Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive125

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:EmilJ and User:Yopie reported by User:Nmate (Result: Stale )[edit]

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

  • Diff of warnings:

[1] [2]

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

[3]

Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. So I would rather show 3 diffs when Yopie was close to it:

,17:03, 26 February 2010
,21:17, 26 February 2010
,9:31, 27 February 2010


Comments:

I have a disagreement with EmilJ and Yopie on the article Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk that started on 26 February, 2010. Technically they are no in violation of 3RR. However, the users has absolutely ignored the discussion on the talk page which is a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. Interesting also to note that EmilJ told me to "get a consensus on the talk page" [4] on which he shows no interest to participate in discussion. --Nmate (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale What a silly thing to edit war over though. If any of the parties continue, they will be blocked. Tiptoety talk 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Drummer182 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discusson conducted on talk page

Comments:
Although it seems to have gone undetected until last month, this editor has been edit warring on Drum and Drum kit since 2007. Although I left a plenty-friendly warning about our EL policy and edit warring, he is unapologetic.

As you'll see at his talk page, he acknowledges that the links he's adding are to his own advertising-driven websites, and he says he won't stop "until fairness and common sense enter this picture."

These IPs could be socks or meatpuppets, as their only edits are to restore Drummer182's links:

Bdb484 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected / Flyguy649 --slakrtalk / 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:PiCO reported by User:Deadtotruth (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


The editor PiCo has engaged in an edit war to support a single POV for the Genesis creation myth article. He has consistently deleted properly referenced information in the Lead, Prologue, Philo, and Creationism sections that provide information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research that is pertinent to this article. He has often replaced the information on Jewish/Christian/Scientific research with information of a Pro-babylonian creation myth point of view. Furthermore various editors on the talk page and in the edit comments have requested that he cease wholesale deletion of properly referenced information. PiCo’s edit war is a daily event wherein he routinely deletes whole sections often leaving the article in a state of disrepair.

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deletion of Ex Nihilo refs (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deleted information and refs that were contrary to the Babylonian origin hypothesis (POV)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deleted all information and refs concerning Jewish and Christian interpretations in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

Noleander requests Pico revert his deletion of the prologue section

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Nefariousski requests that pico stop making wholesale edits and deltions of sourced material. Deleted information concerning philo (POV)

Deleted section to remove all information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo/Pre-Creation (POV violation/vandalism?)

Deleted information and refs concerning Ex Nihilo in lead (POV/unwarranted deletion?)

Deleted information concerning anti-babylonian motif in lead (POV)

Deleted information and refs concerning creationism in lead and inserted Pro-Babylonian information (POV)

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs and inserted anti-creationism info and refs (POV)

Deleted Pro-Creationism info and refs in lead (POV see Pico’s editing comments at top of page of evidence of POV)


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


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

Deadtotruth (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - You have failed to provide evidence that WP:3RR was broken, your evidence for that was a series of messages left for the editor being accused. You haven't shown even a single true revert, but rather a series of content removals you object to. I suggest pursuing dispute resolution if you can't resolve this through regular discussion with the editor. -- Atama 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chapecoense reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: FC Barcelona
User being reported: Chapecoense (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chapecoense&oldid=347390648

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Barcelona

Comments: This user is previously banned for edit warring on FC Barcelona season 2009-10, and has used suckpuppets (plain IP) to circumvent the ban. ALSO the user is now having an edit war [[52]]

Sandman888 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment added, Sandman888 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - I don't see more than 3 reverts in more than 24 hours. But be aware of WP:OUCH, as you have reverted just as many times as the person you are reporting. If I blocked, I would have to block both of you. I see that there is now a discussion on the talk page of the article, deal with this there (and I'll also note that Chapecoense participated in the discussion before you did). -- Atama 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke_2010 reported by User:izauze (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

of my 03:45 edit, found here: [54]

The edit referred to in this diff [[55] makes a false claim about the subject of the edit and is unsupported by the citation. I removed it within the guidelines of WP:BLP WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.Malke2010 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit by I

