Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive115

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Heqwm2 reported by Kenosis (Result: 48 hrs)[edit]

Page: Employee Free Choice Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Heqwm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Rewrote article with personal POV, and thus far has followed up with 3 additional identical reverts of three separate users who returned the article to the consensus version.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Heqwm2#November_2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

User is engaging in disruptive POV pushing and marginally abusive talk page ranting. Blatant violation of WP:CIV at other article(s), e.g., here.

Kindly issue a block of adequate duration to make clear this behavior is unacceptable participation in the project. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Rd232 talk 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:174.39.252.65 reported by Q T C (Result: 48hrs)[edit]

Civil defense siren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 174.39.252.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:33, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323399300 by CardinalDan (talk)")
  2. 02:40, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323399936 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
  3. 03:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323401515 by Ginbot86 (talk)")
  4. 03:29, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323406091 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
  5. 03:55, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323407351 by Drunken Pirate (talk)")
  6. 04:00, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323411036 by OverlordQ (talk) is someone pay you to keep taking this off?")
  7. 04:07, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323411980 by Ginbot86 (talk) is someone pay you to take this off???")
  8. 04:14, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323412756 by Ginbot86 (talk) I tell you it do's.!!!!")
  • Diff of warning: here

Also related is User:Ginbot86 who however has not been warned:

  1. 06:05, 1 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 174.39.208.254 (talk) to last version by Ginbot86")
  2. 02:48, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323400457 by 174.39.252.65 (talk) Read WP:SPAM")
  3. 04:00, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Siren manufacturer links */ You spelled 'sirens' wrong...")
  4. 04:05, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 174.39.252.65 (talk) to last version by Ginbot86")
  5. 04:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Siren manufacturer links */ Siren manufacturer? Site doesn't say so.")

- Q T C 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pe De Chinelo (Result: Page protected)[edit]

A little help here please?

[3]

The ever-changing IPs are socks of Pe De Chinelo: [4].

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected. In the future, these sorts of issues can be brought to WP:RFPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Shamir1 reported by User:George (Result:72 hours)[edit]

Page: Washington Institute for Near East Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 18:39, November 1, 2009


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: new warning; the user was just blocked a few days ago for 48 hours for violating 3RR using sockpuppets on the same article, so I'm sure they're aware of policy as well.

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

Comments:
First off, I'm well aware that the four reverts above are more than 24 hours apart. However, this case is a bit more complex. The user was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring using sock puppets three days ago on this very article. As soon as their block ended, they returned to the same article and began reverting again. Their edit summaries tend to indicate that they feel the sources are non-neutral. I've tried asking them to identify what in the text they specifically felt needed better sourcing, but instead they mass revert, repeatedly (including other, non-controversial changes I make, such as grammar and spelling fixes, and reference improvements), and claim that the sources I'm citing are POV. I filed a request at WP:RSN to have the sources reviewed, and they were found to be reliable for what I was citing them for. Another editor offered a third opinion, and said they weren't happy with the sourcing either, but that Shamir1 should identify what needed better sourcing instead of mass reverting, so I changed to more neutral sources (the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World), but Shamir1 ignored the other user's suggestion, and reverted those sources as well. The user has shown little interest in compromising, or even attempting to compromise, preferring to edit war, and shows definite signs of article ownership (not allowing any changes they don't approve of) and tedious editing (going right back to reverting after a block for reverting expires). ← George talk 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

