Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive110

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Dak reported by User:HalJor (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&oldid=312688823


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADak&diff=313297067&oldid=241059218

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFisting&diff=313137913&oldid=312287308

Comments:

This edit war has continued for the last month. User:Dak is alone in the discussion believing a certin image should be included in the article. Three other editors (including myself) has explicitly asked that the image not be included. Reasons have been stated repeatedly by both sides. HalJor (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Delicious carbuncle (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: User talk:94.192.38.247 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Neutralhomer is adding a WHOIS template to the talk page of an IP. This IP is a static IP and is known to be used by Izzedine (talk · contribs). This is a repeat of an episode in August that ended up in blocks and admin apologies to the IP for the repeated placement of the same template. See talk page discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Izzedine and the anon in question are vandalizing an anon talk page, 3RR is moot in vandalism and this is clear vandalism. DC is doing nothing but stiring the pot and doing a little harrassment. For the full ANI post, please see here. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is really the appropriate form for this dispute—it's not so much an edit war as a disagreement over technical things. I would suggest withdrawing this report and dealing with things at the ANI thread that is already open; there's no need to spread this out over multiple noticeboards. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I will not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours just so I don't go over 3RR as I am currently sitting on it. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Regardless of the ANI thread, this is a recurrence of a situation which has already been dealt with and discussed on the talk page. Neutralhomer restarted an edit war. Cutting to the chase, this comment on the talk page sums it up. Neutralhomer has already been told that he is in the wrong. The ANI thread will eventually end with the same conclusion. There's nothing technical about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
          • From the edit-warred-over talk page: "Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sixth revert after stating above that he will "not make any other edits to the anon talk page for the next 24 hours". Care to revisit this one? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So he is allowed to continue to vandalize? Come on. By the way, weren't you supposed to have had your last word on all this? Wikistalking anyone? - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have marked the ANI thread in question resolved (admins don't care, why should I?), removed the WhoIs template in question, posted replies to both Izzedine and DC (even though I am not required) and am now retiring. Block me, I really don't care anymore. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. This is all mindbogglingly stupid. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason in principle whether the whois gets to go or stay. But 3RR is perfectly clear, and NH has broken it (the accusations of vandalism didn't help either). Given the previous block log this could have been longer; but the is just so stupid I don't feel like it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:68.81.70.80 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Slavery in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.81.70.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

I strongly object to this characterization of my actions. Other "editors" repeatedly and summarily deleted my additions to the slavery page. At least the first three times, they provided absolutely no cause for doing so. I have time and again justified not only my restorations of my edits but the edits themselves, which are all factually correct and reflect a consensus among modern-day historians of the South. I am sick and tired of the revert-first mentality of altogether too many Wikipedia administrators, especially in areas in which they do not have sufficient knowledge. What happened to editing edits to make them better? What's with the wholesale deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Str8cash reported by User:-5- (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Nirvana discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Str8cash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Comments:

The user is repeatedly changing the format of the article to one that goes against the one that was approved for featured article status, as shown here. Reverts of this user's edits have been done in an attempt to maintain the article's featured article format.-5- (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. You too have broken 3RR. Just for once I'm going to forgive you but don't do this again William M. Connolley (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:NE2 reported by User:TimberWolf Railz (Result: no vio / stale)[edit]

Page: List of Florida railroads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Reporting mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Illinois Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Monticello Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: List of reporting marks: I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


List of Florida railroads: Previous version reverted to: [22]
Reporting mark: Previous version reverted to: [23]
Illinois Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to: [24]
Monticello Railway Museum: Previous version reverted to: [25]
List of reporting marks: I Previous version reverted to: [26]


List of Florida railroads

Reporting mark

Illinois Railway Museum

Monticello Railway Museum

List of reporting marks: I


Illinois Railway Museum

  • Previous version as of July 14, 2009 (2009-07-14): [44]
  • Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [45]

Monticello Railway Museum

  • Previous version as of August 13, 2009 (2009-08-13): [46]
  • Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [47]

List of reporting marks: I

  • Previous version as of September 10, 2009 (2009-09-10): [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Various attempts at Dispute resolution and discussion of the matters took place within the appropriate talk pages:

  • Inquiries addressed at user talk page: [50]
  • Notification of the immediate conflict: [51]
  • Discussion to resolve the current dispute: [52]
  • Discussion to resolve the current dispute: [53]

Comments:


After performing some rather basic maintenance tasks on several articles using good faith, user User:NE2 without my expectations engaged in a content dispute without discussion, including the assumption of very little good faith on his half over the revisions and later leading to an unneeded conflict out of the matter; even despite the fact I started two discussions related to minor improvements prior to these events. After being informed of his actions via an administrator, I stepped in to correct some of these reverts due to initial violations of the WP:OWN rule, though NE2 has again reverted all these revisions without formal discussion on the topics at hand, including edit summaries that suggest lack of good faith and the unexplained removal of relevant WP:COI templates and respective comments added afterwards aimed at improving the article.

NE2's pending conflict was immediately addressed on multiple talk pages of the respective articles using WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy, and eventually I provided my solutions and feedback in good faith, though NE2 has dismissed most of these inquiries without acknowledging the subjects provided. I've since decided to drop completely out of the discussion to focus on other aspects of Wikipedia. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio / stale. 4R have to be on one article and within 24h. Further, you appear to have decided this issue is over [54]. This board is not a way of "winning" the issue that you should be discussing at Wikipedia:CNB#Reporting_marks William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'd never want to stretch anything, it is my apologies for posting this within the wrong section. Face-angel.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Valkyrie Red reported by WebHamster (Result: 72h, and other new disruptive accounts blocked )[edit]

Pepsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:40, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Marketing */ Added Frog/Toad section")
  2. 12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* The Frog/Toad Incident */ Moving Toad Section")
  3. 12:41, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Colas */")
  4. 16:08, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313370080 by WebHamster (talk)")
  5. 21:47, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313399210 by WebHamster (talk)")

WebHamster 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:68.58.213.54 reported by User:Dirtlawyer1 (result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Steve Spurrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.58.213.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of 1st edit war warning: [61] Diff of 2nd edit war warning: [62]

I request help with the above situation involving multiple deletions and reversions of properly sourced and footnoted NPOV text by an anonymous IP user. The anonymous IP user has engaged in multiple deletions of the same text over the past two weeks, refuses to engage in talk page discussion, and has already been warned twice. Please help us in resolving this matter; it is becoming a huge waste of constructive editors' time and efforts. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1 week. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd appears to apply William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of new at this edit warring resolution thing . . . does that mean that the anonymous IP user is blocked for "1 week," or is that shorthand for something else? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, the anonymous IP user has reverted the change again in the last last hour. Is the IP user supposed to already be blocked? Is there some further action that I and the other editors on the Steve Spurrier article are supposed to take? Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In this case, it means I blocked User:129.252.69.41 instead. Ah well, this one too and I'll semi-protect the page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I was about to say the same thing. I've blocked the original IP for 1 week as per WMC already. Black Kite 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we clashed along the way. Anyway, we agree so all is well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen. Maybe this will bring our anonymous friend out into the sunlight of the article discussion page. Kind of weird actually, but I'm sure you see a lot of this sort of thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:69.210.133.130 reported by User:CyberGhostface (Result: template semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Template:Stephen King (edit | [[Talk:Template:Stephen King|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 69.210.133.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [63]

Since two other editors disagree with him (User:Jmj713 and I) he was asked to bring it to the discussion page, which he ignored.

For the record, while these are in the last 24 hours, he's been edit warring since the 7th. So technically he hasn't broken the 3RR yet (I think).--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned As this user hasn't edited in over 12 hours, I've placed a warning on his talk page and placed this template on my watchlist - this should do for the time being, although obviously he's in a different timezone so this should be one for another admin to keep an eye on. Hopefully he'll engage in the discussion on the talk page. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected After I warned this user, he made another revert under another IP (check the template history - the same reversion with a similar edit summary as before). I don't think blocking will solve this so I'm semi-protecting this template for a week. If anyone feels this is too harsh / lenient, please feel free to amend this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The IP user which kept reverting the template continues to do so under the username Cartoon_Boy. Jmj713 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yeago reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yeago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:02, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Removed synthesis and original research. There is no evidence that Wilson's outburst was about those passages which those sources address")
  2. 17:42, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Outburst by Joe Wilson */ Remove NPOV synthesis. Wilson's motivations for his outburst are only speculated about, they are not explained.")
  3. 23:01, 12 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Illegal immigrant controversy */ The illegal immigrant controversy is well chronicled in related articles and not appropriate for further analysis here. This is about a specific speech.")
  4. 01:53, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: ""Reception" is vague and sounds like post-speech media analysis.")
  5. 07:46, 13 September 2009 (edit summary: "I'm sorry, I still can't see how an interruption to a speech can be grouped with critical reception. one was a spurious event, the other is normal fallout. It _was_ part of the speech.")

