Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive131

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:NickOrnstein reported by User:SiameseTurtle (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: NickOrnstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

Comments:
The constant reverting has been based around a decision whether to have the option to sort the table or not. If the table is not able to be sorted, it can only be ranked by date of death. If the table is sortable then the user has the option of sorting by other parameters, such as age. I have tried to resolve the issue and have even tried to get a third opinion on the issue at WP:3O. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment – Investigating... —Eustress talk 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Protected two weeks. If consensus is reached on Talk, ask at WP:RFPP for protection to be lifted. Eustress may be on the right track, but the others will have to agree. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz (Result: No action)[edit]

Is edit-warring in the Naval Station Rota, Spain article to reintroduce a superfluous picture with a spelling error in its caption. Diffs here: [9], [10], [11] & [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.32 (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - No action. This report is not in proper form, and the IP seems to have been created only to participate in this war. Socks should not file complaints at noticeboards. User:Justin A Kuntz is on the edge of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:174.46.113.209 reported by Uncle Dick (Result: Semi)[edit]

Ralph Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 174.46.113.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:02, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Political career */ How long until someone tries to censor this? An encyclopedia that omits critical facts is worse than worthless.")
  2. 17:16, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "Stating a fact regarding a politician changing a legal bill is NOT vandalism. Removing this fact to hide it from the public IS vandalism and censorship.")
  3. 17:27, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "The change is a hard-core fact and is properly referenced. Reverting the change w/o explaination is clear vandalism, no matter how many cronies do it.")
  4. 18:02, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "Oh I see, you are saying I didn't have ENOUGH reference. OK, here's 10 more. I can add another 100 if you'd like. There: 11 references for one sentence.")
  5. 18:10, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "Making link bot happy")
  6. 18:31, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "Facts, by definition, are NPOV. The position in article is based on current article format (by date). I noticed you removed instead of moved. This is bad faith censorship. Stop working for your boss.")
  7. 18:47, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism by Uncle Bill. I notice they stopped trying to give disingenuous reasons.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Uncle Dick (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. If the IP will patiently make the case on talk, and get consensus there, the semi can be lifted. So far the IP is up to nine reverts on 17 May. User:Uncle Dick should be more careful about 3RR since it is arguable whether these changes are actually vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alefbe reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Islamic conquest of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Alefbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

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

Comments:
Editor alefbe showed up immediatly after editor (user:tajik) got blocked and began making wild reverts on several pages all in favor of tajik [15] [16] [17] [18] which includes removing sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Library of Congress Country Studies, ABC News and others, from articles. I also have reasons to believe that alefbe and tajik may be one person Gaming the WP:ISP. Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Only 3 reverts, no violation. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So 3 reverts back to back is not a violation? He removes sources and says this: "Alefbe... Difference between 40 and 42 is not important. The important thing is to be loyal to cited sources (such as Iranica)" He's saying the difference between 40 million and 42 million is not importan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't read what it says at the top of this page? "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". So no, 3 reverts is not automatically a violation. The rest is a content dispute. I haven't read the diff but I will say that we do need to both use and use correctly cited sources. And reporting him at AIV for violating 3RR after I said no violation is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User: 89.129.38.32 reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Naval Station Rota, Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.129.38.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: File:US Navy 100224-N-7915T-042 U.S. Ambassador to Spain and Andorra Alan D. Solomont talks with Sailors assigned to the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Albany (SSN 753) at Naval Station Rota, Spain.jpg is repeatedly removed, edit warring about image sizes and position


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23],[24],[25] and edited after warning [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:


I suspect this may well be an IP sock puppet of another user who has followed me from a dispute in another area. I've seen IP edit warring from the same range on Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - See previous report of the same dispute. I suggest that Justin remove the 'retired' template from his talk page if he is planning to still participate in edit wars and file complaints here. I take note of Justin's tendency to remove anything posted by others from his talk page. This does not suggest much willingness to negotiate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reported by User:Momma's Little Helper (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [28]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35][36]

Comments:

Chris is claiming a BLP exception, but numerous editors have disputed there is a BLP issue here, and WP:3RR says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

