Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive109

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:DBZfan29 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: List of Dragon Ball GT episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DBZfan29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

  • 1st revert: diff
  • 2nd revert: diff (done as IP - admits it his him)
  • 3rd revert: diff
  • 4th revert: diff
  • 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Collectonian#GT Episode List, User talk:DBZfan29#September 2009 (after warning, left retaliatory one on my talk page)

Comments:
This user is just off a block for edit warring and incivility. After initially appearing ready to edit constructively, and having discussed the edits he wanted to make (and having it explained as to why they were not appropriate), he again returned back to edit warring on the article to add original research and personal/fan opinions, with later edits including falsely applied sources that do not back up his claims. Have given multiple chances to stop vandalizing the article with false information, tried discussing with him, but he continues to act inappropriately. When warned he would be reported, reverted back to his same arguments from last time he was blocked that if you do it to me, I'll do it to you (which he did before, retaliating an AIV report with one back), and claiming he is not reverting when clearly he is.[1], then posted a link to a bootleg DVD to the talk page to try to support his claims[2]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I was trying to help. If he already owns the bootleg, how is supplying a link illegal. I was just trying to help. And second, you have reverted more than me. I never hit undo once unless I had a reason to back it up. I warned you - and you deleted the warning. I reported you - and the report magically disappeared when I left the page. I've listened to everything the admins and you said. I added refs. I am being calm. Yet I'm always getting reverted! Anyway, did you have anything to do with my report being removed? DBZfan29 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you or he owns the bootleg. Linking to it violates Wikipedia's WP:COPYRIGHT policy. And it does not matter if you hit undo. You are still reverting by restoring the content you have already been told was not appropriate and was original research. You continue doing it anyway. I have nothing to do with any report being removed, however if you are again filing a retaliatory report, I'd suggest you rethink it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, I don't think that bootleg link has anything to do with this. I made a mistake. Another thing, you never said it was inappropiate - you just removed it even after I added refs to support the edit. And I reported you because you were doing this and you did remove the warning I sent you. How it disappeared, I don't know - but I'm certainly going to add it again. DBZfan29 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you were told, both on my talk page when you asked about it before hand and in the edit summary. Do not readd the warning as it would be inappropriate and a misuse of the template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by Lucas (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Lower Silesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Edit war - User:Yopie against the three users: User:Karasek, User:Lucas and User:Jadran91.

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected No one is doing the right thing, so instead of blocking everyone I've just protected. This will give everyone time to have a real discussion (one that reaches its end and maybe even results in a consensus) and seek third opinions and dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakersw22 reported by User:criticalthinker (Result:No vio )[edit]

Page: Lansing, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jakersw22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8]

Comments: I have let the user know that the problem is not what he's adding, but how he's adding it. It's written with a point of view as opposed to be facts-based which is required to post anything on here. He is either very immature or has some kind of mental disability. Either way, that's not my problem, nor is it wiki's. It's time to block him since he can't seem to understand why his silly edits are being reverted.

  • Seriously the first thing you do is call the editor stupid, his edits vandalism and now you're mentioning a mental disability. Please read WP:BITE and WP:NPA. This is not how good intentioned but inappropriate edits are handled. I've left a note on the editor's talk page welcoming him and offering to discuss how to add the information to the article appropriately. Shell babelfish 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


User:72.79.190.67 reported by User:Drmies (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Dickinson College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 72.79.190.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Attempts have been made to resolve dispute on user talk page (User talk:72.79.190.67) and on an editor's talk page (User_talk:Falcon8765). Editor also did some yelling on my talk page.

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For 3RR and WP:DUCK. Nja247 06:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 reported by Andi 3ö (talk) (Result: Protected - 2nd opin requested)[edit]

Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:59, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311245193 by Andi 3ö (talk) The decision was keep from an administrator [NuclearWarfare] hence undo...")
  2. 18:03, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311308472 by Andi 3ö (talk) Vandalism")
  3. 06:28, 2 September 2009 (edit summary: "Edit war revert, between two users, discussion closed article was kept by administrator")

I reported this earlier(see above). Although since then two additional users have weighed in on the discussion (see edit summary [here] and Talk:Modern Buddhism), still the user has reverted once again, [accused me] of edit warring, although i clearly am not and instead try to discuss; he disrespects the results of the AfD and the preceding discussion here, misrepresents the decision of the closing admin of the AfD in his edit summary although the admin has clarified his decision on Talk:Modern Buddhism. Also, he now calls for page protection:

...and he still does not discuss on Talk:Modern Buddhism.