Diff of 1st edit war warning: [67] Diff of 2nd edit war warning: [68]

Comments:

In the above diffs, Yeago has reverted the edits of at least three editors: User:Jatkins, myself, and User:DePiep. Yeago has been repeatedly asked to stop and refuses. Yeago has received at least two warnings about his edit warring. In response to these warnings, Yeago said: "You are free to report whatever you want. If you think your "last warning" means anything to me, you're wrong."[69]

Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster (Result - declined, frivolous complaint)[edit]

This user is attacking an article on a school Shenyang_International_School in the knowledge that this article is read and contributed to by its children. Is it therefore appropiate to allow this persons user page to be visible to children with such imagery, foul language and links to what appears to be this persons websites ( i stumbled upon User_talk:125.162.161.172 ) With a name that has been copied from disneys site for children do you not feel uncomfortable that this editor could be using wikipedia to groom or trap young children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.255.25 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This troll is most likely a sock of Yiwentang (talk · contribs). Arguments and style are the same and is most probably taking time out from an Asian holiday to show that he still cares about me. --WebHamster 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Frivolous complaint. Manning (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Paweł5586 reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Pidkamin massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Paweł5586 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [70]
  • 2nd revert: [71]
  • 3rd revert: [72]
  • 4th revert: []


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

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

Comments:
User talk:Paweł5586 keeps removing citation and ref improve tags from article see here User talk:Paweł5586#Palikrowy massacre for earlier this month when User:Paweł5586 was asked not to remove tags etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Nja247 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cody7777777 reported by Martin Raybourne (talk) (Result: Stale)[edit]

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cody7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User in question has been adding challenged material to Byzantine Empire, a Featured Article. Cody continues to revert to his version, usually saying "per talk" after firing off a post and not letting anyone respond. He has been warned multiple times that he is edit warring, but asserts that he didn't "start it" and is thus in the right.[76] Reverting him again will obviously not help things but he refuses to discuss on the talk page, so Im at a loss as sto what to do.

Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Nja247 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ASOTMKX reported by User:Dustin Howett (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: ASOTMKX's modifications
Proper version (community-sourced:) [77]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments: Multiple members of the community have tried to mitigate ASOTMKX's efforts to insert this improper information.

Dustin Howett (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Nja247 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Typhoon2009 reported by User:Jason Rees (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: 2009 Pacific typhoon season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Typhoon2009 (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: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

[89]

Comments:

This may seem stupid but the JMA BT has not been released yet and he is citing a map which is supposedly the BT but isnt and is also not a reliable source> Also at the time of the regeneration i double checked and so did another 2 editors checked that they were the same system and we all agreed that they were.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Nja247 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Megistias reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


User engaged in blatant edit warring.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Epirus (region) not Epirus.Numbered user was reported and page protected i think twice history.Megistias (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You also mistakenly linked Megistias the Spartan soothsayer to me above.15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Re-report if resumes after recent semi-protection added by another admin. Cheers, Nja247 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Awsome work guys. It is certainly stale, a whole two days stale...--I Pakapshem (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud reported by User:Verbal (Result: 2 weeks for IP)[edit]

Page: Simone_Bittencourt_de_Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:


  1. 02:23, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 08:47, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313773827 by Verbal (talk)")
  3. 11:58, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313798299 by Verbal (talk)")
  4. 12:45, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313834267 by Verbal (talk)")
  5. 18:40, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 313925446 by 2over0 (talk)")
  6. 19:27, 14 September 2009 (edit summary: "tehre is no discussion. verbal doesn´t knowanything on simone. pls leave it the way it is so i can continue to edit")