George, it looks from a cursory glance that you're edit-warring there as well. Is that the case? IronDuke 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke, it looks from a cursory glance that you're wikistalking me from the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Is that the case? And to answer your question, no, I've specifically requested the user to identify what they disagree with so that I can try to address their concerns, and I've gone out of my way to try to go down the dispute resolution path (filing requests at both the reliable sources noticeboard, as well as a request for a third opinion). My interest in the dispute is to come to some consensus on the issue, not edit war or promote my personal views. ← George talk 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, you should take a deeper glance, then, as I have this page watch-listed. So you haven't reverted as many times as Samir, or close to it? IronDuke 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Odd, it would appear you haven't touched this page in 5 months. What a coincidence that you jump from a content dispute we're involved in on another article to this noticeboard within hours of each other. And no, I haven't reverted as many times as Shamir1, nor do I intend to. Most of my edits have been changes, fixes, and expansion of an underdeveloped article, not reverts (as exemplified by the third opinion editor's comments). Most of Shamir1's edits, on the other hand, were mass reverts. ← George talk 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)So how many reverts did you do, then? And I have the right, arguably the duty, to point out when someone is gaming the system. As this is a page I've had watch-listed for forever, and made many edits to, I think I can safely say your claim of wikistalking is without merit. However, if you are truly bothered by my posts, I will strike them out. IronDuke 03:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Lets not turn this into a free-for-all. IronDuke, if you have suggestions about the article content, those are best discussed on the article talk-page. If you think George too has violated 3RR (which I don't see yet), do file another report, after hopefully discussing the issue with him. George, accusations of wiki-stalking are not helpful; please trust uninvolved admins to weigh the evidence without the need for "additional color". Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see either editor as having violated 3rr, as I said before, but I'm willing to let the matter drop, unless George would like me to strike my remarks. IronDuke 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke - I honestly couldn't care less. ← George talk 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Abecedare - Sorry; I've stricken my remarks regarding wikistalking behavior. This isn't the place for it anyhow. ← George talk 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked the user for 72 hours based mainly on:
  1. Resumed edit warring soon after returning from a 48 hour 3RR block on they same page (using socks). 3RR does not give a user the right to revert 3+ times.
  2. Nature of reverts, which not only removed the parts Shamir1 objected to, but indiscriminately removed other useful edits.
  3. Ignoring input from other users, including recent comment from User: Metromoxie who analyzed the situation and helpfully suggested, "I propose that we restore George's last edit, and Shamir1 should mark text that needs citation or (selectively) remove opinion. " The latest revert by Shamir1 was made after this input.
I'd recommend that User:Shamir1 use wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures (RFC, 30, the appropriate noticeboards) once this block ends, since continued edit-warring, even short of technical 3RR violation are likely to lead to further blocks or other sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Manufan1359 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Page Protection )[edit]

Page: Andy Anson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Manufan1359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [5]


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

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

Comments:
This user has popped up out of nowhere, seemingly hell-bent on removing sourced info about Anson's involvement in Manchester United's sponsorship deal with AIG. – PeeJay 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page since both of you were well over 3RR. I will drop a note to Manufan1359. Please sort it out on the talkpage, using dispute resolution approaches if necessary.--Slp1 (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:RoyBoy (Result: No action)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning necessary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abortion#Objective_Definition_should_not_be_changed

Comments: The reason I've reported this user so quickly and with no warning, is they participated in the long, detailed consensus on the Abortion first paragraph. IronAngelAlice has consciously gone against that because Halfdome recklessly altered it. It has been a long time since I've used Rollback on the abortion article. - RoyBoy 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Reverting against against an established consensus is not the most constructive thing to do, but keep in mind that even some ArbCom sanctions still allow users a single revert a day. No action taken. Even if she did show a habitual tendency to make these reverts weeks apart it's probably too intricate for this board. ANI would probably be a better place. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dominique R reported by User:Oda Mari (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [11]


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

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

Comments:
Actually, it was not I but User:Dicklyon tried to resolve the edit war. User:Dominique R first added the image to the article on October 27 [18]. Then we've been talking about the image on the talk page and the image was not supported. After the image was removed [19], User:Dominique R started the edit war. Oda Mari (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Neuromancer reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Alternative HIV viewpoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Neuromancer (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: [24]

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

Comments: I've tried everything to make clear that this article need fixing. I've tried redirecting it to the article it's a PoV fork of. I've tried editing it down to parts that were not-problematic, and I've tried placing 1 tag (a compond issues tag, but not a massive tagspam) at the top of the thing. Nothing has budged the article from the preferred state.

