would stop....thank you
    • I've only edited it once and that was to remove the category. Create the category, and then we'll talk about it.
      • Let's be adult about this there's nothing to discuss please do not edit the page any more please....thank you
        • No. The page, or indeed any article, shouldn't contain nonexistent categories. If there is enough pages to fit the category, it will be created. Also, if you are Kidd Creole, you shouldn't be writing about yourself - although you've seen the messages on your talk pages. I won't flog a dead horse.
          • If we we're face to face would you have the same attitude? And I'm sure you (and I) have better things to do. Can you just stop please okay what what difference does it make to you whether not the categories nonexistent how do you know if I'm going to create a category. Okay stop being a child alright be an adult and stop editing the page okay just stop....thank you
            • Absolutely. As I've said, create the category first. Now please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR before proceeding further.
              • What are you some kind of Internet nerd hiding behind a computer? I wish you would just leave me alone okay you need to just find some other category to edit....there are thousands of them you need to leave me alone okay because you're annoying me Leave me alone and leave the Page alone

Multiple policies have been violated, so a longer than usual block would be appreciated. Thank you.--Launchballer 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AShennib reported by User:Rizhad Krol (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: House of Shennib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AShennib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [119]
  2. [120]
  3. [121]
  4. [122]
  5. [123]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Hi, continued, unverified amendment of this page will result in your reportage for violation of the three reversion rule. Your amendments are messing up the copyrighted JPEG photos, also you have amended the correct Arabic translations of the terms 'Sayyid' and 'Sayyida'. You have also deleted references to two direct descendents without citing reasons. Wikipedia changes should be verified. Without references, kindly refrain from opinion editing.]

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomticker5 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Gustave Whitehead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomticker5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:42 May 14 – [125] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
  2. 18:30 May 14 – [126] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
  3. 20:09 May 14 – [127] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
  4. 00:52 May 15 – [128] partial revert to restore "eyewitness accounts"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:36 May 14 – [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

Tomticker5 changed the page today to put a more convincing summary in place, one that makes Gustave Whitehead look more like he was a successful flyer. He was reverted four times, two times each by two other editors, and he reverted/restored four times the phrase "eyewitness accounts". Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that a reference to the Wright brothers must be in the first few introductory sentences of Gustave Whiteheads article to establish notability. The "controversy" is over whether he flew or not in 1901 lies mostly with the Smithsonian. There have been several recent statements by leading aviation authorities that he did in fact fly in 1901. In my opinion, you must cite the root cause of the controversy at the Smithsonian. The flight was witnessed by an editor of a newspaper and several other people who later swore out affidavits that Whitehead flew in 1901. You must also, for the sake of the reader of this article who is not familiar with the Wright brothers, and insert the date of their flights that occurred two years later in 1903. Then, the reader will understand that the credibility of the eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead fly in 1901 are being put in doubt by some not all aviation historians and the flights made by the Wright brothers, two years later, are considered first by some, but not all leading aviation historians.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tomticker5. Actually, Binksternet is trying to control the Gustave Whitehead page as he/she has been guarding it and continuing to insert misleading information. This was occurring with my edits several weeks ago. Gustave Whitehead has been recognized by the only non-conflicted world authority there is, Jane's All the World Aircraft, "the aviation bible", as first in flight. There are fanatics regarding the Wright Brothers who see it nearly (or virtually) as a religion that are very incensed by this appropriate, well-considered recognition. They continually try to disparage any recognition. Smithsonian cannot weigh in on this as they are bound by legal contract to only recognize the Wrights as first in flight. This page on Gustave Whitehead needs to accurately and neutrally reflect the credit Whitehead has been given and what the controversy was, but mostly focus on the accomplishments of Whitehead. The "Wrighteous" need to stop bashing Whitehead, they are the ones doing the edit warring. Binksternet is definitely in need of monitoring and reporting. This page should not be vandalized by the attacks of those Wright-favoring fanatics who cannot accept that Whitehead has been determined to fly first. In fact, B. may be a Smithsonian plant or employee, in my opinion. I support Tomticker5 wholeheartedly. We cannot have history defaced. AviationHist1 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that Tomticker5 has not addressed the root issue of reverting-type behavior. He emphasizes the content dispute but this noticeboard is for behavior. AviationHist1 continues in the same vein, describing the content dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:K7L reported by User:174.118.142.187 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: AC/DC (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Original version: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [132]
  2. [133]
  3. [134]