  • 2nd revert: [56]
  • 3rd revert: [57]
  • 4th revert: [58] this might require some context. This is a revert of my revert. I utilized the revert option because this specific issue was under discussion on the talk page between user:Malke 2010 and user:happysomeone. Before I saw a consensus reached, Malke re-inserted the questionable material AND deleted material I had added, both in the same edit. Even though we had both tried to direct Malke to engage us on the talk board.
This is not an accurate description of the editing or the discussions at that time. There was also no 'consensus' reached. I consistently used the talk page and at one point stated my objection to the continuous reverts of my edits without discussion. Please allow me time to collect diffs of the discussion. Thanks.Malke2010 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of an edit war with Happysomeone that Happysomeone tried to mediate here:

20:08, 2 March 2010 Happysomeone (talk | contribs) (70,368 bytes) (Undid revision 347356626 by Malke 2010 (talk)OK, lets discuss at the TALK page first, please, before more editing. Please follow WP:BRD)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:09 on discussion board: [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:19 by [user:happysomeone] [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] [user:happysomeone] agreed with these concerns at 02:46

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: final notice [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion was a long messy process, proably not well suited to a Diff. Most of the discussion can be seen here: [63] with some additional material also found here: [64]

Comments:
First of all, I'm fairly new here, so excuse me if any of this form is not filled out correctly.

There are a good deal more reverts done within the last 24 hours (and a few more just beyond), but with the overwhelming number of his edits and how complicated and tangled things had become over the course of the last 24 hours, it has become difficult to dig them all out. If he had simply REVERTED the edits it would be easier to document, but he almost never did that, opting instead to edit the article to copy-paste the material back to the way he wanted it - erasing the contributions of other editors. Throughout the day (and to some degree beforehand as well) he showed no regard for the BRD model, or for WP:AGF in regard to our well-sourced contributions, nor did he WP:FOC, he ignored WP:EW and WP:3rr warnings regarding his boundary crossing, and engaged in seemingly evasive tactics when these issues are addressed by myself and other editors. He reverts changes made by other editors without even some kind of compromise edit that adresses some of the concerns the edit tried to address. In my own personal opinion, his presence has consistently had a negative influence on the progress of the article and the quality of the dialogue on the talk page, and I find him to be a constant NPOV concern. A review of the talk page shows that if you search for "WP:" citations, almost every single time it is either Malke himself or someone pointing out an issue to Malke. I would ask why that is. He had to be repeatedly asked to stop removing material and reverting edits and to engage in straightforward discussion by multiple editors. When I thought it was all over and that he had finally realized he needed to discuss, I see it was done again. I finally resorted to this report as essentially a last resort with the hopes that if nothing else, this process might force a realization of his behavior so that things might improve in the future, if he is allowed to continue utilizing his editing priveledges here. I truly only want what is best for the article. --Izauze (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this as Izauze has failed to notify me on my talk page. There is currently a dispute by Happysomeone and Izauze about the content of a paragraph I wrote that they keep deleting. I will collect diffs and you will see that both Happysomeone and Izauze are well beyond 3RR as they did continous outright reverts of my edits. My last edit was the removal of a completely false claim by Izauze that was not at all supported by the article he was citing. Please give me the time to collect diffs. Thanks.Malke2010 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts by Happysomeone

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

Reverts by Izauze

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]


Please give me time to collect diffs of the talk page discussion. Thanks.Malke2010 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page diffs. I made 19 entries all tolled on the talk page.

[76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

[81]

Please don’t revert: They were both reverting me without discussing first.

[82]

[83]

cooperating with Happysomeone’s wishes

[84]

put the Carender paragraph where Happysomeone asked for it to be

[85]

Claim by Izauze that I’m not discussing on talk page (he seems not be paying attention)

[86]

again, another claim this time by Happysomeone

[87]

answered question by Happysomeone about sources

[88]

Left message on Happysomeone’s talk page

[89]

There is one more diff I'd like to add. I'll be back with it in a bit. I apologize for the number of diffs but I was using the talk page.