  • Blocked for 24h. Black Kite 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dominique R reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result:24 hrs )[edit]

Bokeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dominique R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:10, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323470079 by Oda Mari (talk) The reason for this reason has not been provided.")
  2. 19:11, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323515851 by Oda Mari (talk) But none gives any objective reason as to why it would supposedly be inappropriate.")
  3. 06:17, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323552947 by Dicklyon (talk)")
  4. 11:31, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323639720 by Dicklyon (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wdford reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [25]

First, Wdford proposed a version of the lead which I felt understate several elements, and then he made massive changes to the article. I've previously made massive changes to the article, too, but I have, with good reasons, avoided to bring in more sources. I've tried to explain to Wdford that at least one of the sources he has quotes would likely fall under wp:fringe (although I could probably have linked that guideline), and why I consider the article structure he proposed to be inadequate for dealing with the topic of the article. [30] If Wdford would be inclined to discuss this, we could go through he edits step-by-step, but I am currently not seeing that.

Wdford is aware of the 3rr rule, read the comment in the edit summary: [31]

- Zara1709 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three days. — Jake Wartenberg 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Response of Wdford:
Zara's diffs do not show the full picture. At each step of the process I attempted to compromise with various editors and to improve the content of the article. Zara on the other hand has consistently blindly mass-reverted everything, including a lot of valid additions. The material I added is notable, valid and referenced. I see no reason to avoid bringing in more sources, especially when the material in question has been criticised for being under-referenced. I don't believe any of my references is fringe, but if one of them is inadequate then fine - delete that one reference, don't mass revert everything. I did not remove anything important, merely reordered stuff to make it more logical, and eliminated a lot of duplications. This I have discussed on the talk page all along. The article's structure is essentially unchanged, except that I moved the "history" section to the top, some headings have been reworded for clarity, and a redundant section has been redistributed and deleted. I therefore don't understand the use of the word "inadequate". I have attempted to discuss and compromise, but Zara just blindly mass-reverts, and has done so 3 times now without compromise. Wdford (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Wdford, your edits to the lead introduced a bias there, and, even if you tried, you would not be able to justify the article structure you proposed based on reliable sources. I think that my revert was well within the limits of wp:brd - and this is aside the issue of the sources you used (and one of them is almost certainly 'fringe'). If you intent to discuss the content issue, I'll be expecting your comments on the article talk page. Zara1709 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil[edit]

There is a problem at Brazil. Two editors, Lecen (talk · contribs) and Opinoso (talk · contribs) are bickering about changes to several sections of Brazil. I've tried to be an uninvolved party to bring them closer to consensus. Both are a little biased in regard to the subject, but I had hopes they could work it out. User:Lecen is more engaged in discussion, while User:Opinoso is having problems with staying civil. Two days ago User:Opinoso added another section to the discussion, that had also been edited by User:Lecen. Now User:Opinoso has unilaterally reverted large parts of the article. I think that was not the correct thing to do at this moment. I think this move has made the situation go out of hand, and ask for intervention. Of what sort, I leave up to you. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both users about this discussion [32] [33] User:Lecen has informed me that he will be unavailable till Tuesday. [34]

I reverted the article to its original History text. A brief explaination of what is going on there: one day User:Lecen decided to erase the entire History text from article Brazil. He said he was "improving" the article because it was "wrong". However, all the informations there were well sourced. This user did not point what was wrong there and why it was wrong. He simply deleted the entire text without any justification and replaced it with his own contributions. The text he deleted was sourced, written by several users along the years. This good text was replaced by a new text, exclusively written user Lecen, with biased informations that show his own vision about the subjetive and tries to hide important facts about it.

I asked user Lecen to comment on each information he deleted from that article.[35] However, he was not able to explain the removal not even of a single information. Then, he was not deleting the article because it was "wrong", but because he just doesn't like it. From this perspective, I re-posted the original History text that he deleted without any justification.

What History text should stay there: the "old text", written by several users along the years, well sourced and neutral or the "new text", written exclusively by user Lecen, biased and selling his personal point of view of the subject? Opinoso (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Stale The issue appears to have been resolved since the report was made. Black Kite 21:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What is it that makes you think so? That after reinstalling the old version Opinoso is calling it to a vote? While spicing his comments with subtle denegrating remarks about User:lecen? Debresser (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And did you notice the insinuation there, calling upon users new to the conflict not to participate in the vote? This user is acting as though he owns this article. BTW, I understand that I am no longer objective enough to mediate in this conflict. But this in itself should tell you something. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

After more reverts during the last 24 hours, I motion to protect this page. There is discussion, but the discussion is more bickering. Protection would probably force all editors to center on the discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JakeInJoisey reported by User:Majorite (Result: Stale )[edit]

Page: New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Update which clarifies the dispute described below[edit]

Yesterday, there were numerous attempts (mostly successful) to obscure the fact that the Republican candidate had withdrawn from the race. The edit war I am trying to describe in this complaint was part of the non good faith effort.

