Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Pyromania1967 reported by AV3000 (talk) (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pyromania1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:18, 14 April 2010 (edit summary: "not necessary to include "between individuals"")
  2. 02:15, 16 April 2010 (edit summary: "No, I like the other version minus "between individuals" which is superfluous")
  3. 02:15, 16 April 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 03:35, 16 April 2010 (edit summary: "What's wrong with my middle way? Some of you advocate for unnecessary details and others advocate for too much scarcity")
  5. 04:40, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "State why you disagree with me here or on my talk page, nobody posts in discussion page (US centric et al. sections are ignored)")
  6. 04:45, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "And you use the discussion page? Have you responded to the US centric section? I think not. Where am I supposed to discuss this?")
  7. 04:58, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "I can see, and that is why I want to remove "between individuals" because then all the opposing parties can be reconciled and we can move on, what's wrong with that?")
  8. 05:03, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "I am not seeking consensus, I am making one, far from edit warring")
  9. 05:06, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "O my goodness! When will all you people learn what reconciliation and peace means?")
  10. 05:12, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "I am not going to back down until somebody discusses this")
  11. 05:14, 17 April 2010 (edit summary: "Daedalus969, stop edit warring!")

AV3000 (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LTSally reported by User:AuthorityTam (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: LTSally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: .
  • 2nd revert: .
  • 3rd revert: .
  • 4th revert: .


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions#Muramoto20100414
2010-04-15 02:11, 2010-04-15 14:41, 2010-04-15 21:32, and 2010-04-15 21:53.


Comments:

The cited source ("Muramoto") had been inappropriately identified, and my correction of that was one of several simultaneous housekeeping edits I made to the article which were uncontested. In the course of reviewing links and external links, I came to believe that Muramoto had been misrepresented in the article. Instead of representing the source with yet another possibly POV interpretation, my edit quoted the source directly. The reverting editor claims that quoting the source 'hides what the source says' and is too "longwinded". Here are the two versions, one with an interpretation of the source and one with quotes from the source:

  • Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the [HLC] committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients.
  • Osamu Muramoto, a Kaiser Permanente neurologist, has claimed the committees' interactions with Witness patients are a "cause of compromised autonomy" and one of several "factors [which] result in pressure to refuse blood-based treatment".