I notified ChrisO on his talk page about his 3RR violation and asked him to self-revert. He refused, therefore it seems action is necessary. Breein1007 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is actively at BLPN ( [37] ) and Arbitration Enforcement for violations related to the Israeli/Palestinian case ( [38] ). AN3 is not the appropriate venue here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize that's how it works. So if someone reports another user at AE and opens a discussion at BLP, it gives them immunity from the brightline WP:3RR rule. Good to know for the future! Thanks as always George. Breein1007 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not immunity. If uninvolved administrators review and find that the BLP claim is being made in bad faith and is not supported by a reasonable argument, its protection is waived. However, the BLP and Arbitration Enforcement issues trump normal AN3 issues, yes.
Without concluding in a final or overriding sense that he's right, I think Chris' comments in various places about this establish a credible basis for a BLP issue.
If the AE consensus is that ChrisO is way off base here he's still liable for his actions. I suggest you pursue it there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The version that I'm being asked to revert to contains major BLP violations - self-published material and defamatory content. Obviously I'm not going to revert to something that would put me on the wrong side of WP:BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) HJ Mitchell did exactly what I was about to do. I was literally in the middle of typing the protection reason when I went back to the article to confirm this article was about what I thought it was. And bam, there was already a protection template. Basically, I think there's reason to believe the BLP claim is valid, considering the nature of the content that he is reverting (and others are attempting to add). Protection is the wise action here, although I know the editors surrounding the issue here have been involved in other Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be a 3-way tie to the protect button then; I was on the way there as well... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well I came here to sort this mess out, so I'm glad to see you;re on to of it! I've protected it for a week to deal with the immediate issue and I may well take further action in the morning, but I'll defer to you if you want to handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Chhe (Result: Two parties warned)]][edit]

Page: Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]


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

The warning is given by the user Rrius in his edit summary. Considering though this user's long block history for edit warring and his/her promises to stop I think Off2riorob should know better.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
I've been watching this edit war from afar, initially not wanting to get involved, but I felt compelled to do so after having witnessed some of the discussion in the talk page and Off2riorob's subsequent reverts despite this. The user Rrius appears to be cordial as given by this [46] edit in the talk page and seems to want to avoid a edit war as given by the edit summary in this [47] edit. Off2riorob on the other hand seems to be actively hostile as given by [48]. I'm personally of the opinion that its edit warring when you engage in a bunch of reverts with another editor and then write in the talk page, but avoid an actual civil discussion. This seems to be reflected in Rrius frustration when he/she posted [49].Off2riorob's reverts coupled with his behavior on the talk page in my opinion constitutes edit warring. I think this user should be either blocked or barred from articles with political themes as this seems to be Off2riorob's main focus when he/she edit wars.Chhe (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I think Rob was upset and that action here is unwarranted. A block at this point would be punishment (which I understand is not the point of a block) and, in any event, stale. Rob is an important contributor to political articles so a partial ban would be inappropriate and unfortunate. -Rrius (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The last diff is not a revert at all, it was simply a move of text [50] I also initiated discussion on the talkpage. The editor I was involved with here User:Rruis has commented that any action is not appropriate and in the end my position was accepted that the content was weakly cited and was removed from the article by User:Rrius. After this diff, which is the alleged warning(in an edit summary) I did not revert any content again. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why would you move text as in this [51]? Where in the talk page did you both agree to do this I can't find the diff? And where in the talk page do you both now agree? I've been looking through it and you both seem to still disagree. Could you post diffs.Chhe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with moving text to a better location? Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Result -- Off2riorob and Rrius are both on thin ice. I recommend that they not continue to revert on this article unless they get talk consensus *first*. Blocks without further warning are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's sort of an odd "result" when the warnings were issued by the editors to one another during the "war" and all reverting ceased more than 22 hours before this was filed and more than 28 hours before this "result" was posted. The "thin ice" commentary is especially rich in light of that. As discussion began long before either of you entered the picture and has continued since then, it is hard to square this assessment with reality. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Admin comments noted and respected.Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I suppose I just take the admonition at the top of this page to "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors" (emphasis in original) to preclude listing violations that happened a day earlier and to preclude listing edit wars that ceased a day earlier. And the threat of blocks without warning after a total of five six* reverts and one other relevant edit (I exclude the one where Rob moved the text; that was a perfectly valid edit) seems a tad excessive, as does the "on thin ice bit". I should think that people who had been discussing the issue without reverting each other for a day before this was even posted deserved a little better. Different strokes, I suppose. I simply disagree with Chhe for filing this against Rob in the first place, and EdJohnston for closing (if that's even the right word for it) with such excessive language and warnings. -Rrius (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • *My third was not to the same version as the first two, but to a compromise version (that other relevant edit I mentioned) that was explicitly an attempt to de-escalate. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It is just something to learn from. The thing is not to allow such reports from the peanut gallery to be made in the first place. We can both remove them completely from the issue by just taking a little more care, in such circumstances reports are filed when the line has not been stepped over. I have historic with the bringer of this report from a dispute over six moths ago on the lede of the Karl Rove article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Gauge00 reported by User:RDBury (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Householder's method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Gauge00 (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Householder's method#About a new derivation of mine