Comments: User Jackiestud is blocked for legal threats and editwarring, amongst other problematic behaviour. Today we have two clear sockpuppets: 201.6.43.204 (talk · contribs) and Latinaf (talk · contribs). These both pass (fail?) the WP:DUCK test, making 6 reverts today (the first edit is a revert). This is also a WP:BLP issue, as the user is inserting unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. An SPI report has also been filed. User indicates unwillingness to discuss their edits in last ES above, but is banned anyway. Verbal chat 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved: 2 weeks for IP, account blocked. Verbal chat 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Luliche reported by User:Raistolo (Result: blocked 1 week)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [95]

  • 1st revert: [96] and subsequent (reverted changes one by one)
  • 2nd revert: [97] reverted changes completely, w/o motivating, explaining, or using the talk page in spite of my message on his talk
  • 3rd revert: [98] in spite of warnings posted on his talk

etc. etc.

You can basically look at his user history actually: [99]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [101]

Comments:


I realize I should have tried also to use the talk page, but since the user ignored even a direct message, I didn't think it was particularly useful. I accept in advance your call on how to deal with this situation, and will help in any way. --Raistlin (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Appears to be a single-purpose POV account that inserts unsourced statements critical of the university in question. First block against user. Manning (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Systemizer reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: 2 week block)[edit]

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

Version from before first revert here

Previous version reverted to: [102]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: McSly Warns and Systemizer blanks warning. I warn and Systemizer blanks warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted resolution on involved editor talk page

Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as an update.Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 9th revert [111] I have now used my 3 and will have to bow out of further reverting as I don't intend to violate 3RR myself. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of his 'New Scientist' material is from comments on the article. I reverted him because of that and he reverted me immediately. He's had three blocks already for similar edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (Several previous blocks for similar behaviours.) Ckatzchatspy 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Noroton (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: It's too complex for this. I think the list of reverts below, with explanations, is clear.

  • 1st revert: 06:21 Sep 14 [112] (reverted passage on 13 underage Central Americans which was originally added with this edit, as far as I can tell [113]
  • 2nd revert: 18:42 Sep 14 [114] (this is a diff of the edit that was reverted: [115])
  • 3rd revert: 19:11 Sep 14 [116] (the previous edit is the one reverted) Uncivil edit summary characterizing good faith, factual edit (The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN.) sourced to a daily newspaper: (remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS)
  • 4th revert: 20:11 Sep 14 [117] (this edit did not just remove a reference but removed part of an edit as well -- "immediately")
  • Please see the four bulleted items in my comment below. Now that I look at them closer, they seem to be Reverts 5-8, all from Sep 14 (today). --Noroton (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not a good idea. It wouldn't do any good. I've had too many difficulties with Lulu in the distant past. Best to resolve this problem here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable: not all of this involves me. The part that did involve me was resolved by me in edit summaries (it was just that obvious), and my edits and edit summaries responded to the objections of Lulu and another editor, so a discussion did in fact take place -- on the "history" page here and didn't need to go to the discussion page.