I'd prefer Muramoto's quotes retained and see no encyclopedic reason to revert and hide them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply: The section in dispute refers to the activities of Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison Committees. Citing a paper in a peer-reviewed medical journal by Osamu Muramoto, I have written a sentence stating that Muramoto "has claimed the committees' activities place pressure on Witness patients to refuse blood-based treatment and compromise the autonomy of Witness patients". User:AuthorityTam has claimed Muramoto makes no such claim and prefers a wordy sentence incorporating two broken quotes and an explanation in square brackets in order to weaken his criticism. On the article talk page I have argued that the meaning of Muramoto's criticism of HLC intervention and coercion is clear. In this case a sentence paraphrasing his point directly is preferable to a wordy selection of quotes designed to obscure and weaken Muramoto's point. AuthorityTam claims I have incorrectly interpreted the paper and inserted my own point of view. However Muramoto's meaning is clear and unambiguous and supports a similar argument in an earlier paper (link provided on the article talk page), in which he directly accused church elders of placing pressure on patients to refuse blood transfusions. LTSally (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The matter is discussed more exhaustively at the article's Talk, but the source I seek to quote refers to "factors" and "elders" and resultant "pressure" on patients. The editor in question insists on interpreting this as 'HLC elders pressure patients'. But the source never says that. In fact, only about 1% of JW elders are on an HLC, so it is unwarranted to so grossly oversimplify this source to synthesize a point not explicitly made in the source. There is no encyclopedic justification for repeatedly reverting (hiding) actual quotes from the source, quotes which make a point that is strong, but apparently not strong enough to please a certain reverting editor. The editor reverts and reverts and reverts and reverts without explaining the unacceptableness of simple source quotes. The reverting editor frantically reverts to her preferred interpretation first and only later posts a token addition to the Talk thread, typically thick with accusations of ad hominem attacks and longwindedness and failing to move the discussion forward.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the reverting editor makes no secret of her antagonism against JWs; see here where she calls them 'sickening'.
While she frequently accuses others of personal attacks, she apparently allows it in her own criticisms; see here and here.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As AuthorityTam knows full well from reading my user page, I am a "he", not a "she". I certainly have issues with the religion and its control of members, but I do not let that interfere with my adherence to Wikipedia policies on neutrality and use of verifiable sources. His latest comments are typical of this editor, who seeks to denigrate anyone who includes criticism of his religion in Wikipedia articles. As I've already said, Muramoto certainly identifies elders on Hospital Liaison Committees as those who place pressure on JW patients to obey the church's headquarters. The percentage of elders worldwide who are part of the HLC is irrelevant and part of his latest attempt to cloud what is a very simple issue. LTSally (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No, AuthorityTam did not 'know full well' that the reverting editor (named "Sally" incidentally) is male.
Unlike LTSally, I've not expressed a religious preference or revulsion. My editorial motivation is improving encyclopedic quality.
If Muramoto statements on this matter truly are "very simple", it makes sense to quote him rather than interpret him. An editor should be more quick to identify useful quotes and less quick to repeatedly revert cited quotes.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
My issue is not with the use of quotes. My concern is finding the best way to express Muramoto's concern that HLC elders place pressure on JW patients to refuse blood transfusions. A quote is not essential when the meaning of the source material is fairly and accurately represented. As another editor at the talk page agrees, you either misunderstand or are trying to distort Muramoto's statement. LTSally (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
LTSally seems openly agenda-driven. He seems fixating on proving "that HLC elders place pressure on JW patients to refuse blood transfusions". That sounds like LTSally decided what point he wanted to make and then tried to figure out where and how to get that point from a usable source. It would be better to allow the source to determine the point, rather than to blindly and repeatedly revert quotes which wrinkle the packaging of the editor's imagined perfect point.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You may note the warning at the top of this page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." I don't think this is the place to discuss this. LTSally (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please note that to avoid tiresome confusion about my gender, I have changed my user name from LTSally to User:BlackCab. BlackCab (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - I'm warning both parties to pursue WP:Dispute resolution before reverting again. I do not see that either editor has achieved a talk page consensus for their position. It is possible that one or both editors could be blocked if they continue this fight before getting more opinions. Others have been recently active on this article; I see the names of Jeffro77 and Marvin Shilmer in the history. Surely their views could be sought. The most neutral way to bring in more participants is to open up a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gucci008 reported by User:PunkyMcPunkersen (Result: Warned)[edit]

Is a spambot locked on to the Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox article.

As you can see, there really isn't much more that needs to be explained. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned. He did not continue past a final warning. If this editor resumes, the account should be blocked indef. You can submit it at WP:AIV or WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:85.103.117.4 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Maya Nasri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 85.103.117.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: No 4th revert, as in order for there to be one, I would have to violate the 3rr myself.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] No real discussion -- the user won't reply to my messages, but continues to edit the article.

Comments:

The user continues to add a link to a non-official Youtube video with a likely copyright violation. S/he won't respond to my messages to attempt to resolve the dispute, but I can't continue to revert the edit without facing a 3rr violation myself. Thank you. GorillaWarfare talk 22:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned by User:CIreland not to keep re-inserting the YouTube video, which is an apparent copyright violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:Crossmr (Result: 31h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [7]

  • 1st revert: [8]
  • 2nd revert: [9]
  • 3rd revert: [10]
  • 4th revert: [11]
  • 5th revert: [12] in the time it took me to file this he did it again.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] [15]

Comments:

This study has 2 sections devoted to it on the article talk page, the user made one comment to them and came out of nowhere insisting that the author of a study which has it's own section in the article should be wiped from the section along with any mention of the university. Rather than continue to discuss, he's reverted over the limit. This is a particularly controversial article that often gets some people worked up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tim Song (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:660gd4qo reported by User:Snowded (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 660gd4qo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: here


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] and [22]

Comments:

This is a slightly problematic case as we have an editor with poor command of English who self evidently has strong views on relationships between South Korean and the USA. Aside from the referenced changes on Anti-Americanism we also have:

There are other examples as well, but that gives a flavor of the problem. I was concerned about WP:BITE but the editor has been around since November last year on Korean issues. While the edits above show minor changes each revert is substantially the same, namely the insertion of material about the strength of South Korean-USA relations in one section of a article on anti-americanism. The proliferation of similar material over other articles is also problematic. I'm not sure if a block is necessarily the right way, but the basics of seeking consensus on the talk page before making changes which are contested need to be established. --Snowded TALK 11:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Excue me. You are also edit waring.[23] This is not a POV or edit waring. The last two edits are not simply reverting as you claim. It change little by little. This is content dispute. here Talk:Anti-Americanism#Some_POV. He is the only person who abusing my edit. If you check my edits, I was not return to my edit. I did not revert to only my version. I reverted to Colin4C's 08:43, 17 April 2010 edit version. technically it was not count on 3rr. Also, not simply reverting as his claim. Again, I did not revert to my version. After He deleted all my edit without any reason, so i object to it. At least, My final edit including both side edit.(important) But, He is the only person who deleting whole part by no reason. And, If you want discuss other article topics, you should discuss there. Except for Anti-Americanism, You did not discuss any topic. If you want content dispute, You should provide counterpart evidence, discuss first, not by blocking user. If you want discuss each topics, I will provide enough materials of topic.660gd4qo (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fucking USA - I provide enough referecnes. Snowded's revert reason : "rv insertion of POV edits"[24] (He think it looks like a POV edit -> it should revert? Is it really enough reason for revert?)
  • South Korea - United States relations ; no one disputed this. I settled stable version.[25] It was not my edit. I did not edit its topic before. Some newbie account WilliamWater inserted extreme POV edit. Highlited only negative edit. Wikipedia:Content forking I revert to stable version before WilliamWater's edit.
  • Iceland – South Korea relations ; no one disputed this.
  • Korean Nationalism ;no one disputed this. I removed exactly same content from Anti-Americanism in Korea article. I removed dupliacted and copy-paste content. And, Anti-Americanism and Korean Nationalism are Nothing relation each other.
If you really want dispute this, you should provide exactly WHAT is the wrong, and What is the inaccurated edit by evidences. You just want block & remove my all edits, not reach to agrrement. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Tim Song (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 31h)[edit]

3RR violation on Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Ari is repeatedly removing or changing a sentence in the lead. The sentence is from Michael Martin, an academic, who writes that the existence of Jesus is taken for granted. Martin is arguing, against that, that Jesus might not have existed.

There was consensus on talk on April 16 to add this sentence; see here. Ari was the only one who disagreed. Ari either removes the part of the sentence that mentions "taken for granted", or in some other way edits it so that it makes no sense; slightly changes what Martin said, or removes the sentence completely. Six reverts in 29 hours, five of them just over five hours on April 18.

  • 1st edit: 03:15 April 17, Ari changes that Martin says the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted to a sentence that makes no sense.
  • 1st revert: 04:19 April 17, removes Martin writes that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted.
  • 2nd revert: April 18, changes that Martin "writes that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians" to "believes that ..."
  • 3rd revert: 03:50 April 18, removes "while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians ..."
  • 4th revert: 04:02 April 18, here he reverted, but didn't realize someone had slightly altered the sentence, so he reverted back to an earlier version of mine.
  • 5th revert: 06:04, April 18, removes "while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians .."
  • 6th revert: 08:29, April 18, removes the Martin sentence completely.
Comments

There has been a lot of reverting on this article recently, and many requests on talk for it to stop, which Ari has doubtless seen. He has been blocked twice before for 3RR, once in January this year and again at the beginning of this month. [26] SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the truly huge number of edits to the page in the last couple of days, I imagine most of us have undone a lot of each other's work. Rather than single Ari out, it would probably be better to just lock the page again while we try to talk things over. Eugene (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You did this the other day too, when you violated 3RR then rushed to have the page protected before you could be blocked, and it worked. I hope it doesn't work again. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 31h. I really don't want to have to protect the page again; if this means multiple blocks for editors then so be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CharlieJS13 reported by User:Kww (Result: 7 days)[edit]

Page: multiple Lady Gaga songs
User being reported: CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


This is an edit-war going across multiple articles. The essence of the dispute is simple: CharlieJS13 will not permit songs to be credited to Stefani Germanotta, despite that being the way the songs are credited at BMI. Editors placing sourced credits are being reverted, and even reported at ANI. CharlieJS13 was blocked for this earlier, and, upon expiration of the unblock, returned to the war, as shown here, here, here, here, here, and here.