  • Diff of warning: here

Andi 3ö (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja247 08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See here, where I told the reporting editor that he may seek another view here, though I don't think a block will resolve the problem. Nja247 08:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Nja247. Yes, i'd like to have a second opinion on that. Please read my comments at Nja247's talk page and assess the situation via the links provided above. Thanks, Andi 3ö (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Jemesouviens32 has just commented on Talk:Modern Buddhism. Please take a look at that comment. He doesn't even seem to fully understand what a disambiguation page is - after two weeks of extensive discussions on the subject (the references he claims i deleted were btw moved to one of the redirects). He then resorts to ad hominems once again and ends by restating his WP:POV about what "modern Buddhism" really is about. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are his latest ad hominems, here is his latest attempt at totally distorting the reality of things (please compare with this statement by the closing admin of the AfD, only a few lines above of his). Of course we could RfC...his calls for dispute resolution are ridiculously hypocritical; we are right in the middle of it since almost two weaks now and he simply doesn't like the outcome. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...and yet another misrepresentation: In his latest comment he claims that User:Emptymountains has participated in the [AfD discussion] which he apparently has not. His is in fact one more, fresh, opinion adding to the overwhelming consensus. I don't know if this misrepresentation is an earnest mistake or a deliberate lie...but in any way, i have to admit it becomes harder and harder for me to WP:AGF Andi 3ö (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist reported by User:smatprt (Result: semi)[edit]

Page: Monterey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]


User already warned by admin. and other editor. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] to which I got this response [26]

Comments:

This entire sequence (above) followed a warning by an Admin to stop edit warring (noted above). The first war that brought the admins warning is documented here:

I suppose you mean Monterey, California. Not a good start. There does seem to be rather a lot of edit warring over the photos. The response you got to your attempt to resolve the dispute [30] appears sensible; I'm not sure why you then took offense William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DHawker reported by User:MastCell (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Colloidal silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:11, 2 September 2009 by DHawker

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DHawker is well aware of 3RR, having been blocked twice before for violating it on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Colloidal silver#Biased Colloidal Silver Article and Talk:Colloidal silver#Better rationales.

Comments:
DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver (see contrib history). S/he has a history of edit-warring on this article, and has been blocked twice before for this sort of thing. At the most recent AN3 report, an admin voiced the opinion that an indefinite block was appropriate. Either way, I'm bringing this here as a recurring problem. MastCell Talk 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with indef; too long ago. 1 week; SPA edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PasswordUsername reported by User:Martintg (Result: Warned)[edit]

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.

This is not the place to continue a content dispute. Go elsewhere. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Page: The Soviet Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [31]

  • 1st revert: 03:34, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311268588 by Andora1 (talk) Undo deletion of sourced material and summarizing per WP:MOS.")
  • 2nd revert: 17:09, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311620460 by Andora1 (talk) You need sources before you claim all these critics' words are false -- not WP:OR.")
  • 3rd revert: 21:13, 3 September 2009 (edit summary: "Rvt. You mention that (some?) critics discuss things that are not in the movie. We have no way of knowing this - what we depend on is WP:RS, not WP:OR. If you have those, you can include them.")
  • 4th revert: 01:07, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Revert insinuation about supposedly "false claims" by living people (historians, politicians). The only refs give the critics' views -- they don't argue that all of the critics wrote misinformation.")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Repeat offender

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:


--Martintg (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Consensus seems clearly against PasswordUsername and he has continued reverting, which is clearly edit-warring. That being said, the attempt to "resolve the dispute" at the article talk page doesn't look very enthusiastic to me (accusing someone of "vandalism" during a content dispute is never helpful either) so I'd like to give the user one last chance at having a discussion. The warning I gave him was a final warning, so if he reverts again I will block him immediately. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a warning is sufficient at this stage, the guy is a repeat offender. Note he has clearly made his 3rd and 4th reverts after being asked not to delete whole sections of text on the talk page, and his edit comments don't reflect that fact that his reverts deleted whole sections of sourced text. It is not the first time he has been reported here. --Martintg (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(more or less copied from my talk page) Like I said above, I don't think the warnings/discussions before this report were quite enough, which is why I didn't block right away. But if the user is as tendentious as he seems, then he will probably revert again soon, and once he reverts he will be blocked. On the other hand, if he doesn't continue edit warring, then there is no longer a need to block him (blocks are only to prevent damage to the encyclopedia; they're not for punishments). The other advantage to not blocking is, in the off chance that he stops edit warring and goes to the discussion page, then there can actually be a discussion... whereas if I just blocked right away, he wouldn't even be able to state his case (although, granted, he had opportunities to do that before and he didn't). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
PasswordUsername was reported here just two weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive107#User:PasswordUsername_reported_by_User:jacurek_.28Result:_.29. He returned on September 1st after a short wiki-break since August 21st and immediately he engages in edit warring on his return. How many chances and warnings is he going to get before something is done to curb his disruptive behaviour? --Martintg (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this dispute concerns one SPA adding unsourced material regarding living people (they're lying about the movie's content, but no proof is given). Martintg regularly undoes whatever I do: this is not "consensus" against me (nor does consensus trump WP:BLP). Reverting these slanderous claims is not barred by WP:3RR – reverting potentially libelous material about living people is specifically excepted. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 48h)[edit]

Liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1 20:33, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Previous lead is much better. Restoring that.")

1 20:50, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted unsourced remnant")

1 01:41, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "more sources for classical/social liberalism dinstinction, as well as source that says that the classification is common")

1 01:42, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:01, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Better vs of previous intro. Redid the 3rd paragraph, and gave MANY sources for the claim that Americans and Euros use "liberalism" differently, which Rick Norwood and Four Deuces have been disputing")

2 22:02, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:08, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "page #")

3 22:37, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Nonsense. Approximately this version of the intro was taken down without agreement.")

4 23:19, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted original research assumption that Marcus Aurelius statement is representative of liberalism, much less that that it encapsulates liberalism such that it should head the whole article")

4 23:23, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deleted statement about American Declaration of Independence. This article is about liberalism. Don't make it U.S. centric.")

4 23:30, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This claimed "elitism" branch of liberalism thing is not common, so doesnt belong in the intro.")

  • Diff of warning: [33]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Excluding consecutive edits, there were 4 reverts

-The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. Introman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h. Next time (though hopefully there won't be one), could you arrange the diffs to just show the 4 reverts, if necessary bundling 3 consecutive edits into one? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will do that. Thank you for your patience. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mister Hospodar reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: AIDS denialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mister Hospodar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked previously for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
This single purpose editor is attempting to edit war tags and unsupported ideas into the article, and is soapboxing prodigiously on the talk pages. While he is not reverting to the exact old version each time, his behavior IMO is edit warring and needs admin attention. Skinwalker (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:71.195.10.41 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: G-Saviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.195.10.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48][49]

Comments:

The IP editor has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article G-Saviour stating that it is not canon to the Gundam franchise dispute repeated warnings[50][51][52] and a previously existing reference from the official Gundam website stating that it is part of the franchise. Even though the first revert is just outside of the 24h scope, it does show a pattern of edit waring by the editor. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.129.39.103 reported by User:RedCoat10 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Gibraltarian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.129.39.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Gibraltar

Gibraltarian people

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article "Gibraltar" talk page: [67]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article "Gibraltarian people" talk page: [68]

Comments:
IP refuses to discuss the matter and insists on blanket reverting. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10talk 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.129.48.78 reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: pointless block)[edit]

Page: Gibraltar
User being reported: 89.129.48.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Not sure if a block is warranted but requesting admin overview. IP editor was blocked yesterday for edit warring and bad faith attacks on Gibraltar. The block is currently in place but IP editor is continuing to edit with a new IP address see [69]. I might not have reported were it not for the fact that the IP returned with further bad faith attacks [70]. If this continues perhaps an IP range block may be necessary.

Errm, could you just delete the talk page comments rather than responding to them? I've blocked that IPs, but its a bit pointless because they will just get new ones William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
And already got another one, 89.129.42.174, comment on your talk page. Regards, Justin talk 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Leatherstocking (Result: no forum shopping)[edit]

Page: Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. Any attempt to modify these edits has been reverted without explanation. SlimVirgin also has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying."