Background: The morning's New York Times provides background on the edit war described below: Ms. Scozzafava [the Republican candidate]... stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh. But the ballots had already been printed, and early results showed her picking up 6 percent of the vote. It was unclear how many of those were protest votes, and how many simply did not know she had left the race.[36]

The objective of the edit war was to hide or obscure the fact that Scozzafava had left the race --and that she had thrown her support to the Democrat. If these facts were unknown by some voters, it would affect the way they voted. It was a close race at the start, and such disinformation could have determined the outcome.

The lack of good faith editing is most easily seen in edit summaries, so I am presenting this in another way for the sake of clarity.

Revision as of 17:19, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Scozzafava candidacy re-inserted in election box; she is on the ballot, can garner votes & remains politically active) Diff which shows what the game is


Revision as of 17:38, 3 November 2009 (edit) (undo) JakeInJoisey (rm redundant intro fact inre Scozzafava campaign suspension; "won" nomination more aptly "designated"; "suspended her campaign" in lieu "withdrew her nomination") Another diff which shows the game that was being played. Removal of important, relevant and true information from the lead indicating that the candidate had withdrawn

Revision as of 17:43, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Undid revision 323724866 by MajoriteShe is in no position to "withdraw" her nomination...plz see discussion before rv'ing )Made up legalese - This is not a valid reason to make the page look as though the candidate was still running


Revision as of 18:42, 3 November 2009 (edit) JakeInJoisey (Undid revision 323732505 by Majorite This edit is currently under discussion. Plz participate in that discussion before any further rv) I had participated in the discussion, and JakeInJosey was unwilling to compromise or be reasonable

Revision as of 19:01, 3 November 2009 (edit) Majorite (Corrected infobox to reflect reality) My attempt at a compromise which indicated the candidate had withdrawn -- it was quickly deleted

end of update - thanks for reading!Majorite (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[37]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted][38] he says he re-inserted info, but this is the first change that he has done, as far as I am concerned

  • 1st revert:[39] This is the first revert I did - I gave reasons in the edit summary
  • 2nd revert: [40] This is JakeInJosey's revert


  • 4th revert:[42] edit summary is incorrect - discussion did occur
  • 5th revert:[43] my attempt at compromise, added word "withdrew"

I think the number of actual reverts are 4 on JakeInJosie's part, 3 on mine.


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]diff 1 diff 2

diff 3

Comments:


The talk page diff explain this best.

Request prompt resolution or intervention regarding disruptive edits/reverts that amount to vandalism. User keeps adding information indicating at a candidate who has withdrawn from a political race is actually still running. The election is today. User:JakeInJoisey has not responded reasonably on the discussion page or to the edit summaries.

The facts are simple: 1. a candidate withdrew, and 2. User:JakeInJoisey wants the infobox to state otherwise.

I have tried to compromise, as you will see by an edit I made that had the withdrawn candidate in the info box, but indicated the candidate had withdrawn, but JakeInJoisey reverted. Also, JakeInJoisey's edit summaries that ask me to discuss on talk page are disingenous. I had discussed on talk page. His response was unreasonable, unwilling to compromise or follow wikipolicies -- a lot of doubletalk and pretend legalese. thanks Majorite (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale It's unfortunate that the report did not receive timely attention, but the real-world/wikipedia events are now stale and any blocks at this stage will not be preventive. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Warned for now)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] the editor has previously been blocked for edit warring, so must be aware of the concept.

rather strangely considering that this editor has made five reverts within a 24 hours period, they placed a warning template on the talk page of another involved editor regarding the same article [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] there is discussion regarding the content dispute on the talk page.