He has also edited the ANI report about him to remove other editors comments.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

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

Comments:
CharlieJS13 has at least commented in a public forum, but it's hard to class it as a discussion: he reverted all the articles to his preferred version, removing sources along the way, and then says that everyone else is doing it wrong. He has already been blocked for vandalizing the user pages of editors in the dispute. —Kww(talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Blocked for a week, and warned that further disruption will probably mean an indef. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:82.24.163.100 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Circumcision and law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 82.24.163.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]

i posted a comment on jakew talk page explaining why i changed his edits and asked him why he changed mine he replied with this

Thank you. It's very thoughtful of you to let me know. Jakew (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

this response does not give any insight into why he keeps changing my work

i believe that he is maliciously changing my work

circumsison is a matter over which many people have strong fealings. in the past wars have been fought over it and many people still do it regardless of what the law may say. for this reason i suspect that jakew may be sabotaging my work because he has strong personal fealings about the matter

jakew has posted a lot of articles, however due to the extreame fealings some people have regarding circumsision is suspect that he may be chanlengeing my edits which mostly opose circumsision because h has stong fealings about it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.163.100 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Comments:
I have advised the edit warrior to discuss at talk page, they brought this to WP:EAR#Circumcision_and_law edit war I have no personal involvement in this dispute. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - 48 hours for edit warring. This IP editor has reverted Circumcision and law 12 times since 25 March, and has never left a comment on an article talk page. (His change has been reverted by four different people). He doesn't appear to recognize that he needs consensus for his change. The block can be lifted if he will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

99.176.2.138 (talk) reported by JohnMorra (Result: Warned)[edit]


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

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


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

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

Comments:
multiple reverts of same edits (rv´s of promotional edits) without explanation--JohnMorra (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned. This user was never told about 3RR, and nobody has yet discussed his reverts with him. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Captain Occam (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here

Comments:

As far as I know, Mathsci has not actually violated 3RR on this article (although he’s come very close), but he’s clearly using aggressive editing tactics in an effort to win a content dispute. As can be seen in the linked discussions, at least three users have expressed the opinion that his preferred version of the article violates NPOV, and Mathsci is the only user who disagrees with us about this. However, when he’s responded to our efforts to discuss this it’s only been to brush us off, as in his reply to Varoon Arya’s NPOV concerns here: “Sorry, what you write is nonsense. Please stop wasting my time.” While rebuffing our efforts at discussion about these problems, he’s reverted efforts to address them from four different users.

Note Mathsci’s edit summaries, threatening all users who disagree with him about this with blocks. Also note that his three most recent reverts occurred within the space of less than an hour. The only reason this hasn’t continued for the past day is because Mathsci is now on the verge of driving all other users away from the article with this behavior, so at this point there aren’t many users left there for him to edit war against. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - No 3RR violation. This article continues to get plenty of attention at ANI, and any questions about long-term edit warring may be pursued there. If you have complaints like 'Mathsci is driving other users away with his behavior,' an WP:RFC/U remains an option you may consider. I note the possibility that you may have canvassed other users such as Distributivejustice and Mikemikev. Generally it is better to post a notice at one central location, like the talk page of a related article, than to request specific people to join a contentious discussion where you expect that numbers may be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Moretz reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moretz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [62] & [63]