In general, the editors on the Tea Party Movement talk page have been working well together for a long while now including myself and Happysomeone. In fact, we'd just recently amicably worked out a compromise on an edit without any problems.[90] Izauze is new there. This section that is being edited in all these diffs was also what he called his first big contribution to Wikipedia.Malke2010 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


I did not see where I was required to post the notification on his talk page. (Again, apologize for the naivite of a newcomer.) I thought the three or four warnings and the seperate notification on the talk page would be sufficient.
And since it appears as if Malke 2010 is trying to shift responsibility here to the people who were trying to make him engage us on the talk page before continuing to delete material and such, I will try to narrativize the situation for clarity.
A number of editors were having difficulties building a sensible history section for The Tea Party Movement, as seen in the discussion here: [91] How to make the origins more complete had been batted around, and they asked for someone to take a stab at it. I let them know I did some digging, found some sources, and was building something I would add shortly.
I spent a lot of time creating the most complete, well-researched, well-sourced origins section (with 3 subsections) I could and posted the whole thing as one edit early yesterday. Recognizing the size of the contribution, I immediately started a discussion. In this discussion Malke_2010 graciously praised my contribution. I knew the entry was just a starting point and that many edits would occur to it, but what I did not expect that valid, sourced, significant material would be deleted repeatedly from it whole cloth in a flurry of edits from one individual. But that's what happened. (If you look at about 17:00 on march 2nd you'll see almost 20 Malke edits in a row [92]) I added this material and Malke reverted it. Usually without discussion (until someone brought it up to HIM) flagrantly ignoring the WP:BRD model. Occasionally, I would examine what he had deleted and try to ascertain what his objections might have been, and make changes to it in order to not lose it entirely. (THIS is what he is referencing in some of the above DIFFs - my attempt to preserve my good faith additions through compromise edits instead of whole-cloth deletions.) In my edit descriptions (and in happysomeones) we consistently tried to refer him to the talk page. You can see people trying to engage his edits on the talk page here: [93] here: [94] here: [95] here: [96] here: [97] another editor expresses frustration here: [98] another Malke revert was questioned here: [99] (after this particular inquiry, he agreed that I could restore the information in question, and then deleted chunks of it again after I did, and reported it as one of MY supposed "reverts" above) (he is also asked to refrain from any future deletions or large changes w/o discussion (which he apparently ignores)), another editor repeats a request for a response re: his cites (which Malke again does not respond to) here: [100], he is warned about WP:EW edit warring and his covert revert is again questioned here:[101], he is again reminded not to WP:EW edit war and told that his edit was reverted (which is one of the ones he reported me for above) because it had not yet reached consensus here: [102], I expressed frustration about ANOTHER reverted edit here: [103], the other editor AGAIN asks for a response to his cites here: [104], he is again politely asked by another editor to use the talk page here (which i expressed agreement with): [105], he is again asked not to delete valid sourced information here: [106], another editor again asks him to respond to his points, and also reminds him of possible disregard of WP:BRD, WP:EW, and WP:3RR and reminds him to not continue skipping the consensus process, and not to ignore or evade attempts to address the issue here: [107], another editor reminds him to stick to the matter at hand and not attempt to divert here: [108],
and that's just part of it in regards to this ONE section (he made additional reverts re: the Fox News section). As you can see, while things stayed generally civil in tone, it got pretty messy. It was a real flurry of activity for a while and became hard to follow everything that was going on.
Yes, he was using the talk page, but he was continuing to edit and revert people's contributions (and adding material that was still in the process of consensus-building) WHILE he was partipating on the talk page. And much of that participation was diversionary.
He says all the editors have been working well there together. I will agree that all the editors have done a very good job of remaining civil in their dealings with Malke 2010 and everyone has maintained a generally positive tone, but his lack of adherence to guidlines and procedures is a constant issue for them as well. As I said, almost every WP:XX site on the talk page is either directed at him or is coming from him. He never seems to think to ask himself why that is. That the others have tried to tolerate this and work through it is admirable, but I believe someone from the administration needs to make things more clear for him.
and I don't understand how he can claim that this report is part of a plot to control one paragraph of quotations he added, when ample proof of our generous and good faith attempts to find a compromise and a workable consensus that respected and addressed his concerns (despite his WP:EW)are clearly evidenced here: [109] (as well as in the surrounding posts).
I think the matter will be quite clear to anyone who reviews the details of what went on yesterday in both the edits and the talk page (unfortunately it seems like a LOT to review). Hopefully it can be used to find a useful solution and both Malke 2010 and the article will benefit from it. I definitely harbor no ill will, I just don't want him to be a disruptive force any longer. Anything that helps achieve that is well appreciated. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I did answer Happysomeone's request for a source for the Carender edit. [110]. Happysomeone apparently had this quote confused with something else and believed it was multiple quotes run together. I came back and provided the quote and the source on the talk page so he could see it. Also, I note the other editors aren't here supporting claims that I don't get on well over on TPM, nor do I see diffs to support said claims.Malke2010 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer not to drag other editors into this if it's not necessary, though I'm sure if you interviewed them where they could speak freely, they would be able to provide a more long-term picture of Malke 2010's presence that would expand and illuminate my case. My own citation of this was just to notate how often people cite WP:XX to him, but if a few diffs of people's dealings with him are beneficial, I can try to provide that as well, though obviously I can't be too comprehensive in regard to everything contained in the archives and such.

