Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive114

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:140.180.12.237 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result:Mediating)[edit]

Page: Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 140.180.12.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] (ongoing discussion)

Comments:


IP user changes consensus definition of marriage to a dictionary definition, edit wars to maintain. Engages in discussion on talk page but will not address the POV in his edits. Also says he "will not let this definition be changed" [8] and will create an account to make more revisions [9]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You should add a warning to the users talk page, so they can follow the links and see what our policy and practices are, so they can attempt to conform to them, and there is a record of the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll mediate this. The editor has agreed to stop reverting. and I've got to say, I'm impressed with their maturity. Hopefully this all goes well! Master of Puppets 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jakferwold reported by Skyfiler (talk) (Result: )[edit]

Huang Xianfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Bagui School. Jakferwold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC) This user keep adding external links that violate WP:EL, unreliable sources and removing notability/POV templates.

  • Revert comparison ("compare"):

this revision (diff from previous).

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


  • Diff of warning:

here


User:Varsovian reported by Jacurek (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | [[Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 |talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16][[17]]

Comments:

User does not appear to be a new editor due to evident experience in editing, however the account is new and user claims to be a new user. Records of questionable behavior are to be noted[[18]][[19]] including false claims [[20]] and threatening comments such as this gloves off comment[[21]].--Jacurek (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave of the 3RR warning actually came after the user's most recent revert. However, the user's general incivility leads to believe he will continue to be disruptive, so I have issued a 24 hour block. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion here). Removing comment as AN3 is not the venue to discuss blocks. Master of Puppets 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review as this is a content dispute that was being handled in the talk pages of the No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron and User:Varsovian had indicated a commitment to resolve issues in a diplomatic manner. I am not sure of the motives of bringing this to another forum. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Mauricio Rua article, multiple editors at war, reported by User:Jusdafax (Result: Page semi-protected)[edit]

Edit war in progress at this page due to a controversy. I have no interest in the issue itself; I got involved on vandal patrol and have lost track of who the vandals are. Suggest semi-protect may be the answer 'till things cool down. Thanks, Jusdafax 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE There have been over 25 edits in a one hour span by multiple editors since my last attempt at reverting. Strongly suggest action be taken asap. Jusdafax 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ‎

User:Bigsuperindia reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Mediating)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [22]

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

  1. 16:19, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */")
  2. 16:26, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321957909 by Abecedare (talk)")
  3. 16:35, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321958957 by Abecedare (talk)")
  4. 17:00, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321960510 by Abecedare (talk)")
  5. 17:07, 25 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

See attempts to discuss issue and explain relevant policies at user talk page and article talk page

Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: User has now logged out and is making |same revert as 114.143.92.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Can that IP be blocked too and the page semi-protected for some time ? (I am not doing any of this myself since I am "involved") Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: And now the user is back as Rachitadelhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and continuing to edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Sigh Over six consecutive reversions (including by the two socks) of three editors now. -SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok potential sock issue here, but I've warned the two user accounts, any further reversions without discussion will result in blocks am actively watching at the moment. Khukri 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify: this is not a possible sock issue. This is admitted socking: see the messages left by IP and sock at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Delhi. Also I am not sure if we need to wait for further reversions, given that the user and his sock has already made 7-10 reverst despite multiple 3RR warnings. At a minimum, the socks need to be indef. blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent continued disruption. Abecedare (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Think this has calmed now, assuming good faith editor didn't know about sock rules etc, and has started to discuss. I've blocked the sock and User:Bigsuperindia should continue discussion. I'll continue to monitor for a bit. Khukri 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
OK I've watchlisted everything, and will watch. Though disapproval has been given about how I handled this so would appreciate others input from those who look after EW issues more frequently than I, and have no problems if different action is required . Khukri 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! hey i don't want to mess up anything. i'm trying to bring the facts to light. and i want to help in improving Delhi article. Many things there are just out of order. I hope you guys are not gonna sue me for my free services. :) Bigsuperindia (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:71.182.110.130, User:71.240.245.77, and other related IPs reported by User:Yllosubmarine (Result:Warned)[edit]

Page: State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported: 71.182.110.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 71.240.245.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and other related IPs seen on page history


Previous version reverted to: [23]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] and [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