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

  1. 09:59, 15 April 2010 (edit summary: "added "Ozzie" demonym (same sources as "Aussie" demonym)")
  2. 11:29, 19 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 356165454 by Merbabu (talk) Merbabu needs to read the citations for this term - BOTH include Ozzie and Aussie")
  3. 12:08, 19 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 356966955 by Merbabu (talk) decidedly not trivial - first biliing on source pages, so remove Aussie if you like")
  4. 12:17, 19 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 356970846 by Merbabu (talk) the source support my change - do you have alternative sources?")
  5. 13:06, 19 April 2010 (edit summary: "added citations, including from the reliable Macquarie Dictionary")
  6. 13:35, 19 April 2010 (edit summary: "source has been deemed unreliable")
  • Diff of warning: here

Bidgee (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - No action. There have been no further reverts on this topic in 18 hours, and it seems that Moretz's term 'Ozzie' has a chance of being accepted by the other editors. The use of the term is now supported by what looks to be a good source. (I read the Talk page discussion, and all parties seem to be working in good faith). Report again if the edit war continues. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Blahblah32blahblah reported by User:Acps110 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Yankee Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Blahblah32blahblah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: (not reverted)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
Anonomous user 70.144.83.32, who started this edit war, should be dealt with too.

Acps110 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected. Some IPs and new editors have been warring on the name of the stadium. They want it to be referred to as 'The House that Jeter Built', but without providing any sources. If these editors can get a consensus on the talk page in favor of their view, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:A.arvind.arasu reported by User:Kcowolf (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: CSK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: A.arvind.arasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [64]

  • 1st revert: [65]
  • 2nd revert: [66] (first after final warning given)
  • 3rd revert: [67]
  • 4th revert: [68] (latest)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] [70] [71] [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Done by Antnee[73]

Comments: User has been redirecting CSK to Chennai Super Kings. This has been going on since February and well past a final warning, though the most recent redirect was on March 19. First attempt at filling this out, sorry if there are any mistakes. Also, user has been notified [74].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcowolf (talkcontribs) 01:19, 2010 April 20

  • Result - Editor warned. Each time A.arvind.arasu replaces CSK with a redirect, it obliterates the entry for a Japanese company with the same time. He has not reverted since 19 March. He's been warned that he can be blocked the next time this happens. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Shmayo reported by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ (Result: Both parties issued final warning)[edit]

Page: List of Syriac people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Names of Syriac Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Assyrianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Previous version reverted to (List of Syriac people): [75]

Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

Previous version reverted to (Names of Syriac Christians): [80]

Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

Previous version reverted to (Assyrianism): [85]

Diff of 3RR warning: [89]

Comments:
This user will not stop pushing a controversial merge proposal. The User:Assyria 90 who proposed this on the talk page a while ago and User:Shmayo are now under investigation. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The investigation is completed, and Deskana stated that the two editors are from separate countries. No sockpuppetry here. Tan | 39 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Tan, they're not from separate countries. They're both from Sweden. The third editor (who isn't mentioned in this edit warring report) is from a different country. --Deskana (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shmayo and ܥܝܪܐܩ, both of you can consider this your final warning. Both of you have edit warred. If, after I post this notice, either of you continue to edit war (by making reverts, or otherwise), then I may block you immidiately per our policy on edit warring. Use talk pages to discuss your changes. --Deskana (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Zlykinskyja (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: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Appeal section (link, because it's a long thread)

Comments: I realize that she only made three reverts, so she technically has not violated the 3-rr rule, but I think she has been edit warring nonetheless. Since the article is in mediation and the mediator invited all parties involved to follow the WP:BRD policy, the first editor edited the article, she reverted, but did not discuss it; her revert was then reverted and she wrote on the talk page, but did not apparently explain why she thought her version was better. Instead, she kept reverting to her version and making personal attacks or threats, as can be seen here, here, here and here.

She has explained her view on the article here Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio also recently made three reverts within 24 hours, but I did not file a complaint against him. Three reverts is not a violation of 3RR. I did not make a 4th revert.

I have engaged in no improper edit warring under the circumstances of this article. This newest complaint is just part of the filing of complaints and harassment against me that has been going on for weeks, in an attempt to get me banned or blocked so that both sides of the Kercher murder story cannot be included in the article. This Salvio and two other editors have been acting in concert in recent weeks to file numerous charges and complaints against me, and delete and revert my work, and have taken up a huge number of hours of my time with this endless harassment.