Comments:

119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user, but not issuing any blocks at the moment since (1) the report is a bit stale, (2) both User:Trikemike and User:Oda Mari were reverting each other without participating in the related talk page discussion, and (3) the two link removals would arguably not count as reverts. I also hope that Chrajohn's latest addition will help resolve the classification dispute. If there is continued edit-warring, please report back and I or other admins will intervene. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seal hunt (Result: No vio)[edit]

User:U5K0, again. He continues to remove a fully cited sentence, putting in now ludicrous personal summary of the only references he accepts. Feel free to protect the page.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is again, a fabrication. I did reword a sentence to better reflect the source material. In so doing, I may have included information, which is not relevant to the article (but which can be eliminated). I did so because the paragaraph in question is under dispute and I wanted to reflect the references as objectively as possible. The two references I deleted consisted of a link to a sign in page for premium content and a reference identical to the one I placed at the end of the reworded sentence. I have also requested admin assistance in resolving this conflict. Any third party input would be grately appreciated from my side. Thanks.--U5K0 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
99, if you really want to make a report please see the instructions on how to at the top of this page, personally I wouldn't bother, there has been a bit of tit for tat reverting, nothing really worthy of reporting, You guys need to move to the talk page and try to find a compromise, perhaps add both positions. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing the meaning of "protect"? Page protection is generally to prevent vandalism or large-scale edits by new users, where blocks are the only things that can actually keep a user or IP address from editing. There isn't a automatic event that locks our any editor from reverting an article more than 3 times (some exceptions are shown on WP:3RR) and the policy is for self-enforcement on the understanding that divergent editors may consult an administrator for comment/action. From how I see the edit history, U5K0 has made precisely 3 reverts in this sequence[53][54][55]. Other edits during the day weren't directly in response to or contrary to what you had immediately posted. If it's only left at 3 then there's no policy really shoved against. Since it's something a lot deeper than a string of reverts on a few lines you might want to look into further dispute resolution or impose a stricter standard (such as 1RR or 0RR) on yourselves that are the types of things that community discussions or administrators might hope to see later on. Oh-- and just because something is cited/sourced already doesn't by itself grant immunity from edits. Replacement text may well have citations to verify their own statements or can reflect a change of consensus over time and hopefully on the article talk page. If things still feel endless for today, it could be good to agree to both walk away for 24 hours on mutual agree. Get rid of the disputed statement for now if you'd like, even; So long as a temporary removal isn't vandalizing the total content and an edit summary explains what you're hoping to accomplish, polite editors shouldn't be changing it. Good luck to you both. daTheisen(talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The IP and U5K0 reverting each other while the talk-page discussion was underway was not ideal, but there was no clear 3RR violation, and since the editors made an attempt to discuss and arrive at compromise wording, no blocks are needed to prevent further disruption. Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite reported by User:Neuromancer (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Dennis Ketcham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hipocrite (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: [60]

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

Comments:

I have expressed a concern to the user that blanking and forwarding a page is not an acceptable resolution to what he feels may be defamatory biographical content. There are ways to edit an article without blanking it and forwarding it, however, this user seems to prefer the blanking/forwarding form of editing. In addition, he has posted threats to my user talk page [62] accusing me of reverting his blank and forward in an attempt to annoy him. If an article has been in existence for a time, such as this article, which has been in existence since November of 2007, and which numerous editors have worked on, I feel that to blank and forward without even posting a note on the talk page first is irresponsible. This report follows. Neuromancer (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By the accused Neither first nor second revert is a revert. Enforcing obvious BLP vio. "attempt to discuss" is neither an attempt to discuss nor is it before the final "revert." Take your pick. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow up The first link is a wipe, the second is a forward, and two subsequent reverts afterward. If nothing else, this is disruptive editing. Neuromancer (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see only two reverts therefore there was no 3RR. As to the content dispute, this board is a wrong place to try to resolve it. Ruslik_Zero 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert. - Blanking an article therefore, is "an action that reverses the actions of other editors in whole." Which means that it is a revert. Neuromancer (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Following your logic any edit is just a revert. Ruslik_Zero 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if you take the first two edits as a revert, they count as one revert as the sentence you quoted says. Therefore there was only 3 reverts at most, and not the four required as mentioned below by the admin Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 5 November 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. Please discuss the content issue on article talk page or WP:BLPN. Abecedare (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:House1090 (Result:Page Protected)[edit]