[111] here is editor Roygoldsmith informing him that it is not appropriate to delete peoples well-sourced contributions citing NPOV.

[112] here is the same editor struggling to explain to him that contributions must be made on the basis of verifiability, not his/her opinion.

([113] here is Malke 2010 calling the article racist)

[114] another editor bemoans deleted material, calling it a sad disruption.

[115] in response, malke again calls the article racist "might want to rethink this article; it's shameful, gross, dumb, and racist", does not assume good faith, and engages in a possible personal attack.

[116] the editor responds, reprimands him/her for his lack of good faith and personal attack

[117] malke again calls the article racist and makes another deletion as a first resort.

[118] An editor reponds to a malke post to remind everyone that "This entire article is obviously undergoing a complete rewrite that has completely gone off the rails re: WP:NPOV."

[119] Editor scribner asks: No offense but it seems pretty clear that Malke2010 is an advocate of the movement and thus not in a position make impartial judgments or edits. Do we have some good impartial editors that could clean up this article and look over Malke2010's edits?

My response follows: I agree. I don't necessarily think that Malke2010 can't make valuable contributions (or that s/he hasn't already), but the repeated advocacy seems to call for some additional scrutiny.

[120] an editor again asks Malke to focus on sources instead of his/her opinion.

The above represents only about the top 1/8th of the current talk page (not including the many archives). Malke has made no secret about his personal POV regarding how he think the movement and the reaction to it should be protrayed. Occasionally he makes additions, but all too often he simply deletes or scrubs things he doesn't like and which don't agree with his POV of events... and he does so citing WP:NPOV. As a result, the article seems to slowly become a patchwork of leftover disconnected decontextualized material he didn't feel the need to delete, and the article as a whole has suffered as a result. When discussing these disruptions he rails about his point of view of the movement, asserting it as the right view, without regard for the concept of verifiability. He doesn't seem to understand what being an impartial editor compiling information from other sources is all about. And his responses thus far have only further demonstrated to me that he is not willing to examine his own behavior, which reinforces my belief that external forces need to be applied in order to achieve a lasting result. --Izauze (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Sysops: I believe that we can resolve this issue ourselves, given enough time. There is no need to block anyone as yet.

Editors of Tea Party movement: Please gather at the Tea Party movement talk page and read the lower part of the section on Fox>Problem Sentence. We have time to resolve this. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the characterizations of me by Izauze has gone beyond the pale here. I am being attacked here. I'm asking an admin to please rule here. This editor is out of control and I don't appreciate the characterization of my good faith edits. When I first arrived on the TPM page there wasn't much activity and believe me that page was in terrible shape. The edits on the cartoons alone were fairly shocking. My edit summaries and comments on the talk page are entirely appropriate.
I look at these diffs and I don't see me going on rants calling edits racist, etc. and I'm sure the admins don't either. But the statements by Izauze are too much here and I'd like something done to stop this. And as you can see, the characterization of me is again not backed up by diffs. In fact, there's been every little editing on the article by me for a long time. We've been taking this long to discuss edits.Malke2010 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my understanding of the listing guidelines, I don't intend to dispute Malke2010 here. The information provided above is only to present as complete a picture I could in a straightforward manner. I do not intend to attack him or insult him as a person. --Izauze (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - I don't see 4 or more reverts by Malke in a 24 hour period. I don't see any user talk warnings given to Malke despite what Izauze claims, or even a notice that this report was created (and yes, I checked the talk page history). The only thing I see is a big dispute on the talk page of the article, which is nothing unusual. Even in the report above, Izauze admitted that there weren't actual reverts occurring. I see nothing actionable. -- Atama 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SamHumphrey1985 reported by Old Moonraker (talk) (Result: warned)[edit]