They are doing this today after I made clear to them that I could not participate much for several days since I am too tied up for the next several days. So they now file this latest harassment to take up more of my time. I have told them that their efforts to constantly revert or delete my work (they have deleted or reverted literally hundreds of my edits) to block or obstruct the defendant's side of the story from being included in the article, is resulting in the article being seriously defamatory against Amanda Knox. This whole article has been a lengthy edit war in which these three editors constantly delete my work to make Amanda Knox look as guilty as possible. I have told them that my next step is to report these efforts to defame Amanda Knox to the Wikipedia Foundation in the hopes that the Foundation will tell them to cease with these efforts to block and obstruct the defendant's side of the story from being included in the article.

What they are doing is engaging in all sorts of tactics, including deleting my work, provoking edit wars and filing numerous complaints against me, to remove information from the article which tends to show that Amanda Knox may be innocent, and to add information which tends to make her look guilty--even though she is still entitled to the presumption of innocence. By presenting her as someone guilty of sexually assaulting her female roommate and killing her by slicing her throat, the information they are including is defamatory if untrue. Since the truth of the charges against Knox is still unknown, BOTH sides of the story need to be included to avoid the article being defamatory. At some point her guilt or innocence will be finally determined, but we are months or years away from that.

In the meantime, they need to stop conspiring and acting in concert to constantly delete my work to block the defense side of the story from being included. The reverts I made were to restore MY own work, not to delete their work. The deletions they made of my work today involved deleting 20-30 of my edits, as part of an overall pattern of deleting hundreds of my edits. They also accuse me of being a lawyer for Amanda Knox or part of her support group. I am neither. I am an unconnected solo volunteer who does not believe that these people should be using Wikipedia to try to convict someone in the court of public opinion, before there has been a final judicial dtermination of guilt or innocence. Salvio and his cohorts need to stop constantly deleting the defendant's side of the story and provoking these problems. Thank you for listening. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • User warned to cease edit-warring on this article. Blocks and/or protection of article may follow. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And I hope that applies as a warning to everyone involved in deleting and reverting in a contentious manner in this article. If my work was not constantly deleted--literally hundreds of my edits--there would be no need for me to restore my work. I note that it is very rare for me to ever delete another editor's work, since I show respect to the work of other editors. What I do is add information to clarify, or slightly modify, but I do not totally throw away other hours of people's work. So hopefully, if others stop constantly deleting my work to allow only one side of the story, there will be no need for these lengthy controversies. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by --78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Result: Article semi)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [94]

  • 1st revert: [95]
  • 2nd revert: [96]
  • 3rd revert: [97] (editor was warned)[98])
  • 4th revert: [99] (latest)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] [101] [102] [103]

I've warned here [104] user DIREKTOR.