Page: Template:USLargestMetros
User being reported: Polaron (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: [67]One of more

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:This user is edit warring with me, violating the 3 revert rule and I let him know I do not want to edit war on the history page were he is reverting me, but still continued. He has already been blocked because of this, late June. Please act quickly. This is going on at: Template:USLargestMetros...Thank-You House1090 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also told him to go to the talk page to discuss this but he just reverted me and I think he also logged off, and used his IP adress as a sockpuppet to defend him self/back him self up. House1090 (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)



You've both edit warred to the point that you could be blocked. There is an equal onus on each participant to stop. Since you two are the only ones active on the template at the moment, I have protected it for a week so you can discuss and pursue dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted him because he was reverting me after more users agreed with me, so logically I was doing the right thing to revert him. Also this iis not User:Polaron's first time edit warring, he should be blocked. House1090 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He was blocked here: [69]
He was also warned for 3rr in Sep. 2009 here: [70]

User:More random musing reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Akbar the Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: More random musing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

NOTE - amending this report: I now believe that this matter has escalated to a 3RR violation. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting contentious editing that I believe may be an edit war requiring action on the part of admins. Despite multiple requests from many editors, User:More random musing appears to believe that he has rights of WP:OWNERship of this article. He has been cautioned by an admin about his approach to editing. It is difficult to continue to improve the article along talk page consensus while deep reverts are being made.

  1. 15:20, 2 November 2009 (edit summary: "Deep revert/ See talk")
  2. 16:48, 3 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323506090 by Deepak D'Souza (talk) Vide talk")
  3. 15:58, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Deep revert to self.")
  4. 17:31, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid vandalism")
  5. 17:38, 4 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 323922340 by SpacemanSpiff (talk) Undid vandalism. There is no consensus on the talk page.")

Please see my notification here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See these diffs, which are just for the last few days.


Comments:


Additional comments from a "semi-involved" editor: I'm not involved in the content dispute, but I have been following the article and talk page for a couple of weeks now. User:More random musing definitely has ownership issues with the article. I reverted their edit once yesterday citing the talk page consensus, and also left a note on the article talk page. Then, there were a couple of reverts and I reverted MRM once more. Their edit summaries are also very misleading - classifying changes that have been explained on the talk page as vandalism. The user refuses to understand consensus and keeps reverting to a version that they like. They've been counseled and warned many times over the past couple of weeks. I'm involved to the extent that I've reverted twice, based on my reading of the discussion on the article talk page. -SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I was approached on my talk page by User:SBC-YPR on October 20 asking for help with disruptive editing at Akbar the Great. Looking at the article history I noticed that User:More random musing was blindly reverting any changes made to the article by other users, including unquestionable improvements, format fixes etc. (see diffs [71], [72], [73], [74]). I warned the user about edit-warring and making blind reverts, and also suggested that other interested editors be invited to help resolve any content disputes. This was done by SBC-YPR, and over the next week several editors reviewed the article and commented on its sourcing, POV issues and ideas for improvement; Nemonoman and others started implementing the suggested changes. User:More random musing did not participate in this discussion (he was not editing at all between Oct 21st and Nov 2nd), but immediately upon his return he has again started mass reverting changes to the article despite objections from Nemonoman, Deepak D'Souza, SpacemanSpiff, and me.
Not being involved with editing the article, I can probably use my admin tools to deal with this, but I would prefer if another admin could review the situation and administer the required block and are revert restriction on User:More random musing. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stale. I would have probably blocked User:More random musing if I had seen this report earlier, but no further edit-warring has occurred. I have watchlisted the page. Black Kite 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all I did not do 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.
  1. On 3rd November at 16:48 I undid a revision [75]
  2. On 4th November at 15:58 I did a deep revert [76]
  3. On 4th November at 17:31 I did an Undo [77]
  4. On 4th November at 17:38 I did another Undo [78]
I feel I do not have 3 reverts in a 24 hour period as in the window 3rd November from 16:48 to 4th November 16:48 I have only two reverts. It is still possible I may be making a higher math error in how the time needs to be calculated. If so pardon me for my math ignorance but but please do let me know how I have violated 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More random musing (talkcontribs) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A brief history is as under:
This was one of the first edits of User:SBC-YPR [79] to the article which was reasonably stable for almost an year.
Further on SBC made more edits and started re-arranging information which was not coherent. He was requested multiple times on his talk page and this article's talk page to please not make large edits without developing a consensus [80] and further requested to improve a section at a time instead of making lot of changes all over the article [81]. He did not agree. SBC posted this [82] and I replied [83]. Later on he posted a set of points on how to improve the article [84] and I made a response to his first point about quotations from primary sources here [85]. To his other points I responded here [86] and he did not engage in any discussion on my reply. In the meanwhile he got sysop Abecedare to intervene and this sysop started threatening me that my request for consensus were disruptive. I told him this is unfair accusation just because I did not agree with his buddy SBC. From there on it just snowballed.
Going forward in time I observed the following behavior in the editors who kept reverting my edits:
  • Not understanding the importance of primary sources to an article on history and removing referenced material without giving due consideration to wikipedia policy.
  • No interest in developing consensus.
Just to cite a few examples out of many Abecedare instead of approaching the subject with a sense of enquiry slams primary sources here [87]. I tried to point out multiple times that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS make it clear:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