While this individual, who began editing the article under a series of varying IPs early last month, has not breached 3RR, I still believe that their reversions, as well as their complete avoidance of any sort of discourse on any talk page, proves a serious problem. I refuse to revert the page any further (I have already done so twice), and my repeated attempts to establish a connection with this edit warring anon have been unsuccessful. Their edits to the page are nonconstructive and problematic (see the first IP's talk page for my specific concerns), as another user on the talk page mentioned a month ago, and although I have extended the olive branch several times, I have received nothing in kind. I'm at a loss as to what is the next step. Either way, their uncooperative edit warring is disruptive and detrimental to the article. María (habla conmigo) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Warned the most recent offender. If this keeps going on at this rate, I'd say to request page protection. Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result:Mediating)[edit]

As shown in history, three reverts in 24 hours:

  • 04:48, October 22, 2009: 3
  • 04:26, October 22, 2009: :2
  • 11:49, October 21, 2009: 1

For example, Drsmoo's 3rr edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen which compares Atzmon to a Nazi, something clearly questionable under WP:BLP.

Note that Drsmoo was blocked from editing the same article for 3rr in March 2009.

Background: There was so much editing warring of this article - especially over Drsmoo and others adding of poorly sourced, primary sourced or out of context Atzmon quotations which had to be constantly reverted or put in context, that the subject of the article complained, there was an OTRS and the article was locked from April 15 to September 30. As you can see from Drsmoo’s series of edits above, he is again insisting on adding poorly sourced material (defamatory statements from a political organizations web site) and a source that is merely a polemical attack, even if it is from a WP:RS. Instead of working with editors who contest these controversial edits, including by bringing them to WP:BLPN, he insists on reverting deletions of this material and adding even more contested and controversial material, merely justifying his actions on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated new examples of edit warring at this diff:

    • Drsmoo deleted the statement (in the article for more than six months) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." made to a neutral journalist and presented in context and used it instead in a quote a polemicist opinion writer alleges Atzmon said in a debate, without giving any context at all. This is the definition of POV against BLP and an example of extreme edit warring (though to be fair I did bring to WP:RSN).
This vendetta against me is reaching into the hilarious realm, I restored an edit made by two other editors who CarolMoore had asked to help her, as can be seen in the edit history . This wasn't my edit lol. What's even more ironic, is that I was the one to originally added the Gisborne Herald source Ms. Moore is criticizing me for deleting (even thought it was two other editors who changed it) Perhaps Ms. Moore feels she can make herself happy by blatantly lying about me. It hasn't been very successful for her so far. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Drsmoo violated NPOV/BLP by deleting the Socialist Party defense against the Committee's attack on Atzmon and the party. He also removed the reference which contains the defense so the material is now unreferenced, a violation of WP:V. (Unless, to be fair, he wants the whole quote him specifically name Atzmon as the Jew the committee is defending.)
  • This diff: Drsmoo removes what the authors say while retaining their references to support his point. See "in context" paragraph of this diff.

What is most "ironic", is that the article was locked with the so called "offending" quotes inside. It was locked because admins were tired of the above editor attempting to remove every notable case that perhaps cast the subject in a less than heavenly light. Only to have the above editor immediately resume deleting the relevant notable information upon the article being unlocked. Once again, this is all in the page histories.
As you can clearly see, there was only one revert. The other was to add a line and the third was to remove blatant vandalism. I wish she would stop harassing me. The above editor has unsuccessfully sent various editors messages in their talk pages asking them to "help" her. She posted on the BLP noticeboard, and they sided with me, so now she's going here to attempt to have me banned from the article. Her whole point is that all of Atzmon's anti-semitic statements, and whole articles, should be removed. Somehow, his own words are "defaming" him, even/especially when they are discussed by notable commentators/reporters in reliable sources. Such as the Guardian/The Times. Again you can look at the history of the article, in the talk pages, and on every noticeboard she has posted the same thing on, going from one to the other. Everyone agrees that these sources are notable, and must be in the article.
I am fairly certain that Harassment is against Wikipedia rules. Namely, going to various editors, and telling them to revert my edits (which none of them do) as well as going to noticeboards and saying I should be banned.
Just look at the edit histories, and the article. The whole thing is an apology for the subject, the same sentiment being expressed on the BLP noticeboard, and 90% of the article was written by the above editor. Drsmoo (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Drsmoo: if you think you have a case against me, complain elsewhere and don't forget anyone can make vague accusations. Proving them with diffs can be much more difficult, especially if there aren't any. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to the above editor's claims, Nick Cohen's commentary was supported in the article by every other editor working on it. It was not from a debate, but from an interview Atzmon did with the Gisborne Herald, which is cited in the article. The above editor is the only one who wants Cohen removed, solely on the grounds that she does not agree with this journalist's politics. The commentary was noteworthy, by a noteworthy reporter, in a noteworthy newspaper, [The Guardian]
Similarly, the Socialist Worker's Party statement was that "calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite." This is an ideological, philosophical statement, rather than a specific defense of Atzmon. Drsmoo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This has become too muddled; there's a dispute between editors, it seems. I'll discuss it separately. Right now edit-warring seems to have passed (just don't bring it back). Master of Puppets 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to mediate - my reply on your talk page. However, it is clear when someone has done 3rr.. Evidently I should just have brought everything else to the place recommended by the BLPDispute tag.
Note that I am giving it 24-36 hours to allow others to chime in, but I do feel that Drsmoo's edits continue to be a violation of BLP by an individual who has proved he is obsessed with making the subject look bad - (almost the only article he's edited this year) - triggering an OTRS BLP complaint by Atzmon himsef (according to a category that previously was on bottom of talk page). If Atzmon is paying much attention he'll probably complain again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Others have been chiming in consistently, particularly after you asked them too on noticeboards, you just keep reverting their edits. Drsmoo (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither editor has complained about my edits, one to increase the amount of neutral info in the paragraph per WP:BLP (there was twice as much negative from biased sources as NPOV from neutral sources) and the other asked for something shorter than the spring draft a few people worked on and I gave it to him. Please join the mediation proposed by Master_of_Puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you're asking me to "join the mediation" Master of Puppets and I have been working on this for a while now. And there was nothing POV or biased about the sources, you just removed them because you didn't like them, but they've been restored. The other editors who you ignored have been asked to help as well. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Reconsider the static reported by User:Atama (Result:Report waived)[edit]