Comments: User DIREKTOR revert me because he claims (against evidences and sources) that the region "Venezia Giulia" shall be named in English, just with the slavic name "Julian Mark". Using this pretence, he has reverted several others supported edits of mine. DIREKTOR is a multibanned user (for edit war and disruption).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts are very reasonable. The repeated addition of the Italian name by this IP above all other foreign language names has no defendable logic and is bordering on vandalism. DIREKTOR has asked for the page to be protected and I agree this IP looks very socky because DIREKTOR has been dealing with exactly the same sort of issue with User:Ragusino Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
1) reverts are not reasonable. See talk page and added sources (BTW I've used a SLOVENIAN scholar). The name is not "italian": again, just read sources and talk page. I've answered even in the protection page. 2) Am I "ragusino"? Present your evidences, thank (if I remember well, there is a procedure to check the IP).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It does look impossible that the two accounts are socks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ragusino are with south america IP address and this ip is in europe. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if he's not a sock of Ragusino, he's certainly pushing the exact same POV, and the guy's certainly not new to Wikipedia (it might not be him, I admit, but Ragusino has been shown to use a variety of IPs). The IP is pushing for the unequal treatment of the Italian foreign language name (for a predominantly Slavic-speaking region) in accord with the centuries old territorial "claims" of Italian irredentists. I pointed out WP:EN and did my best to explain the issue, yet the IP continues to edit-war to keep his edits in. It seems suspiciously like another calculated attampt by Ragusino or a buddy of his to get me blocked. Have a loom at what graced my talkpage a while back: [105]
  • "Keep requesting blocks.....he will be back (like me and others)...meanwhile you have already collected 6 blocks and soon or later you and your MEATPUPPET Alasdairgreen will be banned forever......It is only a matter of time. CHI LA DURA LA VINCE forse lo diceva anche il tuo bisnonno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.133 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "
I will again recommend that the page be semi-protected to prevent the IP from edit-warring to push his edit. If this is not Ragusino or a buddy of his from itWiki then we'll surely be able to settle this through discussion more easily. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is neither the place to decide a "sock" or if I'm the mate of an unknown South American guy, nor the place for shilly historical forgeries (see the voice talk pages, for this!). The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sorces, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!).--78.13.165.121 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
For four reverts in three days? Especially as the last one was against the only edit of a very suspicious SPA account? I think not. No violation - article semi-protected. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The last agianst the SPA account, was not done by a different user. DIREKTOR did 4 reverts against me. He reverted back several referencied edits. BTW I've used a Slovenian scholar, so I didn't supported a suppesed "nationalistic" italian POV. In simply words, DIREKTOR is pushing a forgeries, in fact he has not presente sources. See talk page and read my edits, if you do not believe in me.--78.13.165.121 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please throw this bad faith IP nonsense out it is clear from the comments above that the IP is actively tring to get DIREKTOR blocked because of a disagreement. This is nonsense. The IP is almost certainly a sock of one of the many users DIREKTOR has had to deal with in this tricky area. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR keeps pushing forgeries, that is one of the main reasons behind his six bans, and always is helped by his many MEATPUPPETS (like user:Polargeo or user:AlasdairGreen27). And he often defends himself with the usual excuse that he is attacked by sockpuppets, but this fact has nothing to do with his wrongdoing here: he has done the reverts! He deserves to be punished. The fact is that DIREKTOR did 4 reverts ignoring inserteds sources, warnings and comments in talk page. For this reason he shall be blocked (for the 7th time, it seems!). Justice in wikipedia has nothing to do with sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it has to do with precise rules of wikipedia related to 3RR!L.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.91 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Raaggio reported by User:Turian (Result: See below report)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raaggio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's too blurred to pick one.

  • 1st revert: [106] (Also a very inappropriate use of rollback)
  • 2nd revert: [107]
  • 3rd revert: [108]
  • 4th revert: [109]
  • 5th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Shockingly, it is a talk page.

Comments:
This user has been nothing but disruptive; he himself has tried to use my words to validate is reverting. I do not have to be a member of the project in order to edit the page, despite what this user believes. –Turian (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not commenting directly on the underlying content issue, however - I just blocked Raaggio for another issue, so he cannot come here to comment himself. I have notified him of this report and suggested that anyone investigating this see any comments he leaves regarding it. See User_talk:Raaggio#Side_note_-_WP:AN3 Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Turian reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Sigh)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [112] - archived an open discussion to cut off debate (with archive box)
  • 2nd revert: [113] - archived the discussion again (with archive box)
  • 3rd revert: [114] - removed the discussion to the talk page archive
  • 4th revert: [115] - removed the discussion to the archive again


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

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

Comments:
This came up recently at ANI, where Turian was given an option to speak to the subject but chose not to. The last that was said before he ended the discussion was that the discussion would be automatically archived once people had stopped commenting for 7 days. Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, all I ask is that the discussion is allowed to run its course in exactly the same manner as any other discussion on the project talk page. Everything is automatically archived, and removing it only serves to stifle possible discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Pathetic. No-one comes out of this smelling good. Turian has broken 3RR, but though it's no excuse that's partly because Raaggio and GaryColemanFan are tag-teaming him and then running to this page, Raaggio's "oh, you obviously didn't mean to come back here" edit summaries and reverts in this little episode are frankly a disgrace (I came very close to pressing the block button for that piece of disruptiveness before realising he was already blocked) and since there's absolutely no point protecting a talk page, I'll just link everyone to this. Stop it and go and do something useful, all three of you; I'm pretty sure that next time blocking will be the only way of demonstrating how pointless this is. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Black Kite. This is lame to the point of outright stupidity. I suggest that if this foolishness resumes both parties should be blocked 24 hours to give everyone else a day off. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I do believe I was the one restoring the consensus version of a page; if you wish to block me for that... –Turian (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan reported by User:Turian (Result: See above)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Too blurred

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: An entire ANI telling him to stop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's a talk page!