Warning on user talk page[[135]]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another article talk page where consensus was against these actions: [136]


:Discussions had taken place regarding broadening the article AC/DC (electricity) where this editor could not receive any consensus, from three other editors, to include more types of equipment into this article. He was told that the lede clearly stated the topic inclusion since inception in 2008 with it's first edit. With a failure to inject off-topic AC/DC motors edits into the article he moved to the disambiguation page to edit the link to include his topic change to include AC/DC equipment not covered by the article. User:I B Wright has also reverted his edits to the article topic. Although, technically this editor has not reached four similar edits on this exact page AC/DC disambiguation s/he was aware that the edits were not desirable and an incorrect description, of the article linked to, from previous negative result consensus discussions. Edits on the disambiguation page were WP:POINTY and against these previous article talk page discussions.

174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP "reporting" this is revert-warring me, namely leaving messages on my talk page threatening 3RR complaints and then reverting AC/DC (disambiguation) once again to their preferred version. There was no consensus from other editors as the question of whether the scope of the article includes off-line SMPS is still under discussion at talk:AC/DC (electricity). Furthermore, the only discussion on the disambig page is about bisexuality. This would appear to be one IP who has decided that AC/DC (electricity) excludes the "AC/DC motor" (not just the off-line switched-mode power supply) and has taken WP:OWNership of the article unilaterally. Removing valid information from articles just to reduce their scope to one particular radio design which has been obsolete since the 1970s (or earlier) is neither constructive nor helpful. "AC/DC motor" does belong in AC/DC (disambiguation), regardless of one IP's love for a completely obsolete vacuum tube radio which used the term on its nameplate. If this user wants to turn AC/DC (electricity) into a discussion of one device instead of any device operable from DC, perhaps that article should be on another title to indicate that it's about just the AC/DC broadcast receiver (we already have All American Five radio which overlaps such a proposed article by at least 50%, were it created). This is agenda-pushing and I'm disappointed to see it as "AC/DC motor" is AC/DC and is electrical. K7L (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking more closely, the first of my edits listed is not a revert and should not have been mislabelled as such. K7L (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD. You boldly edited and were reverted by User:I B Wright. Without talk page discussion you then injected the same edit again and I corrected your edit. You again injected the same WP:POINTY edit and I reverted it again, after the warning on your talk page. Your rash of confusion misinformation spewed above is not supported by edit histories. No talk page discussion was initiated by yourself (the onus was on you) on the disambiguation page but previous discussion on the AC/DC (electricity) talk page, you were involved in, clearly indicates three editors do not want your AC/DC motor subject matter inserted in the article and each of your attempts was reverted by other editors. Then you shopped for another injection article AC/DC (disambiguation) with attempts to broaden the article content again. That is editwarring. Currently you have begun to fling personal attacks on myself with IPsockpuppet insults[[137]], as well as suggesting I don't understand English.[[138]] As suggested previously to you in discussions WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:The TV Boy reported by User:Johnmperry (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: TV7 (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The TV Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&oldid=554676299

This was on the List of missing references, which is where I came in. I did small edits to clear error.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. The TV Boy reverted my corrections and the previous contribution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=554850969
  2. I reverted that reversion
    The TV Boy again reverted
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555016025
  3. I reverted that reversion, and issued {{uw-3r}}
    The TV Boy deleted the warning from his talk page. Then he reverted again
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555193894


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

We have talked via comment on edit plus user page talk

Comments:

I have no interest in Bulgarian TV per se. I am only interested in people following rules. I have already brought WP:OWNER to attention of The TV Boy

John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Wed 12:14, wikitime= 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reporting me? I've tried to explain to the dynamic IP editors that this information is not approprite for the article on the English Wiki, where there is only general info about the channel. This information is about a case that even I didn't know it existed and even though it had referencies it has no encyclopedic value. The dynamic IP's come from Bulgaria, so I've asked them to put the information on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. They just keep reverting my edits and say that they are harmed by TV7 and whant everybody in the world to see this. This is a very small thing just trying to give an international bad image to the channel. It violates Wikipedia core values of neutrality.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've fully protected the article for a week. The material removed by The TV Boy has no business being in the article as it was presented and sourced, but not necessarily for the reasons articulated by The TV Boy. Putting aside how badly worded it was, the sources are completely unreliable and cannot be used in almost any context, let alone in an attack on the station.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Whitechristian2013 reported by User:RolandR (Result:Blocked for username violation)[edit]

Page: Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whitechristian2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [140]
  2. [141]
  3. [142]
  4. [143]
  5. [144]
  6. [145]
  7. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party

Comments:

  • Overtaken by other events: Daniel Case blocked this user for username violation. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


User:70.19.122.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Horus Heresy (novels) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.122.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [148]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [149]
  2. [150]
  3. [151]
  4. [152] (This is different material being reverted, but still edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153] and [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Horus Heresy (novels)#Concerning the excessive hidden text in the article

Comments:
A previous report was archived without any third-party comment of any kind. IP editor is continuing extreme WP:OWN behavior on the article by reverting any edits by any other editor outside of small spelling corrections and other minor edits, and insisting on excessive hidden text that is contrary to Help:Hidden text and WP:OWN. IP editor has violated 3RR. - SudoGhost 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Both editors were edit warring. However, I blocked only the IP because of the nature of the IP's edits, which were disruptive. @SudoGhost, I understand why you reverted so many times, but your only policy-based exemption is vandalism. The IP's edits were unconstructive, but I wouldn't recommend handling it the way you did in the future as you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree I'm certainly not blameless in the whole edit warring thing, but I didn't realize exactly how many times I reverted until after the fact (not that that excuses it). I'll be more mindful of that in the future and use WP:DRN or WP:3O or something. - SudoGhost 01:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── i believe that the reasoning given by Bbb23 does not justify this block. the edits he thinks "unconstructive" and "disruptive" were factually, nothing of the sort. i request that a corrective entry to that effect be entered in this ip's block log. past experience shows that sloppy administrators may concentrate their "investigation" to perusal of the block log instead of the case's merits. thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Your block was affirmed by two other admins as justified (I'm excluding King of Hearts's decline, since it was procedural). The fact that you've already gone right back to reverting the same article shows it was wholly justified. If you keep it up, you're just going to get blocked again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Due to continued reverting of the article after expiry of his initial AN3 block the IP editor has been blocked for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Refusecollectionreported by User:Farrajak (Result: Blocked)[edit]

The signal to noise ratio is out of control. No more.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Hurly-Burly (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Refusecollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [155] (with my category preference) or [156] (with sourcing problems noted). Article already has a "notability" tag on it. And it went through a AFD recently.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [157]
  2. [158]
  3. [159]
  4. [160]
  5. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] Second warning[163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]
Plus I tried to discuss my reasoning on Refusecollention's talk page.[169]