In response to him, User:SBC-YPR's edit [88] and Nemonoman's edit [89] I responded with: [90] , [91]. Furthermore I added references and secondary sources which quote the primary sources I had put in earlier: [92], [93], [94], [95]. These were reverted by Nemonoman [96] and then later by SpacemanSpiff [97] and by Deepak D'Souza [98] Nemonoman did add a few of my sources but missed others. So it is frustrating to deal with editors who have no regard for references and who feel their POV is better then others and that their edits are better then others as Nemonoman suggested on the talk page. In addition just to give a few more examples (and there are many!) of frivolous editing and no qualms about deleting referenced material without any discussion or consensus on the talk page incorporating rather childish comments:
  • [99]"Relation with Hindus: the section is "relation with hindus" not mistreatment of Rajputs. Sheesh." This comment shows the ignorance of the editor as he does not realise that hindu sub group of India encompassed the rajputs.
  • Here conveniently User:SBC-YPR removes a secondary source which was quoting a primary source [100] and then Nemonoman deletes it altogether [101] with a comment "Relation with Hindus: Relations with Hindus, not relations with Bovines. If you can't show that this action was Akbar himself relating to Hindus, it doesn't belong". The fact that a temple of hindu people was destroyed and cows which are considered sacred by the hindu people were killed in that temple and the temple defiled by their blood and this information was all sourced from the primary source of Akbar's time was obliterated without any discussion.
I can cite many more such edits.
Also these users just revert and never add any material to the article at all.
SpacemanSpiff has not added anything to the article under discussion and seems to be a friend of other editors mentioned in the list given below and helps them revert so that one single person in that list does not get close to the 3RR violation.
Deepak D'Souza just likes to revert and calls peer reviewed historians' references as fake. E.g:[102] and when he is asked to justify what is fake he remains mute. In such a situation where he removes referenced material without giving any valid reason one is left with no option but to revert his edits as they are vandalism and it was done here [103]
It seems he has a POV or an agenda to call other people's work/edits fake.
I feel that Nemonoman, Deepak D'Souza, SpacemanSpiff, Abecedare, User:SBC-YPR have ganged up against me do not understand wikipedia policy on references and sourcing peer reviewed historians. And lastly Abecedare keeps threatening me for being disruptive and never bats an eyelid when any of his friends given in the list above remove sourced material without any consensus on the talk page at all. I feel his sysop powers should be re looked at. More random musing (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (Mathias Leudemann in real life).