Page: Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Reconsider the static (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Just see Talk:Vivek Kundra#Recent edits concerning 66.171.128.239 which I haven't even participated in.

Comments:
I am actually on Reconsider the static's side in this content dispute. I make this report reluctantly. You may notice that I myself made two reverts much like they did. But I've stopped at two and won't make any more. I'm only reporting them because of the excessive number of reverts, including the last two after a warning to stop. 13 reverts in a 24 hour period is excessive even if done for the right reasons. -- Atama 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As to the other side in this content dispute, 66.171.128.239 was already blocked for disruptive behavior, and I've opened a sockpuppetry case for those opposing Reconsider the static in this edit war. -- Atama 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response First of all, I acknowledge the fact that I violated the 3RR rule, my purpose here is not to dispute that. I suppose in this response I will attempt to justify my position by bringing forth situational justification and the case of vandalism by the anonymous IP. It has been argued that the edits that I reverted do not constitute as vandalism. I dispute the claim on the basis that 66.171.128.239 made several edits in which sourced content was removed without the provision of an explaination [45] [46]. The user then went on the repeat the same edits, however an explaination was given "Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" [47]. I think that you would agree that ""Please Read and follow Wikipedia policy" hardly constitutes as a valid reason for removing an entire referenced paragrah. I rever the edits and the cycle continues. The removal of sourced content without an explaination definitely constitutes as vandalism, thus I believe my initial reverts can be excused under the notion that 3RR does not apply under the instances of reverting vandalism. I know that I made quite a number of reverts after that, I will now discuss that issue. I do not believe that the explaination given for the removal was adaquate, as others have agreed thus I reverted the edits. I believe that in the event of a contentious edit, it is the person's job to discuss the issue and gain a consensus. The long and ardous discussion under "Regarding Arrest" [48] suggests that no consensus has been made on the underlying issue, thus the edits by 66.171.128.239 is a violation of such editing processes. The actual reason for this edit warring report is the fact that I reverted after my 3RR warninig. My response is that I was reverting socks by a banned user, and thus the notion of "edit warring" does not apply. By the way, the article in question is actually protected due to "Excessive vandalism: repeated removal of sourced material by ips not participating on talk page", which again, reinforces the point I'm trying to make. -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama, for reporting someone you agree with; I'm very impressed with that move. Also, I appreciate your tenacity in trying to keep Wikipedia better, Reconsider the static. Next time, try to report this to us early-on (or, if you feel it is blatant vandalism, WP:AIV), so that nobody has to break the 3RR. Thanks! Master of Puppets 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I should probably add this to clarify; if this happens again, people most likely won't be as understanding, given this occurrence. Please don't take this as an excuse to edit war! Master of Puppets 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I will exercise greater care in future. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree reported by User:James Nicol (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: {{Todd Palin}}
User being reported: {{User:Threeafterthree}}


Previous version reverted to: [49]

  • 1st revert: [[50]]
  • 2nd revert: [[51]]
  • 3rd revert: [[52]]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[53]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[54]]

Comments:

  • 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. Use talk pages to discuss revert war with editor. Nja247 07:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:Mark.T2009[edit]

I am the original author & creator of the byford dolphin article back in may 2005, under the username Mark.T, with the help of User:FirstPrinciples to wikify & edit content. We both spent alot of time & effort into research for the article, along with other contributers, to make it what it is today, an informative unknown to the public article, about a controversial offshore incident onboard the diving rig ’Byford Dolphin’ back in nov 1983, which claimed the lives of 5 divers, by a sudden explosive decompression. When the seal clamp conntected on a trunk betwenn the dive bell & dive chamber was opened by one of the dive tenders, by mistake, while the system was still under 9 bar pressure. The purpose of the article is not only to give the public factual information into the incident, but also the truth behind the accident itself, why it happened, what could have prevented the accident. Uncovering the lack of information provided by the investigating commitee, about unlawful dispensations requested by the offshore diving company Comex to the Norwegian oil directorate & granted by them, for safety equipment which would have prevented such an incident. Now for the User:RexxS to accuse me of being a single-purpose account, with the intention of spreading speculations, is unfair & just plain ignorance. Iv’e put alot of effort into this article & don’t care for the content being blanked out by User:RexxS , even after updated references have been submitted as source. Also regarding the template submitted to the talk page, I don’t see how adding a Scuba diving article project, to an offshore saturation diving accident, has anything in common with the article itself, other than self promoting User:RexxS own article work on scuba diving.. (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem I have been under a misapprehension that Mark.T2009 was a novice user. It now seems he's been editing since 2005. User Mark.T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had 50 edits in May 2005, almost all of which were related to the Byford Dolphin incident (the remainder are to 1983#November and Special Boat Service, at the point where those article page histories are revised, although since the Byford Dolphin incident took place in November 1983, I suspect those edits were related as well).
This vexatious complaint confirms the editor's tendentious behaviour regarding the incident. I can sympathise with his desire to see the "truth" about the incident exposed; but somehow he needs to be convinced that Wikipedia is not the place to do this - at least until it has been reported in reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
@ "Mark.T2009". Please refer to WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". Until the information is properly referenced with reliable third party sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. The current referencing style is not acceptable. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think both you taking my statements out of context, the information provided, has been wikified & neutral (NPOV) in accordance with wikipedias policy. The information provided regarding the dispensations is sourcable thus should not be removed. (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Slick112 reported by User:Smallbones (Result:IP and user blocked 3 days)[edit]

Page: Insider trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Edit warrior User:Slick112, at Insider trading

  1. 03:26, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. Consecutive edits 22 October about 2:28
  3. 13:08, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid POV vandalism by KEVARON, he is doing the same in the Raj Rajaratnam's page")
  4. Consecutive edits
  5. 23:37, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "RE added valuable REFERENCED

User:24.186.79.32 apparently the same editor (e.g. same views, same edits, same bad formatting)

  1. 13:21, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
  2. 17:57, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 321133619 by Smallbones (talk)")
  3. 17:58, 21 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  4. 21:16, 22 October 2009 (edit summary: "added valuable information about the need for legalizing insider trading")
  5. 00:15, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  6. 00:45, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "")
  7. 02:41, 23 October 2009 (edit summary: "undid childish vandalism, stopped deleting contributions that you don't agree with people!!")

I've warned him at both user pages. He's trying to edit-war against about 5 editors (who at a minimum don't like his formatting). Time to put him out of his misery. Smallbones (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now switched to another IP address (obviously same person from edit comment) diff [55]

I've warned him again at User talk:148.4.9.168


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

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

Comments:

This is such a "crank" that nobody has taken him seriously. He's copied a notable but controversial point of view from the article and put it in as the first sentence (above a "US-centric warning box"). Not even vandalism, per se, but awful annoying after 5 or 6 editors have reverted and explained in the edit summary why it can't stay that way. Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism of the Raj Rajaratnam page by him has led to him being reported by me to the ANI as well [56]. I would respectfully request banning on both the account and the IP address as well. Kerr avon (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont agree that that his edits are persistant vandalism with respect to Raj Rajaratnam. Looks like if when an editor adds information with reliable material that is making the article from a propganad and POV pushing one into a neutral tone one then you cannot say that he is pov pushing and vandalizing.Taprobanus (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Also adding Raj Rajaratnam to the See also section of Insider trading by user user:Kerr avon may be violating WP:BLP which seems to have contributed to the edit warring. Admins need to look at all sources for this conflict involving Raj Rajaratnam article. Let's all go back to writing a encylopedia not use this for personal grudges based on our place of origin and ethinic identities.Taprobanus (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully reject any violation of BLP on my part. Raj Rajratnam's close connections to the LTTE are well reported in the mainstream media. He is even being sued in the USA for funding a terrorist organisation. user Slick112's edits have all shown a lack of respect, POV pushing, adding irrelevant information, and removing cited information against Rajaratnam. The article was semi protected due to his vandalism and it looks like it will have to be done again. I am not the only editor he has edit warred with. Sine he is a SPA his edits are biased and he should be banned.Kerr avon (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled why this is taking so long The violations at insider trading to me seem crystal clear, just take a minute at the page's history and the violations should jump out at you. Nobody is actually edit warring against User:Slick112, but when 6 unrelated editors revert obvious bad edits and then he reverts back it looks like he is edit warring against the community. The most recent blatant errors he is making are personal attacks in his edit summaries, that is "stop deleting facts that you disagree with,smallballs" apparently aimed at me, and "stop deleting facts that you disagree with, Grandma" apparently aimed at User:Epstein's Mother. As far as I know edits at Raj Rajaratnam have nothing to do with the edits at Insider trading.

Just to be clear - I think a 24 hour block would get the point across that he needs to try to understand some of Wikipedia's basic rules. Smallbones (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still going with 24.186.79.32 diff - MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean that 24.186.79.32 is still edit warring (it wasn't clear at first reading). In any case, thanks for reverting back to a reasonable version, making you the 7th editor to have reverted him. But what will happen when he reverts back one more time? Smallbones (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Really sorry that it took this long, guys. I'm usually around here to check out reports, but I'm fairly busy during weekdays so I can't always get around to doing these. Anyway, I've blocked both the IP and user for disregarding warnings and edit-warring. Sorry for the delay again! Master of Puppets 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed impatient. This is maybe the only place on Wikipedia that seems to work automatically (the half dozen or fewer times I've used it), so maybe my impatience was really a compliment on how well you do the work! Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back - unbelievable! diff This time as IP User:148.4.9.180 . Smallbones (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:James Nicol reported by User:J (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Todd Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: James Nicol (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: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see lengthy discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin

Comments:
Editor was aware that numerous editors and administrators believed his similar edits at Sarah Palin to be problematic per wp:blp. Given the facts, it appears clear he pursued the same matter at Todd Palin in an attempt to circumvent the consensus against his edits at Sarah Palin, wp:blp notwithstanding. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja247 08:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WLU reported by Feeline (Result: DR urged)[edit]

Page: The Courage to Heal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [58]


  • Editing away my stuff instead of reverting: [61]
  • Removing my POV tag: [62]
  • Removing my POV tag again: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
I would like to note that I am not the first user that WLU has treated in this way. I am just the only one who's put up a fight so far. Here are some earlier reversions, for which I can find no justification: [66] [67].

Thanks.Feeline (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Nja247 08:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mark.T2009 reported by User:RexxS (Result: )[edit]

Page: Byford Dolphin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mark.T2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 24 October 2009, 24 October 2009

Diff of attempts to explain sourcing policies: User talk:Mark.T200, response to comment left on my talk page

Comments:

Mark.T2009 is a single-purpose account with the sole intention of adding speculation about a cover up of the Byford Dolphin incident. The unsourced paragraph in question has been inserted by IPs and removed by editors several times during the article's history. Both the IP's (e.g. 81.184.74.198 (talk · contribs) and Mark.T2009 have also removed {{cn}}, {{who}} and {{weasel}} templates from the text. The paragraph has been removed over a period by Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs), DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs), Reconsider the static (talk · contribs) and myself, RexxS (talk · contribs). Mark.T2009 has consistently added external links as "References", despite my taking the time to show him how to use them to cite text (see this diff). Mark.T2009 has now taken it upon himself to remove a Wikiproject assessment template from the article. I have tried to engage the editor in discussion both on his talk page and the article talk page, but most recently have been templated and accused of "taking an arrogant stance". I now feel that I have exhausted my good faith with this editor's actions on the article. I request an administrator step in to resolve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the above arguments, I don't think it is necessary to file an AN3 report. AN3 is likely to result in a block, which will further agitate the editor and decrease the chances of future cooperation. Support full protection until consensus. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am almost tempted to agree that an AN3 report should not be not necessary. If this were merely a content dispute, it could be solved by WP:3O or even an RfC. However, once Mark.T2009 personalised the issue, I felt that his behaviour was worthy of scrutiny. Since he has now admitted that he has been an editor since 2005, there is no longer the excuse that he didn't know any better. The best outcome for Wikipedia would be an indef for Mark.T2009 and semi-protection for the article to stop him from causing further disruption as an IP. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your testing the limits here RexxS, abusing your authority as moderator in my view, your false accusations are based on personal dislike. Im not the one that has personalised the issue or vandalised article paragraphs by blanking them out, despite being sourced. You have shown nothing more than than discontent & disapproval, with my contribution to wikipedia. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talkcontribs) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not true Mark. Wikipedia has no moderators and I have no more authority than any other normal editor, other than I seem to have a better understanding of our policies than you have displayed. The paragraph in question makes claims that are not supported by a reliable source - the website you offer just doesn't meet the minimum standard for Wikipedia, and you have been told that by several editors. Removing such content is not vandalism. Let me make this clear: I don't dislike you; I do dislike your insistence on inserting controversial material without reliable sources; I dislike even more your personalisation of my involvement in the page. As far as the material you wish to insert is concerned, I have little doubt it is true. Personally I'd be happy to see a cover-up exposed. But in this case, my personal opinion counts for the same as yours: nothing. The only thing that counts is being able to cite the text to a reliable source. If you could be persuaded to see that what you are doing is a breach of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, I'd happily work with you to improve the article within the bounds of what is possible here - I'd happily retract my request for you to be banned, but at the moment I can see no recognition on your part that you may not have a correct understanding of what WP:RS and WP:V require from all our editors. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an understanding og wikipedias policies & I don't need to ratify them to you, nor retract a comment with a quote: text struck out. which lead to you requesting a ban oddly enough, wouldn't you admit it's your stubborn character, that has lead to much rant & biased opinions by yourself latelty, including the use of sarcasm to ridicule me in the face of others, through your edits. I don't care for you to blank out my comments at your talk page either, now that is a sceptical act in itself. You contridict alot of statements, through action it seems. Im not content with your article edits either, You blank a paragraph, then make the use of excessive 'citation needed' templates, then blank again, even though it's sourced multiple times, then you hastly claim the source is no good. Now for you to blank out valuable information, that has stayed perfectly intact for almost 5 years now, that to me & i shall use your own term here, disgusting. I strongly feel, that the investigation paragraph, should stay intact, until the current sources has been reviewed by other editors, and then decide if the sources are verifiable. If your so persitent & objectional, at least give it some decent research, before making impulsive decisions. Until then, stick to the 'citation needed' template. (talk 22:36 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated any appreciation of what constitutes a reliable source. Until you have grasped that, my objection stands. The paragraph has been removed many times by multiple editors in those 5 years, precisely because it was wholly unsourced. It was not until three days ago that you added a link to a book that was written in Norwegian and had an ISBN that didn't work. Today you offered a website as a source. If you now think http://www.pioneerdivers.org/ is a reliable source for that paragraph, then please seek confirmation at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The burden of proof always lies with the editor inserting material, and that's another principle you have failed to grasp. As for my talk page, I left the insulting templates and the "arrogant" comment that you placed for a couple of days to give you time to reconsider and remove them. It is a convention on Wikipedia that one is free to re-arrange or remove unwanted content from one's own talk page. It's nothing sceptical, it's merely my preference not to have your insults staying there any longer - whether you care for that or not. You ought to care more about the obvious insult of slapping several templates on my talk page after I had explained the point of WP:DTTR to you. I am an editor in good standing with 4000+ edits and featured content and you knew you were being deliberately provocative in your actions. Your editing style is extra-ordinarily confrontational and every time I have attempted to compromise or find common ground, you have taken that to accuse me of 'contradiction' - please supply a diff if you are going to level that accusation.
I am indeed stubborn about one thing: content on wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, and I won't give ground on that. The {{cn}} templates I placed were solely to indicate the points that need citation. To simply place at the end of the References section a link to book written in Norwegian and now to a WP:SPS website simply isn't good enough. The onus is on you, when inserting material, to ensure that is cited from reliable sources. You have to do the decent research, not synthesise a fringe theory and attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your views. No matter how much truth is there, without verifiability it has no place in Wikipedia. Until you can accept that, I remain of the opinion that Wikipedia would be better off without you. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop contradicting facts with your biased claims, stop pointing out policies through your rants. Come to terms with the truth of your disregard & lack of consent and neutrality for another authors sourced material, and let a third party take a closer look at the sources, without making your own hasty decisions & blanking out paragraphs without third party consent. (talk 02:00 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my contributions biased. Perhaps you could supply a diff to back-up your assertion? Similarly for my "disregard & lack of consent and neutrality for another authors sourced material"? I'm afraid you'll have to accept that no editor requires consent to remove material that is not supported by a reliable source.
I agree fully that a third opinion is needed here, as you seem unwilling to consider what I have said to you. Consequently, I have requested at WP:RSN that another editor take a closer look at the sources. I hope I have made the request in a sufficiently neutral manner for you. Are you willing to abide by what conclusions are reached there? --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User: William M. Connolley reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: protected )[edit]