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is a longtime editor who knows better than to edit war and better than to be uncivil in edit summaries (check out the edit summaries in the diffs cited above; check out the history page of the ACORN article, here (just over the past 24 hours will do, but you can quickly find more if you keep looking); these fit the definition of not just 3+ reverting but of edit warring. Warning Lulu is useless. I'm notifying him of this report. All the edits were part of a POV conflict on that page, with Lulu defending ACORN and casting a negative light on those who the article states are opposed to ACORN. Let's just say Lulu's actions and comments are not conducive to a civil working out of consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Noroton is frustrated that a number of editors have reverted contentious content he recently introduced to the article in question. He also correctly list 4 unrelated edits (or very loosely related) I made to that same article in the last day or so. Looking at his diffs shows that none of them are reverts, and only two of the four address vaguely the same topic, but through different edits. This report is a childish attempt at "revenge" for his WP:SOAPBOX not going the way he likes (and for the fact, I suspect, that the article became semi-protected, making it harder for lots of anonymous or SPA editors to insert rants). LotLE×talk 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please compare the tone of my language with LuLu's, both within the article and everywhere else. Does adding facts, such as The Brooklyn District Attorney's office announced it was starting an investigation into ACORN. [118] constitute some kind of WP:SOAPBOX behavior? (LuLu's edit summary in reverting this: remove WP:SOAPBOX claim sourced to non-WP:RS.[119]) Did I stoop to calling LuLu anything equivalent to "childish" or "revenge"-seeking? And why would I need vengeance when the sentence I first put in has been kept in the article, even as other parts of the article have been disputed? Didn't I just get exactly what I wanted in that exchange? Notice that when LuLu removed the sentence, saying in the edit summary that the problem was "RS" (reliable source), he kept in that same "unreliable" source. So what was the rational reason for removing the sentence but not the source? Here are some other recent comments from LuLu at various spots, and let's see who is not just uncivil, but WP:SOAPBOXING as he edit wars and creates WP:BATTLEground conflict rather than consensus (all from today, 14 September):
  • Edit summary: WP:SOAPBOX/rant/slander doesn't belong in lead) Look at the material removed: whether or not anyone thinks it should be in the lead, LuLu's description was uncivil [120]
  • Edit summary: this is obviously more appropriate in section where it was before ranting anon moved it Even if the anon editor was ranting, this language doesn't belong in the edit summary. [121]
  • Edit summary (and another revert today): remove lots more extraneous and ranting material introduced by anons None of the material removed could be described as "ranting" [122]
  • Edit summary: these anons sure are going crazy with unencyclopedic additions Here was the language removed: A couple days later, another video was released showing the film team in Brooklyn, recieving the same advice on tax-cheating and trafficing as they had in Washington and Baltimore. Why a difference of opinion is "crazy" or "unencyclopedic" is not explained, and that's not the way to characterize good-faith edits by editors who could make a reasonable case if they weren't summarily discouraged from contributing by incivility from an experienced editor [123]
I'd show you LuLu's edits from the talk page, but he hasn't made any comments there since July 18, which is too bad, because they're worse than the examples above. I think it's obvious who's doing the edit warring here. -- Noroton (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I have to say that I don't see how these four edits constitute an edit-war. They really have nothing to do with each other. 3RR doesn't say that you can't spend your entire day editing an article (especially when the article appears to be under attack based on recent events). Also, it should be noted that the reporting editor is heavily involved, having made 3 reverts in a short period of time on the same article. This sounds more like a situation where everyone needs to chill (and perhaps the semi-protection should be extended to full for a day). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
From the "Definition of the three revert rule" at the top of this page: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the same material is involved. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Loonymonkey, like Lulu, is an editor who has been involved in disputes over political topics on Wikipedia, including at least one with me a year or two ago. -- Noroton (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No obvious vio, further seems to have subsided for now. Re-report if needed in future. Nja247 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 3 days)[edit]

Classical 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: 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:43, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "not supported by the soruce")
  2. 19:54, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "removed portion of statement not supported by the sources.")
  3. 20:03, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "there is no evidence that Goodman is a classical liberal. Putting his name there instead.")
  4. 20:37, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "sometimes called "traditional liberalism" ..with two sources")
  5. 21:50, 14 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Expanding on what the source says on what the early liberals believed")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:
Introman has made 5 non-sequential edits to Classical liberalism in just over 3 hours, all of which have been reverted by other editors. In each case Introman has made a different edit to the lead. He has stated that he believes that different edits do not count for 3rr[124] However it is disruptive edit-warring. Introman even posted a Wikiquette alert against one of the editors for deleting one of his earlier edits.[125] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman also made three reverts on Sept. 13, all of which were reverted by other editors. Even if Introman's last two edits on Sept. 14 were ignored, he still would have exceeded 3rr for a 24 hour period.

  1. 17:35, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "no evidence that the source is a "follower" of classical liberalism")
  2. 21:27, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Not the editor, the SOURCE. You are claiming that the source is a follower of classical liberalism.")
  3. 21:49, 13 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "source doesnt specify "in the latter sense." Classical is classical liberalism. There is not multiple meanings.")