User:Sayerslle reported by Road Wizard (talk) (Result: already blocked )[edit]

Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

  1. 21:39, 5 November 2009 (edit summary: "no consensus for removal of POV tag, Falklands section needs balance")
  2. 21:51, 5 November 2009 (edit summary: "Is the daily mirror not an acceptable source ? the toronto globe and mail was o.k for you..")
  3. 00:33, 6 November 2009 (edit summary: "balanced falklands section - books, newspapers as sources..")
  4. 01:16, 6 November 2009 (edit summary: "it is not undue, it is part of the story")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Discussion has started at User talk:Bastin#Falklands and Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Censorship No a difference of opinion, but it appears to be a little confrontational at this stage and neither side has got around to the point of building consensus yet. There are two users involved on the other side of the edit war but between them they have avoided breaching 3RR. Sayerslle has amended the key paragraph between reverts but continues to include text from a source disputed by the other editors and has not attempted to clarify whether the amendments are acceptable. Road Wizard (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Already blocked for 3RR vio. in response to the report below, which I saw first. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ukbullyk reported for vandalism on Bully_Kutta (Result: No vio; page protected)[edit]

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


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

3RR violation and verbal abuse.--59.92.236.91 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 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. There is no discussion from either sides on the talk page; so I'm protecting the article in its current state till at least an attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion is made. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result:31 h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [104]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] Diff of NPA Warning: [112] Talk Page Personal Attacks: [113],[114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115],[116],[117] (please note second 3RR warning after 5th revert),[118]

Comments:

Editor does not seem amenable to discuss the problematic element of his edit. Has instead responded with a series of personal attacks against other editors. Latest revert has only partially restored material seems to be an attempt to avoid a 3RR sanction. Justin talk 14:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Comments:
The Runcie edit is a totally new edit - the Paul Foot edit has gone. I think there was a place for dissident voices but it got thrown out . The Runcie edit is different ,was widely reported, etc. What on earth are you on about 'not amenable to discussion' - that is a barefaced lie, Ive been discuusing like crazy.Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, its a partial rehash of material previously added. Not amenable to discussion as in resorting to confrontational personal attacks - as you have done here. Justin talk 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC) The Paul Foot material and the Runcie edit - these are quite distinct, separate, arent they. I dont see 'confrontational personal attack' in what I wrote above. I feel, on the contrary, attacked. I don't understand why the Runcie edit is now the target for your anger. It was widely reported, its sourced etc. Sayerslle (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours 3RR was breached even if we disreagrd the 6th diff listed above. Recommend following WP:BRD and establishing consensus before re-adding disputed material. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rogue-pilot reported by Auntie E. (Result: 72 h)[edit]

Common descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rogue-pilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:36, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324269667 by Vsmith (talk)")
  2. 16:06, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324289428 by Dawn Bard (talk)")
  3. 17:12, 6 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 324303378 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Also logging out to edit war as 216.54.127.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and also past 3rr on Phylogenetic tree.

Auntie E. 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)



User:Heqwm2 reported by User:Dr.enh[edit]

Employee Free Choice Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

  1. [119]
  2. [120]
  3. [121]

Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

  1. [122]
  2. [123]
  3. [124]


--Dr.enh (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, have you even bothered to read the rules? 'The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes MORE than three revert actions...' Caps mine. In addition, both of these sets of edits are responding to your REPEATED attempts to add unsourced statements. In fact, I warned you that I would seek admin action if you continued. Apparently, you decided to make a pre-emptive strike. In addition, in one of your edit summaries you referred to my edit as "vandalism" and a "lie". This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Finally, you have not tried to resolve this at all before jumping to AN. You haven't discussed this on the article talk pages or on my talk pages. You have simply reverted my edits over and over again and then called edit warring on me.Heqwm2 (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that this editor has also just come off of a block for edit-warring (on the same article). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Since this is continuing behavior since the last block, longer in duration. I will caution Dr.enh against using "vandalism" as a description for disputed edits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hail42ndlegion reported by Ledward (talk) (Result: Stale/warned)[edit]

Girls' Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hail42ndlegion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:18, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  2. 01:45, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  3. 01:48, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  4. 02:08, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  5. 03:01, 7 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
  • Diff of warning: here

Ledward (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Not blocking since the edit-war is a bit stale and the user is only intermittently active. But will add another warning to the user page. Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Peltimikko reported by User:Ellol (Result: both 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Freedom of the press in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Peltimikko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log ·