Comments:
I was trying to help the article by reducing the overcategorization and removing a huge template that overwhelmed the article. When that was reverted, I tried to suggest other ways the article needed better sourcing, because there aren't solid sources to support the article's notability. The sources are either comments, or only mention the topic of the article peripherally. But the editor refused to consider any of my problems with the article and reverted every edit I made within minutes. Maybe I'm not doing the right thing here, as it's his article. Farrajak (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • In response to Farrajak's comment. I appreciate that, inspired by the notability tag, said user applied him/herself to altering the article, and quite possibly with the best of intentions. I reverted the various edits, as I have explained on the Talk Page, because the said user was requesting: a) that the "Psychoanalysis" template should be removed (when other Psychoanalytic journals carry this template, for ex: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, or at least it did until today when said user removed it after I quoted it as an example on the Talk Page); b) that the selected list of contributors be referenced, when clearly this is in no way a contentious issue; c) that the brief description of the journal content be referenced, when clearly this too is in no way contentious. Furthermore, said user alleged that: d) the existing references do not include the content they purport to include (which I refuted on the Talk Page). I respect the good faith of said user in seeking to alter the page in such a way as to improve notability, but none of these items will influence the notability of the journal, nor justify its notability in the article. In his/her attempted defence of his/her edits, Farrajak has shown a strong degree of incoherence and inconsistency. I repeatedly asked said user to be more specific in stating his/her qualms, and to refrain from altering the page directly until agreement could be reached on the Talk Page. I think the discussion on the Talk Page will speak for itself, but I remain available for further comment.

Refusecollection (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Perhaps both of you can explain what the policy justification is for your edit warring. Hint: the correct answer is there is none. I'd like to see an acknowledgment from both of you that your conduct has been disruptive and that you won't do it again. If I had more time (I'm about to go off-wiki), I'd extract a promise from you that neither of you can edit the article at all for seven days to avoid being blocked. Instead, I'll let another admin handle this as they see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:*I will acknowledge that there wasn't a reason to edit war. I've never done so before. I won't do so again and I apoligize for the disruption. Farrajak (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your comment. For my part, I would prefer to see the page stay as it is, and so for me there would be no problem whatsoever with not touching it for 7 days. I haven't added anything at all to the article, of which I am the original author, for some months now. My only activity today has been to undo what I saw to be unwarranted edits from Farrajak. The quicker this can be put behind us the better. Refusecollection (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The edit war notice above refers to both Farrajak and yourself, Refusecollection. And just now, somebody else than Farrajak made an edit and you reverted despite the above warnings. That's your fourth or fifth revert in the last 15 hours, meaning that you are way beyond what 3RR allows. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would accept this version[170] by User:Epicgenius which was just now reverted by Refusecollection. Farrajak (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dear all, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using/respecting poorly WP protocol. I am a very occasional WP user with a poor grasp of the codes and mores. I welcome any enlightenment on this issue, and will try to abide by the rules, which generally seem to have been put in place to make WP a wholesome working environment. My question, however, is quite simple: what do I do when an article I care about is altered, in my view unnecessarily, and the editor does not engage in a coherent way on the Talk Page? I'm being told that I'm breaking the rules, but no one is willing to talk about the nature of these non-sensical alterations. I've clearly stated my reservations on the Talk Page, no one has responded coherently. Refusecollection (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. Farrajak explained what they thought is wrong with the article on the talk page. Your response basically was "you're wrong" and "this is absurd" and subsequently reverted every change to the article by them and others. The main contention seems to be two templates, one "not in citation" (I have no opinion on that one, as it is not a resource that is online and I don't have a printed copy available). The other template asks for a source for the remark in the article that the journal "includes texts by major psychoanalysts and prominent figures from contemporary philosophy and cultural theory". This seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. Note that you cannot source such a remark to the journal itself. Nor can you say: "persons A and B published in it and they are prominent so this is true", you need an independent reference for things like this. As for the overcategorization, this also seems to be a reasonable remark from Farrajak. For example, it is categorized as "psychoanalytic studies". A journal is not a study, even though it may publish the results of such studies. Journals are not usually included in "studies" categories. So this issue should at least be discussed on the talk page before starting an edit war over it. In fact, starting or participating in an edit war is only justified when the edits you are reverting are clear vandalism, which is not the case here. Please familiarize youself with the appropriate guidelines and policies, such as