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To the administrators: Please look at this carefully. I did not edit war. I was making different kinds of changes, rather than doing the same thing over and over. I think I also gave good descriptions of my edits in the edit summaries, sourced my additions, and had been discussing things on the talk page. Simply doing more than 3 things to an article that The Four Deuces doesn't like doesn't constitute edit warring. Four Deuces tried to pull a fast one like this here before, and apparently an administrator didn't look closely enough and blocked me. However, I appealed and the block was removed. I had to explicitly and exhaustively prove that I wasn't edit warring in the appeal, as if one is presumed guilty before proven innocent. You can read about it on my talk page. Hopefully someone here will take the time to look at it closely this time so I don't have to go through the same hassle. Thanks. Introman (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 days Making several changes to push to same point that obviously isn't supported by consensus without discussing the issue on talk pages is edit warring, for which you've been blocked. This wasn't a 3RR vio block. Nja247 06:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:YMB29 reported by User:Biophys (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Human rights in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: YMB29 (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: his block history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130], [131]


Comments: He just came back from a block for edit warring in the same article. In all four edits he is trying to modify the same paragraph that begins from "The Soviet conception of human rights was very different".

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


User:Biophys reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Human rights in the Soviet_Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

history

This is getting out of control. Biophys thinks he owns the article and can revert anyone's edits at will.

I already reported him for edit warring, but it seems no one cares. In June all the changes in that article that were made from 3 Nov. 2008 to 15 June 2009 were reverted by him. Look here you can see that the versions are exactly the same!

Once in a while he pretends to try to discuss, but ends up not replying and then removing all changes that he does not like.

He also tag teams against me with User:Bobanni, who might even be his sock. Can an admin run checkuser on them? With Bobanni he avoids getting in trouble for 3RR.

I have tried to talk to him multiple times on the talk page, but it just turns out to be a waste of time.

You can see here that other users have the same problem with him.

-YMB29 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked Both editors are warring; I don't really care whose version is better, the point is this kind of reverting shouldn't be going on. Once someone is contesting the edits, no matter how stupid that might seem, you guys should be trying to bring in outside opinions (try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a WikiProject) rather than reverting each other or dancing in circles at the talkpage (where no editors other than you two have commented). 48 hours for YMB29 because he's just coming out of another block; 31 for Biophys. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a disturbing result, Rjanag blocked Biophys within 6 minutes of this report being filed. Where are the diffs that indicate Biophys had actually engaged in any edit warring? The only diff offered was something from June. --Martintg (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • He had been reported just a few days before this (the report is now archived) and his overall pattern of editing was uncooperative and symptomatic of edit warring. Stop trying to grind an axe, Martintg. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What axe are you talking about? I think the community is entitled to some answers. I checked the report against Biophys you speak of here, it was submitted by User:YMB29 and the reporter ended up getting blocked, not Biophys. This new report by User:YMB29 adds nothing new, the same old diff from June. How did you assess that Biophys' "overall pattern of editing was uncooperative and symptomatic of edit warring" within 6 minutes of this report being filed? --Martintg (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, the fact that both editors are continuing to insist on warring when there is clearly a problem is not good editing. And, as many people have reiterated already, it doesn't take 3 reverts in 24 hours to be edit warring. It only takes a bad attitude and an unwillingness to edit the right way. Now you're using some other report as an attempt to dig up a month-old dispute and question the result of it, which is not productive. But if you really think there is a problem (and one that can't be resolved by Biophys contesting his block, which he already did and then withdrew), you can report me somewhere. But if you're looking for someone who will automatically block every user who hits 3 and never block a user who hasn't, you'd be better off getting rid of all the admins and hiring robots. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Where on this page am I "using some other report as an attempt to dig up a month-old dispute and question the result of it"? The issue here is that this malformed report, which recycles a previous report from just last week, adding nothing new, re-submitted by the same apparent SPA with less than 600 edits against an established editor with over 20,000 edits results in block six minutes after submission apparently based upon nothing more than a diff from June. At best, this block seems to be punitive, and I request on Biophys' behalf that he is unblocked. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and by now you have succeeded in spreading that request across three different pages [132][133][134] rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Epw7889 at Press TV (Result: User blocked for 1 week)[edit]

Article is nothing but a long-term edit war. I know I'm not formatting this properly, but do have a look. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Format fixed Manning (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the actions of both parties involved and elected to block User:Epw7889 on the grounds of being a single purpose POV account. Subsequent offending will result in a permanent block. I could have also taken action against User:Copyedeye but elected to leave a warning instead, as their actions seemed in good faith.