Richard Mabey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamHumphrey1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:54, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 10:56, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 11:11, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 14:43, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 14:50, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  6. 17:02, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Please can we keep it like this. This is accurate and precice. I have, again, made changes at the behest of the author. Please don't change.")
  • Diff of warning: here

--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just 3RR warned the user before I saw this. D'oh. SGGH ping! 21:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — looks like he's stopped for now. Feel free to re-open if he resumes. --slakrtalk / 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NickCT reported by Mbz1 (talk) (Result: declined)[edit]

  1. [121]
  2. [122]
  3. [123]
  4. [124]

Not excactly in 24 hours, but User:NickCT was notified about the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions] in the Arbitration/Enforcement case against him. In spite of that the user goes on with edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion. Mbz - This posting is counterproductive. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw Hopefully Nick got the message :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Not fooling anyone Mbz. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Also, keep in mind, that banned editors evading a ban are not permitted to edit articles / random talk pages, and the edits they make can be reverted with the same exception to the 3RR as vandalism. --slakrtalk / 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hooliganb reported by User:Bold Clone (result: page protected)[edit]

  1. [125]
  2. [126]
  3. [127]
  4. [128]

--Bold Clone (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: Stale )[edit]

Page: Countdown with Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 08:00 EST


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning was issued, though he got the 4th revert in before I could issue it.

Comments: Badmintonhist is a longtime, established editor who is well familiar with this most fundamental of rules.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale It appears that since this report was filed, discussion has started taking place on the articles talk page and the instigator has logged off. I will add the article to my watchlist, if they start up again a block will be in order. Tiptoety talk 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by MaverickandGoose (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Homosexual agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: [[User:<Ctjf83|<Ctjf83]] ([[User talk:<Ctjf83|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/<Ctjf83|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Ctjf83|deleted contribs]] · logs · edit filter log · [[Special:Block/<Ctjf83|block user]] · block log)


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


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

Ctjf83 violated 3RR by continuously reverting edits of two different editors, and then mislabeled them vandalism

Are you referring to this unexplained removal of content from you? CTJF83 chat 05:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: MaverickandGoose seems to be making the same edits as IP editor 99.237.122.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which puts this into an edit war on his side while Ctjf83 has only three edits. At least two editors have reverted the changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Reporter is a probable sock of User:Brucejenner CTJF83 chat 03:02, 4 March 2010 (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. --slakrtalk / 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:Hooliganb (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137] in comment on 21:39, 3 March 2010 Hooliganb (talk | contribs) (44,841 bytes) (please, this is not your article where you make executive decisions. let's find a concensus before changing this again. another reversion will be 4 reverts; see WP:3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Comments:
After trying to open up discussion to finding some kind of resolution and thoroughly explaining my point of view, I was met with a complete disinterest in trying to find some kind of compromise and unwillingness to listen to any other opinion on the content of the article. Where as my edits attempted to incorporate the changes this editor made, he preferred to completely undo everything that I had changed even though it didn't all fall under the explanation he provided for his reverts. I'll admit to regularly editing the article in question and cleaning up other people's changes, but not blindly blank things they've done without reason.

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should probably block both of you, but instead, I'll let you work it out on Talk. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suresh.Varma.123 reported by UserSanam001 (Result: Protected )[edit]

Page: Malayala Sudra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Anandks007 (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: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:
This edit war in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed in the nayar page as user suresh.varma.123 declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution . [145] The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007 is the following link [146]. User User:Anandks007 has publically called for supporting edit wars in nayar and allied pages against me in bad faith.