Comments:

This editor is apparently not fluent in English. However edit comments and comments left on the article's talk page have been rude and sarcastic. It seems that despite a consensus from several more experienced editors that the material added is not appropriate, this editor is insisting on restoring the material despite the prevailing opinion.

  • Result - Warned. User is very new, and was not warned about 3RR. He can't keep this up much longer; his attitude is quite unpromising. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am gauge00, as you can see in Talk:Householder's method#About a new derivation of mine, I reverted 4th time, however the users that deleted my page completely were Gandalf61, RDBury, R.e.d. savonneux. Of these people, Gandalf61, RDBury, and savonneux are the supporter's of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Methods_of_computing_cubic_roots. They seem they got some bad feeling abou me, and they seam they intentionally followed me, and intentionally deleted my article. I dont think this phenomenon is not just conincidental. How can I solve this problem. As you can noticed, I felt that these three guyes are following me like stokers. (Gauge00 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)) Revertion reporter was RDBury, and he is also the nominator of the AfD of the Methods_of_computing_cubic_roots.
He continued to revert the article after a 3RR warning and further discussion, so Gauge00 is blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:İlknur sevtapli reported by User:Taivo (Result: Indef)[edit]

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

Previous (consensus) version reverted to: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] as well as in edit summaries

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

Editor in question has refused to accept a consensus version that was arrived at and agreed to by non-aligned editors. Editor in question has a very clear pro-Northern Cyprus POV and is pushing that POV in the article. Two different non-aligned editors have reverted his edits and urged him to discuss on the Talk Page. He made three of his reverts before even going to the Talk Page and the Talk Page discussion was initiated by myself and not the editor in question. Richwales and myself have urged him to seek further comment if he thinks that our NPOV position is inaccurate. He has so far simply continued to add his non-consensus wording. It is clear from his edit history that this editor is a SPA focused on pushing a Northern Cyprus POV. --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit by an "anon IP" was then signed by the reported editor. The anon IP address has been linked to this banned user who has abused multiple accounts in the past. That banned user was also apparently a WP:SPA focused on a pro-Northern Cyprus POV. (Taivo (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
Editor in question has now reverted a third different editor. (Taivo (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC))
And the editor in question replied (on the Northern Cyprus talk page) with ad hominem attacks, rather than make any effort to counter the sock allegation. Richwales (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I advised the editor (on his/her talk page) regarding the sockpuppet allegation and urged him/her to respond here if he/she is not in fact a sock. Richwales (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help :) --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ybelov reported by User:Ellol (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [65]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

The user created the page about the political event, and attempts to downplay the coverage of a counter-event and the criticism of the event. ellol (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Caveat - the warning was issued post factum. I don't know if the user was aware of the existence of 3RR, he hadn't been particularly active until very recently. Meanwhile, page protection might be in order. Colchicum (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, however, that can be easily seen from my diffs. And how is that going -- lack of knowledge does not free you from the responsibility, right? ellol (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Warned Ybelov not to include well-known people in the list of petition signers unless this fact is reported by a reliable source. Doing otherwise violates WP:BLP. An online petition, where the identity of participants can't be checked, is clearly open to fake submissions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that other editors criticism is repeatedly removed from the article. In most of civilized countries if you publish signatures online on official list of anti-government compain it should be verifiable and valid. Only thing that this website collects is full name and email. Anybody can open a free email and sign with a fake name. He disrespect both Russian and American laws of the collecting signatures during political compaign [1][2][3][4][5]. This can eventualy create legal issues for Wikipedia also, that why we should be really careful about this article. Innab (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal reported by User:205.250.65.13 (Result: stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 21:30, 9 May (more or less; details below)


Comments:

The offender edit-wars habitually, and has a very extensive block-log for that under his last user-name, G2bambino, and earlier user-names (their records no longer readily accessible, but "Gbambino", among others).