  1. [71] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  2. [72] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  3. [73] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
  4. [74] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  5. [75] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  6. [76] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  7. [77] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  8. [78] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  9. [79] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  10. [80] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  11. [81] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
  12. [82] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
  13. [83]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
  14. [84] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:

This seems to be a continuation of this [87] Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

These look like mostly contiguous edits, which count as one. Can you remove the contiguous ones please, if you want this to be considered William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to see here. Move along. This is blatant forum shopping with exagerated difs provided by Leatherstocking. Slim is reasonably pairing down an article which is prone to needlessly expand if left unchecked over time. The meaning of the article is not changed by the edits. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)a
This is not a 3RR request. This is an open and shut case of edit warring. Slim is neither pairing nor paring the article -- she is reorienting it to her own POV, and edit warring to do so. If a rank and file editor did this, you would throw the book at him. Double standards undermine confidence in the project. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This *is* an open and shut case. You opened it; I've shut it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Echoing WMC here. Leatherstocking, there are tons of editors editing this article (it looks to me like over 100 edits a day, and many large chunks of edits from other people, yourself included), I don't see why you're focusing on one. If there are content issues, take them to the talk page. I see no edit warring here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:OpticsPhysics reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: OpticsPhysics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [89] (8 consecutive edits by OpticsPhysics; adds "“Classical” optics refers to those facts about optics that were known before the wave model of light in the nineteenth century." which is very different from the definition of "classical optics" previously on the page, i.e. "In classical optics, light is modeled as an electromagnetic wave..."

Each of the above reverts restores the material quoted in bold type above.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:53 5 September

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:37, 5 September 2009 (3 edits by me to Talk:Optics)

Comments:

Verbal did 3 reverts; however, Verbal was merely removing edits which had already been opposed by both Verbal and by Srleffler and by Srleffler at 05:43 5 September(17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)) (before I arrived). Srleffler did one revert, along with other changes which attempt to resolve the situation with the definition of "classical optics". Verbal had also discussed on the talk page: [90]. Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that just a minute before I filed the report, OpticsPhysics had self-reverted, as I had requested. I therefore would like to withdraw my report (if it's not too late) and request that OpticsPhysics be unblocked. Coppertwig (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Not done User may request unblocking by following the instructions given in the block template on their talk page. Further, their creation of a new account to evade the block is unlikely to help their cause. Nja247 18:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:190.208.87.47 reported by User:Likeminas (Result: No vio)[edit]

Edit warring & Vandalism. This IP is deleting sourced content on the article[91]. He has been warned and reverted for vandalism by several other editors[92]. User refuses to discuss deletion of sourced table figure on talk page and insists (in Spanish) that 'false sources need no discussion'[93]. Diffs of edit warring. [94] [95][96] [97]. Likeminas (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the rule to apply. Also, in the future, try to follow the example when leaving a report. Nja247 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Steve Gaines (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:32 5th September

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:41 5th September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
This may also be linked to some recent blanking on Bellevue Baptist Church. The user keeps citing BLP (unusual for a newly registered user, who may have previous edited the Bellevue page under IPs) but the source given seems legit, at least to me. The user has now reverted to a version which includes part of the deleted text here, but I don't see anything wrong with the version that gave the full context. I am not going to revert further, for the moment as it is 01:54 and I need to sleep but will look at this again in the morning. Keep me posted. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours. Looks more like an attempt to remove criticism from the article than a legitimate BLP concern. There can be no doubt that the widely-report events cited in this article really occurred. Though some of the newspaper articles from 2006 are no longer visible on line, Google easily finds corroboration of these facts from other reliable sources. The Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas account, created August 17, seems to have no interests on Wikipedia besides removing material from this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin5593 reported by User:DonIago (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kevin5593 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [99]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Comments:
User was blocked previously for edit warring on this very page. They continue to add massive amounts of unsourced trivia without providing even a summary. Though they have the right to do so, they are also deleting warnings posted to their Talk page, quite possibly to avoid being reported.
Doniago (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nja247 08:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Roman888 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

First of all I would like to report the following user for edit warring and causing disruption in the Kitchen Nightmares page. He brought in upon himself to changed the following pages by removing the updates of the restaurants without getting any concensus. The updates of the restaurants had references from reputed media and online sources.