Comments:
This is more of a prolonged edit warring report than a 3RR report. Please see the above link that contains many users stating the same behavior performed elsewhere. Even after being told to stop, he has constantly continued to open and open and open and open a discussion which had reached consensus a long time ago. –Turian (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the diffs span 7 days, and that leaving the discussion as-is (to be archived automatically) was the outcome of the ANI thread. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As JzG stated: "My technique would be not to engage in the long-term stonewalling tactics habitually used by GCF." This is a frequent behavior portrayed by GCF, and it is intolerable. –Turian (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
JzG can hardly be considered uninvolved ([124]). Ultimately, the discussions get archived automatically on the talk page, and forcing them to be archived sooner does nothing but cut off discussion. When Turian initially archived the discussion, I had commented only minutes earlier. My edits (keeping a discussion open until the page automatically archives it, as every other Wikiproject does) have been in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL, both of which state that discussion is a good thing. I'm finished with this issue, at any rate, since it's not worth the hassle. I do think, however, that it should be noted which editor is the common factor in the three most recent 3rr reports. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, only being reported by you. Not only were many discussions closed on the page, which you conveniently left alone. Also, Raaggio also manually archived closed discussions. The one you have only cared about is one that went against your opinion. Hoooooow ironic. –Turian (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't just commented in the other discussions, so they didn't concern me to the same extent. Certainly, I oppose any attempt to stifle a talk page discussion. Unless the discussion itself has turned uncivil, there is never a good reason to deny people the chance to finish a discussion. My major concern is that it was incredibly uncivil of Turian to archive the debate immediately after my post. What I have asked for (and was granted, per the outcome of the ANI discussion) was simply that the discussion be closed in a neutral manner, by allowing it to be archived automatically. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy to oppose this. In fact, as mentioned above, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTPOLL both strongly support the right of editors to comment during consensus-building discussions. This issue was apparently gone, as the thread sat for two days. Turian took it upon himself today to throw gasoline on the embers, however. Please also note the adminshopping: [125], [126]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And how is that admin shopping? They have relevance to the matter at hand. GedUK is the admin that closed it and reverted your actions (which you whined about and reverted yet again), so his involvement in the matter is important. Also, JzG had made the comment I quoted, so I informed him to give him a equal field to state his opinions. Consensus was reached, you bitched about not getting your way (despite so many people telling you otherwise), and you have decided to not let it go. You say that it would be archived automatically if no one comments on it, yet you are always commenting on the archiving fact, not the actual matter of the discussion. The article was moved a long time ago (signaling a consensus), but you have acted childishly and have not let it go. If you really gave a flying fuck about the issue of the renaming, you would have just opened another discussion about it (as was suggested to you to possibly do). You tactics of a revert every few days or so is just what JzG stated, a stonewalling tactic. It is disruptive, and I advise you to get the hell over it. –Turian (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deilami Language (Result: Incomplete report)[edit]

Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:125.22.58.2 reported by User:Aiken drum (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: St Anne's High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 125.22.58.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [127]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

Editor has already been blocked for repeatedly inserting this unreferenced list of non-notable alumni, and labelling its removal as vandalism. Aiken 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NoNewsToday reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Reed–Solomon error correction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NoNewsToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Reed–Solomon error correction#Oli Filth

Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned. User seems inexperienced, and the 3RR warning barely preceded his last revert. If he continues, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

76.171.170.254 (talk) and others reported by JohnMorra (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]


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

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


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

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

Comments:
Maybe somebody has a look on that page, there is edit war going on with reverting and re-inserting of promotional links

  • Result - Semiprotected. This has been going on for a while. Spam is coming in from a variety of different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Idahoprov reported by User:Ism schism (Result:Warned/Article protected by User:Tcncv)[edit]

Page: Rashad Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Idahoprov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log</