Aggravating factors are his snippy and accusatory edit-summaries, and talk-page behaviour, also habitual and seen again in this case.

This latest edit-warring and 3rr violation is just one more instance of the broad, deep and long-standing problems with the offender, some appreciation of which be gained from (besides his record of blocks) this RfC on him.

-- 205.250.65.13 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Tim Song (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zupfk reported by User: DerGelbeMann (Result: prot 1w)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [72]

The editor delets without any explanation data from the table referring to Name Chronology. At the first 3 reverts he deleted the info added by me and at the 4th revert the whole table (DerGelbeMann (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

I think that it is vandalism too.


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:


Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected You are both edit warring in excess of three reverts in any 24 hour period, and I can find very little attempt to work this out through discussion. Both of you, please provide sources at Talk:FC Timişoara and explain why your preferred version is better. Also, please consider using informative edit summaries. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaellee reported by 97.116.18.242 (talk) (Result: no vio)[edit]

Franck Ribéry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaellee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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


  1. 17:59, 17 May 2010 (edit summary: "article doesn't support category")
  2. 16:20, 18 May 2010 (edit summary: "article doesn't support categories")
  3. 18:10, 18 May 2010 (edit summary: "please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion")
  4. 22:02, 18 May 2010 (edit summary: ""Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic." This is clearly here not the case")

97.116.18.242 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose action despite the 3RR violation. There has been no attempt to resolve this on the talk page and User:Jaellee was not given a warning regarding his conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion has been taking place at WT:WPF#Categories based on religion for football players?. I have warned Jaellee User talk:97.116.18.242. Sorry for not linking those during the original report. 97.116.18.242 (talk) 00:20, 19 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There has been continued edit warring on the article with multiple people reverting. Could something be done about this? 97.116.18.242 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Tim Song has protected the article for three days. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:142.162.75.195 reported by User:DVdm (Result: resolved at talk)[edit]

Page: The Apprentice (U.S. season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 142.162.75.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [79]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none by myself on talk page. Edit summaries of myself and others.

Comments:

Forgot to mention: 3 cases of problematic editing (vandalism) today: [85], [86] [87]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment This seems to have resolved itself at articletalk. Please bring it back if anything else arises. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Burbanksalinger reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [88]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Comments: User was also warned for making the same edits to the article a week ago, all warnings received and blanked on his page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit warring on a BLP like this is not acceptable. Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Flipperwill reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h )[edit]

George Soros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flipperwill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 09:21, 19 May 2010
  2. 13:48, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 14:56, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 00:37, 20 May 2010 (edit summary: "")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:
User refuses to understand you can't use primary sources in a WP:BLP and insists on calling removal of text "vandalism". --NeilN talk to me 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the editor got the proper sequence of prior escalating warnings, but they're on notice, and I just added a note to the talk page that if they want to continue editing they need to acknowledge they won't do it again. They've defiantly rejected attempts to advise them on policy so I think any further discussion should be under the umbrella of a block until and unless they promise to stop, to avoid disruption to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe they did. I added a standard 3RR template at 9:56, they reverted at 10:56, I added an additional warning at 11:06 and they reverted again just now. --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: stale )[edit]

Page: Japanese Sea Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [97]

Comments:

Please note that "2nd revert" above is my first "edit". And above "1st revert" is an anti-vandalism revert of unexplained removal of {{cn}} and other text.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Progress of edits.

  1. Melon: blanking of sourced contents, {{cn}} and other text. [105]
  2. Phoenix: revert. [106]
  3. Melon: revert. [107]
  4. Phoenix: revert. [108]
  1. Melon: blanking of {{cn}} and other text. [109]
  2. Phoenix: revert. [110]
  3. Melon: revert. [111]
  4. Phoenix: revert. [112]
  1. Phoenix: added news sources. [113] Related discussion: Talk:Japanese Sea Lion#Phoenix's reverts.
  2. Melon: revert. [114]
  3. Phoenix: revert. [115]
  4. Melon: revert. [116]
  5. Phoenix: revert: [117]
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 was warned of "atrocious conduct" by administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.

 ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the current account of Melonbarmonster2, the user's former account has numerous block histories.

 ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale; no warring in the past 24 hours. Both breached 3RR, but it's stale enough that I'm not blocking. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You probably didn't notice that my 4th revert was self-reverted.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:MarkusSchulze reported by Homunq (talk) (Result: prot 1w)[edit]

Voting system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:51, 15 May 2010 (edit summary: "") and 08:46, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 09:54, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "Removed weasel words: "Some theorists dispute whether this property is desirable."")
  3. 10:53, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "Removed weasel words: "Michael Dummett and others dispute whether this property is desirable." For every criterion, there are people who don't consider this criterion desirable.")

Not a 3RR violation, but shows disposition to continue the same edit war:

  1. 09:27, 18 May 2010 (edit summary: "removed original research")
  • Diff of warning: here. Also, the talk page of the article and his talk page show my numerous attempts to resolve the issue through discussion.

Note: this editor is absolutely a positive contributor to the page, on balance. For instance, even in the middle of edit warring on this issue, he made two changes ( 21:42, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "") and 22:11, 16 May 2010 (edit summary: "")) which I consider positive contributions. However, it seems that he has taken WP:OWNership of the article (for instance), which is especially a concern, as, based on his user name, he would appear to be Markus Schulze, the inventor of Schulze voting, one of the systems discussed by the page.

Thus, I emphatically do NOT want him banned from the article. I wish this could be resolved through discussion. But he continues edit-warring on this issue, without even once entering into the discussion on the talk page; his one comment there refers to a simultaneous issue on which he's also edit warring, but where he hasn't broken 3RR. I'd prefer it if any sanctions could be the minimum necessary to bring him to participate on the talk page and cease edit-warring on the issue.

As to his last edit summary ("removed original research"), it's not really the issue here, but I will respond to the specific allegation on the article talk. I've revised it with a compromise edit on the unrelated issue, but on the 3RR issue, I've left it intact, to avoid edit warring myself. I'd appreciate any guidance as to how to respond on this issue. I do know Markus Schulze and a number of other editors active on the article in question from an Election Methods mailing list, which includes a broad variety of viewpoints, and if I posted an alert there it would certainly bring plenty of helpful attention to the article (including people who would agree with Schulze, those who'd agree with me, and many who'd agree with neither). I have so far refrained from doing so to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASsing. (And also because it might lead to somebody breaking the google-anonymity of my username, but that alone would be an acceptable risk to me.)