Response: The proposal was made to remove the updates to the status of restaurants and discussed some days ago. User:Roman888 had the opportunity to participate, but did not. Consensus was reached, and is noted in the discussion by at least three editors; the rationale was based in part on issues of reliability of sources, and in part on a series of arguments made by User:Madchester on the article for the UK version of the show Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Since then, two editors, one an anon IP have been blocked for edit warring by continually reverting, and two more anon IP's have made edits, all without engaging in discussion. Roman888 appeared this evening, both guns blazing, lacking in civility, determined to make this personal, and refusing to acknowledge the consensus in place, much less engage in any discussion. The edits he cites above are over a period of some days, and comparable edits were made by at least two other editors. There's an agenda at work here, having to do with Roman888's desire to add restaurant updates to the UK article, and my effort to encourage him to be civil and engage in discussion were met with this report. I have already made the admin User:Parsecboy aware of this situation, as he requested we do at the time he blocked the two previous users engaging in edit warring, in an attempt to resolve this amicably. Clearly, that's not possible where Roman888 is concerned. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Warned both users as both are edit warring. Any further reverts should equal a block for either or both parties depending. You must stop and discuss changes or seek WP:DR. Nja247 09:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tranquillity Base reported by User:Cptnono (Result: more info)[edit]

Page: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tranquillity Base (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] (3rr meniton on 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) and a heads up for these specific incidents given at "70: POV issue in the article". The user has been warned several times at the user talk page.

Comments:

The Sea Shepherd organization is contentious so differences in opinion is expected. The question on whether to add this to the Eco-terrorism category resulted in several reverts between different editors with many coming from Tranquillity Base. It looks like this caused some bad blood since Tranquillity Base instantly reverted three adjustments to recent edits. A heads up was given in the edit summary and the talk page. I believe that my adjustments were justified but even if they were not discussion would have been appropriate. I don't know if a block is necessary since the editing is not intended to be disruptive but I would appreciate an admin making a mention to the editor that this behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno who edited the template to say "link permitted but they shouldn't have. Please use diffs. From the history, I can only see 3R in 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I have no idea and probably shouldn't have been so confused by the template but was. I don't know what is needed but the edits can be seen on the history page between 10:14, 6 September 2009 and 10:42, 6 September 2009 at Revision history of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. There are also many reverts before but these jumped out as a concern. Is that enough information?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
1 and 2 are separate removals of the catagory 3-5 is reverts of adjustments made. 6 was a contiguous edit of 5. It doesn't need to be labeled a revert to be in violation of the standards, correct? Also, even if the editor is not blocked, T-Base has been reverting a few edits a day for the last several days and certainly deserves some criticism. IP #68 does as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by 6. can you not just provide diffs? There is a link in the edit history for it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what link you mean now. Give me a second to see if I can figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
1: Revision as of 02:30, 6 September 2009 The eco-terrorism category is disputed. Tranquillity Base has gone back and forth with an IP for several days.
2. Revision as of 10:21, 6 September 2009 The IP reverted the revert and after several edits Tranquillity removed the category again. I honestly don't care if it stays or goes while the discussion is going on but this is inappropriate on both sides.
3. Revision as of 10:30, 6 September 2009 This is a straight revert
4. Revision as of 10:35, 6 September 2009 So is this one.
5. Revision as of 10:42, 6 September 2009 Oops, I was incorrect about 6. This was a revert to a single edit I made but it was not labeled "revert".Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
As I've already said, Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the bold but I read it the first time. 1 and 2 could be considered the same edit. 3, 4, and 5 are all separate. They removed content from three different edits so they are not contiguous.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Crap "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert" sorry about that. I thought I understood it pretty well but didn't. Time to go make some reverts armed with this new knowledge (only half kidding :) )Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has also been discussed at WP:ANI#Sea Shepherd, where some intelligent things were said about the 'eco-terrorism' label. Though my impression is that WMC is not planning to take action on the original 3RR report, I would caution all parties against reverting controversial items without a patient search for Talk page consensus, perhaps even an WP:RFC. If the current pace of reverting continues, blocks for edit-warring appear likely. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:96.241.12.102 reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.241.12.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [121]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

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

Comments:

Previously blocked as 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 3RR on this same article, continuing to make the exact same undue weight fringe POV original research filled edits against consensus. The new IP used for the last two reverts is clearly the same editor. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

24h + semi the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 07:10, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Blogs are not acceptable for admission under Wiki Guidelines, as was previously stated, and this is also irrelevant to Jones specifically as already stated.")
  2. 07:26, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Stop using a Blog, especially in such a misleading manner as to use it and leave out that it says he was involved in 2002 in 9/11 conspiracies")
  3. 07:33, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism")
  4. 07:57, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism this reverted should be addressed now. Look at the history and talk page.")