Page: Nuclear winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)


Previous version reverted to: [70]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

User has been very difficult on the talk page and edit summaries like “ok; death by 1000 cuts then. as before” are certainly not constructive and adds to an already contentious interaction. WVBluefield (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you've both been edit-warring and I'm sure you've violated 3RR as well. I've page protected for 48 hours, get some outside opinions. Moreschi (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I havent violated 3RR, Connolley has been completely unreasonable on the talk page and rude in his interactions. He needs to be held to the same standard as every other editor. WVBluefield (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[77] [78] [79] [80]. I recommend closer perusal of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. Moreschi (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are including consecutive edits, which does not count. So, I ask again, if Connolley isn’t to be held to the same standards as any other editor here, why should any of us follow the rules? his unwillingness to have any kind of meaningful discussion, along with snide edit summaries and talk page comments is whats driving this edit war. WVBluefield (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Very arguably I should have blocked you both for revert-warring: I was never going to only block WC just because you managed to arguably squeeze in one less revert. What would you prefer? That you both get blocked? Or that I protect the page and allow you to discuss properly. Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you haven’t noticed, but I have been discussing the article, Connolly hasn’t. That the issue here, its not the reverts but the underlying behavior and administrators willingness to let some editors slide while coming down like tens tons of shit on others.
I would also appreciate you recognizing your mistake that I did not make 4 reverts. WVBluefield (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Neither of you has shown any willingness to compromise, and the only other commentator on the talkpage has been largely hostile to your positions. And yes, you did make 4 reverts, just one of them technically might not count for 3RR purposes. unfortunately for you, making 3.5 reverts is still enough to convince me that you were edit warring. Moreschi (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Not true, I deliberate did not reintroduce the KGB information because I was waiting advice on how to proceed either through a RFC or RFM. And, no, I did not make 4 reverts as multiple subsequent changes do not count. The rules apply to all of us, or none of us. Calling me dense, and asking me what I am smoking does nothing but make reasonable discussion impossible. WVBluefield (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WVB has 4R, but (impolitely, and despite repeated requests) refuses to mark his reverts as such. . He can't spell either. I have 4R too William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Usdemocrat reported by User:Floquenbeam (Result:Usdemocrat blocked for one week by Master of Puppets )[edit]

Page: Children of the Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Usdemocrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [81]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] (between 5th and 6th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: User talk:Usdemocrat

Comments:


Unsourced controversial information, won't discuss. Has ignored comments and warnings on user talk page, except to say "censorship" on article talk page. This isn't a BLP, but per WP:LIBEL this kind of thing should be reverted on sight, so I believe User:DCEdwards1966, User:Someguy1221, and I should not be sanctioned, nor the page protected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:65.29.104.210 reported by User:Majoreditor (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Gregory of Nyssa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additionally, the IP editor is currently edit-warring at other articles.

User being reported: 65.29.104.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

IP editor notified by multiple editors of disruptive behavior and asked to discuss controversial edits. The IP has refused to discuss. IP hs been notified of 3RR and edit warring.

Edit warring diffs:

[91] [92] [93] [94]

I can't seem to get this guy to stop and talk. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crum375 reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: No vio )[edit]

Page: Animal rights and the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Crum375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [95]

After I attempted to discuss at the talk page, with no response:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

Comments:

--Tryptofish (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was edit warring or 3RR violation. See the discussion here. Both Tryptofish and I were working trying to find a more neutral version, and I think the current version is fairly neutral. There was no persistent focus on any one issue, just a normal editing process while trying to find a good neutral balance point. Also, the 'warning' was posted by Trypto well after my last edit on this article. Crum375 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, here is the lead version before our edits, and here is the current one. Note how it started out fairly one-sided (anti AR), while it is now balanced, presenting both sides and ending with a quote from a writer who is middle of the road on this issue. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined While it could have been preferable if both editors had arrived at a consensus version on the talk page or article subpage, the edits and the corresponding edit-summaries do seem to be part of regular editing and an attempt to reach a neutral version. A block based on naive revert counting would be unjustified. Please try to discuss the issue on talk page. I will protect the page (wrong version guaranteed!), if either of you think it will help. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I personally don't think it's necessary, as I think the current version is already fairly neutral. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Great. Experienced editors like Tryptofish, User:Jon513, you etc should really be able resolve this without blunt "admin intervention". Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the more conciliatory tone now taken by the other editor, but as for "Also, the 'warning' was posted by Trypto well after my last edit on this article.", I clearly commented on the talk page well before those last edits, and the notice on user talk was made simultaneously with the report here. But if, as Crum now says at the article talk, we will work cooperatively now, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked 55h )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [111]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User blocked for 3RR before, discussion ongoing on his page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Radiopathy apparently does not want "United Kingdom" listed on the George Orwell infobox, removing it several times and using the alternate "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island" once. He refers to his reversions as "rv sarcasm" [119] and "rv disruptive edit" [120]. When engaged in discussion on his talk page, he threatened the other editor with an ANI report if they didn't stop. [121] Dayewalker (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


3RR does not apply when reverting a disruptive editor.

Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - this person has been warned repeatedly about his disruptions at UK articles and has made it clear that he's going to continue. His block log speaks for itself.

And the one who was threatened with AN/I was me; please know all the facts before taking an action like this. Radiopathy •talk• 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 55 hours 3RR has a few narrow exceptions (obvious vandalism, BLP vios and copyvios); reverting alleged disruptive editors is not an exception. Please use talk pages instead next time, and report at ANI etc if you think the other editor(s) are being disruptive. Other editors should also be mindful not to make repeated reverts, even short of 3RR violation. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:98.235.186.116 reported by User:Alowishous (Result: Semi 24 hrs)[edit]

Page: Marvel_Super_Hero_Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.235.186.116 (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: [126] I tried the warning but screwed it up. Others have tried talking to the guy though. See Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Comments:
As far as I can tell, it looks like 98.235.186.116 is upset that the Rumorbuster site is up there and keeps deleting it or replacing it with his proboards forum, only to get upset when that's deleted. I'd like to think that all parties involved want a peaceful solution they just can't settle on one. Alowishous (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page for 24 hours. Hopefully some discussion will come of that. — Jake Wartenberg 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, looks like it didn't work. [128] Looks to me that as soon as he noticed it was unprotected, he just deleted the link again. Did a quick poke but doesn't look like he tried to explain anything. Asdf now (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Now a new IP is involved User:71.199.246.246. Quick research on the forum that gets removed shows its one of the moderators. [129] and [130] "Why would a bot prevent this link from being posted? The forum IS the most definitive source for information on SHS." is all he'll say. Still no talk from the IPs inserting the link, although on their forum they suggest evil forces control XLinkBot and have convinced it that proboards is bad. This is sick. They are just cutesy toys. Why fight? Tomson elite (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Less than an hour after being reverted, User:71.199.246.246 brings it back saying its definitive and old. Old is subjective, and having looked at it, it doesn't add anything to the article. Furthermore, the moderators at the site are now confirming that they're the ones deleting the other site and replacing it with theirs. [[131]], [[132]], [[133]]

If I revert their edits, they'll just put them back in. There needs to be some way to end this craziness.Tomson elite (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:hcjbhistorian reported by User:Kelly A. Siebecke (Result: Both 24h)[edit]

Page: HCJB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: World Radio Missionary Fellowship, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: hcjbhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [134] Previous version reverted to: [135]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:
I have tried everything with this user - welcoming, explaining, providing links to articles on POV, NPOV, NPOV Tutorial, polite, but firm warning and explanations, and finally the 3RR warning. Nothing works - very frustrating - hope you can resolve this ASAP. I'm done with it for the night. Thanks. <SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)>

Unfortunately both of you violated 3RR and were edit warring. After the second reversion, if you realised that this was turning into an edit war you should have went to a relevant noticeboard to request community input and assistance, or possibly requested page protection. Unfortunately you seemed to have got caught up in the heat of the moment and also edit warred to the point of breaching 3RR during a genuine content dispute, as it's clear the other editor wasn't purposefully vandalising, which would have been an excuse for your breach. Nja247 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yusuf.Abdullah reported by User:Zencv (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yusuf.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [143]



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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
This user keeps on adding highly contentious inflammatory materials without providing any reliable sources. The edits contain original research, unreferenced sections and also non English political propaganda material like this. I politely warned him here and here and here and also advised in talk page. But the user keeps on reverting without providing any rationale and is not willing to participate in any discussion or to understand why his edits are objectionable Zencv Whisper 09:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 10:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:196.209.31.89 reported by User:UncleDouggie (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 196.209.31.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·