I am still continuing to try to focus on the content dispute [147]

--Sanam001 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by Gun Powder Ma (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
  2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
  3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
  4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
  5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
  6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
  7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY !!!")
  8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")

Undefeatedcooler, who is a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), has been stubbornly reverting the article for the past two week showing a pseudo-willingness for talk in his edit summaries. However, once there (see the discussion) he limited himself to asserting the same views over and over again but consistently failed to provide the repeatedly requested evidence according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. He has already been warned of edit warring. I tried to bring in fresh views at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese", but there he simply continued his racist tirade from the talk page:

Village pump (miscellaneous):

  • "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee:

  • "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined - I see 2 reverts in a 24 hour period. The editor may be tendentious, but they've never even reached 3RR, and recently they left the page for almost 4 days before reverting again. I think there is a problem, but this noticeboard isn't for incivility reports. You might want to try WP:WQA instead. -- Atama 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You see only two reverts only because I refrained from reverting which I feel now less inclined, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I did leave the editor a warning about not making personal attacks against other editors. If he continues, try WQA as suggested or perhaps even WP:ANI may be better venues. This noticeboard is for violations of WP:3RR. -- Atama 01:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ChristiaandeWet reported by User:Magicpiano (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [148]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been previously warned about edit warring and is aware of 3RR: [153]

User has never responded on talk pages, see his history: [154]

Comments:

User has a history of contentious editing on a wide variety of articles; many of his contributions have been reverted. I have attempted to engage him in the past (e.g. here), and on his talk page. Magic♪piano 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked for 24 hours. This is a pretty straight-forward 4RR situation. -- Atama 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:65.1.3.105 reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.1.3.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:10, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 17:45, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347429863 by Alansohn (talk)")
  3. 18:08, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 18:14, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Check the facts before reverting my edit, DICK. I am correct. You can find postaqe stamps online with Friedrich Ebert on them that say "Deutsches Reich."")
  5. 18:30, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "The translation of Reich as "empire" is patently wrong since the "deutsches Reich" continued to appear on German postage stamps in the Weimar period, as a quick search will show.")
  6. 18:40, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Dick have you heard of Google? Plug in "Deutsches Reich" and "Friedrich Ebert" on an image search and you will see the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Reich does not mean "empire."")
  7. 10:51, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Antiuser I suggest you read the discussion page where I have explained why the translation of Reich as Empire cannot be accurate, plus the fact that "Deutsches Reich" continued to be used in the 1920s")
  8. 11:05, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "You guys are all action and no thought. Read how I justified my edit, and look at the discussion page again.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Uncle Dick (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakrtalk / 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rschuehle reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result:Stale; Article at AFD)[edit]

Chimestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rschuehle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:50, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 21:22, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Chagnes")
  3. 21:24, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")
  4. 21:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Changes")
  • Diff of warning: here

Uncle Dick (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale The article is presently at AFD and the reverts have stopped. Both the listed editor and the submitter seem to have edit warred. I will watch the page. JodyB talk 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:213.240.232.170 reported by User:94.110.95.62 (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Gümüş tv series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation No 3RR breach, and both editors responsible for slow-moving edit-warring. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Undefeatedcooler reported by Gun Powder Ma (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undefeatedcooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:18, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346084776 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
  2. 16:32, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346296011 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) talk page")
  3. 13:59, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346486331 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop it, talk page first !!!")
  4. 23:41, 26 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346513127 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) for goodness sake !!!!! TALK PAGE !!!!!")
  5. 12:44, 27 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346600959 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) this is it, talk page !!!")
  6. 05:12, 28 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346776015 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) you must stop from now on, see talk !!!!")
  7. 13:26, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347601997 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) TALK PAGE ONLY !!!")
  8. 14:28, 4 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347707175 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article.(Talk)")
  9. 12:59, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347893541 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) stop reverting. Talk Page !!!")
  10. 13:18, 5 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 347898427 by Gun Powder Ma (talk) Talk Page. Remember, you are the one who made changes from a "long-term version"")