There is no vandalism here, merely a dispute about the appropriateness of a source, namely a professional journalist's blog from the news publication Politico. User has reverted multiple editors and is not quite civil, IMO, on the talk page. Has been around since 2007 so he really should know better. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-stale but I don't see any evidence of contgrition, so blocked. However, I'd be sympathetic to unblocking if requested William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:nableezy reported by User:AgadaUrbanit (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)




Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: I appreciate nableezy contributions and opintion, but this looks like silly edit war to me.

Agada is trying to change text that has been stable for more than 6 months. I have asked him to keep it as is while we await other responses on the talk page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the change is in order to improve encyclopedic value of the article. I have no objection to you changing the article, in order to improve it, as you did earlier. So 6 months argument is not accurate, I can not accept it. I'm trying to hear to your arguments and implement your suggestions. Your edit pattern matches edit warring pattern. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Agada, the only other person on the talk page discussion, which I started, has agreed that it is better to leave it as it was. I am just asking you to wait for consensus from other editors once the edit has been reverted once. It is also edit warring to continually revert an edit over the objections of other editors. nableezy - 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Agada admonished for failing to use the talk page for meaningful discussion. Leave out the geolocation nonsense, and don't try to make complex arguemnts through edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

William, thank you for your resolution, I appreciate and respect it. This is really unrelated to discussion subject, though I'd like to relate to your "nonsense" remark. Maybe my skin is not think enough and maybe I'm over sensitive. I related to line of arguments like this which I consider as opposite to Wiki spirit. Generally editors find escape from sad subject of discussion in humour which sometimes challenge civility and good taste borders. Hope you see what I mean. Thanks again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm125 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Aftonbladet-Israel controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rm125 (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: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Lede_once_again_please_read_carefully and Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Al_Aharam_is_not_RS as well as WP:RS/N#Al-Ahram Comments:

Edit warring here and a number of other articles in the users short time here. nableezy - 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A warning about the technicalities and general concept of edit-warring may be in order. RM125 is a newbie editor that is "warned" by his editing opponents about everything and anything, whether its wiki-policy or not. Every once in a while one of the warnings sticks, as in this case, where there may have been a technical 3rr violation. One more point in order: Rm125 has thoroughly discusses his changes on the talk page. Tag-teamers have mostly ignored his comments with the knowledge that they won't go over 3rr in their reverts. In any case, a newbie final warning makes the most sense at this point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The newbie has already been blocked for edit warring, what other final warning is needed? nableezy - 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, you are correct. Rm125 was warned multiple times for edit warring but blocked for disruptive editing. nableezy - 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's better, but not perfect. He was "warned" by his editing opponents about every alphabetical policy that exists. Including one about WP:CANVASS when he asked for my (and nobody elses) opinion about an article because I'm the only editor that was actually nice to him since he stepped foot into Wikipedia. Instead of seeing how many different ways till Tuesday he can be blocked, we should be nurturing this new editor. He was blocked for being disruptive be not explaining his moves on the talkpage. He began colloberating with editors on teh talk page, but what does he get as a reward? Another ground for a block. No wonder we're having a difficult time getting new editors to join. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
He has been warned for edit warring at Haaretz multiple times (including once by an admin that as far as I can tell has never reverted the user), he has been edit warring at this page, at Al Ahram, at Blood libel, at nearly every page he has touched. You want to nurture him by all means go ahead, but he needs to learn to stop trying to force in a favored version of every article he sees. If an admin feels a final warning is in order then fine, I dont have a problem with that, but he cannot be allowed to continue this mass disruption at a number of pages. nableezy - 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, please stop "enabling" Rm125, and let him take responsibility for his actions like a grown adult. He was warned about canvassing because he did canvass you and Jaakobou. He has spent nearly all of his time as a Wikipedia editor edit-warring on four articles. It's very noble that you want to protect Rm125, but he claims to be a grown-up, so he should take responsibility for his actions. It's not the other editors' fault, it's not the fact that English is his third language, it's not the "fact" that I'm a KGB Commissar—all things that Rm125 has charged—the bottom line is that Rm125 is an edit warrior and you're making excuses for him. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz (talk ·