See declined notice above for the development so far. I then reported Undefeatedcooler allegations of racism to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and he received a warning by SGGH who explicitly pointed him to the need for providing evidence to his carved-in-stone views. Still, he continues to revert. I regard my reverts justified on the basis of WP:Verify what I also communicated to him.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked by User:SGGH. -Atmoz (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Routerone reported by User: Duke53 (Result: prot)[edit]

Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:Routerone User: Routerone (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: [164]

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

Comments:

Duke53 | Talk 19:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(uninvolved) So where are your talkpage contribs? (just wondering...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Without removing it again, I would like to state that this is a bad faith report. I was making legitimate edits, I could see the problem with the context I was changing, so what does he do? revert me and try to pass off my edits as vandalism. I have support from another administrator that was nothing wrong with my edits. Duke53 is being disruptive, what hes done here has made a load of inapropriate bad faith reverts against me, and had he not done that then there would be no edit war on that artivcle.[165] Routerone (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Your (routerone) edits were not vandalism. It was still edit warring. Duke53 should have left a 3RR warning about it on your userpage. In any case, it's this 3RR is moot, as Routerone began discussing things on the talk page and the article is also full-protected for a short time. In other words, there are large heaps of bad faith on both sides of this. WP:STICK applies. tedder (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Duke53 DID leave a 3RR warning on his talk page ... he deleted it. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


You've admitted my edits were not vandalism, he was reverting them on the accusation that they were. Meaning, had he not bothered there would have been no conflict. I reverted him back because I saw what was doing as tedious and extremely injustified, though I will admit that was a mistake and I should have took it to an admin. Routerone (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Very clever of Routerone to include a diff of a talk page AFTER he had deleted my comments. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did delete it, why? Because I don't believe that I should pay attention to any editor who reverts my edits for no constructive, plasubility suitble, or legitimate reason only to fulfil his dislikes against my religion (see the picture on his userpage). Anyone can slap a warning on a talkpage, but if its not for a legitimate reason, then its useless. You appeared from nowhere and reverted my legitimate edit for no good reason, passing them off as "vandalism", without even previously contributing to the article. So how can you possibly report me for edit warring? As your no-good deeds which were the cause of the problems. For if you hadn't have tried to pass my edits off as "vandalism" in a bad faith manner, I wouldn't have reverted again would I? for attempting to decieve like you did there is very inapropriate, and that is what you done to try and win the "war" (which you caused anyway), decieve. 'You did not contribute to the discussion, or like I said even edit the page previously. You simply appeared to stir up trouble, by reverting on prejudice for no good reason. So don't try and play this game with me. Routerone (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Tedder. -Atmoz (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So an admin can allow an editor to commit a 3RR violation with no repercussions AND allow that editor's intended edit to remain permanently ? Why are there any rules, if they can be enforced in such a sloppy manner ? Duke53 | Talk 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:74.190.55.226 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Andrew Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 74.190.55.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [166]


  1. 1st revert: 14:46, 4 March 2010
  2. 2nd revert: 14:49, 4 March 2010
  3. 3rd revert: 07:31, 5 March 2010
  4. 4th revert: 18:09, 5 March 2010


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167] (Not a formal warning, but this was after some dozen or so reverts)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

I'd do this myself except I'm involved. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody here? This is continuing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rida1990 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rida1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy#Merge?

Comments:


Bischof Ralph sockpuppets reported by User:Papphase (Result: indef)[edit]

Page: Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: a number of Bischof Ralph sockpuppets


Previous version reverted to: Actually is hard to find any reasonable version. There are a large number of Bischof Ralph sockpuppets continuously pushing nonsense into the article. I suggest my own latest version, but basically the article is a mess and not going anywhere.

Article History


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Comments:
I suggest to close the article to admin editing only so that any changes have to be discussed and proven on the Talk page first. I don't see any chance to keep Bishof-Ralph sockpuppets from creating more of a mess. --Papphase (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rswami108 reported by Wikidas© (Result: Page protected )[edit]

Radhanath Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rswami108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·