Homunq (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He continues the behavior: [120] and [121]. There are two issues he's edit warring on: the colors of the LNH column in the table on voting systems, where he broke 3RR; and the criteria compliance of Bucklin voting, which these two latest edits address. My response to the latest edits is here. I will not revert these edits, but, since they replace a neutral statement of the absence of sources with his own original research, I would ask an administrator to revert them for me. By my count, on the two issues combined, he's now gone to the same version 10 separate times (that is, 8 flat-out reversions. The 10 are: the four above, the two here, two previous ones on Bucklin voting, and double-counting two which touched both issues), while I have consistently sought compromise versions, restoring a previous version only twice (once because he had made no edit comment to allow a basis for compromise, and once because he'd broken 3RR). Homunq (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I just realized that 3 reverts is not a violation of 3RR, but since one of the reverts came in two parts, he still technically violated it. Also, as noted just above, it is part of a pattern of 10 reversions over a few days. Homunq (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Homunq, your claim, that it was unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is obviously false. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem. Your edits are a clear violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:NONSENSE. Markus Schulze 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I already responded to that: you are wrong on 4 separate counts. Anyway, this is the administrators noticeboard for edit warring. Even if I were in violation of all the policies you mention (which I'm not), that would be irrelevant here. I will resist the temptation to list all the irrelevant policies which you're violating. To do so would be to go against the first warning on this page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page". Right here, the only relevant ones are WP:3RR and WP:WAR. Please read my response to the above.
Even now, I still don't want to get you banned from the article - but you're really pushing it, and I believe I could make a strong case. Stop. Edit. Warring. And. Use. Talk. Homunq (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Struck out the above on further thought.
(Also posted to User talk:MarkusSchulze): Markus, here's a peace offering: can we post a notice of this dispute on the EM list? There are a lot of smart people there, and some of them would certainly be sympathetic to your view of Arrow's Theorem. An informed third party would help us return to productive debate and end the edit warring. If you agree, I'd be happy to let you make the posting, and make it as biased as you like (though of course I'd prefer a neutral statement of the two issues: Bucklin criteria compliance and whether the LNH criterion is uniquely contentious or simply as contentious as other criteria). I would even promise not to respond to your posting, except to identify myself if you desired, no matter how biased I felt your presentation was. Note: If I do reveal my real name over there, which I suspect you could guess anyway, I'd ask you to promise not to post my real name here or my wiki username on the list. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I gather "Homunq" has taken his dispute with Markus to a higher level. I posted this at at Voting System talk page and so will post it here as well: "Homunq: I know you hang out in the Internet with people who think FairVote is some evil, manipulative force and that only FairVote might suggest that later-no-harm is a concern, but once you get out more in the real world of working for reform on the ground, all the lovely mathematical theory about finding the compromise candidate, etc, melts away. Imagine approval voting in the Hawaii congressional race right now, for example, with two Democrats who don't like each other splitting the vote, and likely to help elect a Republican who only can earn a plurality. With IRV, it's simple for Democratic voters - you rank your favorite first and probably hold your nose and rank the other Democrat second. With approval, however, backers of those Democrats would be torn -- do I vote for both Democrats, potentially causing the defeat of my favorite choice, or do I bullet vote for just my favorite and in turn risk electing my greater evil, the Republican? You also would see lots of insider whisper campaigns among proponents of one candidate or anotehr to say "don't tell anyone, but yes, just bullet vote for our candidate". This kind of stuff would play out all the time with systems that violate later-no-harm (especially in such a direct way as approval --less so with Condorcet systems, which have their own political baggage of potentially allowing a no-name candidate to defeat better-known rivals simply by being so wishy-washy/unknown that no one ranks that candidate last).
Okay, that's just introductory verbiage, but perhaps worth considering as you critique FairVote for its advocacy of the one single winner (in a single election) system that avoids the later-no-harm problem. Turning to the Smallwood case, I think you're wrong,and citing the Landskroener/Solgard article (which is linked from the later-no-harm Wikipedia article, so not too hard to find -- see http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm) addressing Smallwood would be appropriate grounding for suggesting later-no-harm is legitimate. I assume there's some also theoretical writing that addresses it too, but if there isn't, it to me just shows the real limits of such theoretical writing-- great on the math board, lousy in real political life where the science of human psychology matters too.
Here's a direct quote from the Smallwood opinion, as cited in the Landskroeer article: "The preferential system [Bucklin voting] directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice. If he votes for him once, his power to help him is exhausted. If he votes for other candidates he may harm his choice, but cannot help him." Pretty clear to me, and explains in a nutshell why so many voters didn't rank anyone second in Bucklin elections where I've seen results.
I know this is a bit testy and you're following proper procedure, but it can be exasperating to argue with people (not you, but others you know well) who are so certain they are right, but NEVER seem to engage with the real reform work of trying to convince policymakers of the value of reform, and instead just plunge into reform opportunities at the last moment to oppose IRV. Certainly if you and others did so, you would realize that later-no-harm is a substantive criterion. RRichie (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Please contact me if you would like assisstance setting up a request for comment or with any other steps of dispute resolution. I have protected the page for one week, which I hope will suffice to work this out. Please use {{editprotected}} or request unprotection at my talkpage or at WP:RFPP if matters are settled before then. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a deeply unsatisfying result to me. I am trying to follow the rules, trying to avoid edit warring, and it gets treated as if it were a symmetrical situation. I'm not going to whine about WP:WRONGVERSION, but I feel that protection is to the detriment of the page. And the whole reason I reported the 3RR violation, as well as bringing the dispute to third opinion and informal mediation, is that I feel that, unless somebody besides me tells him to stop, MarkusSchulze will continue to WP:OWN the page. I don't want him blocked, but I do want him to understand that he must stop such behavior. For instance, I think that a warning about a possible future block would work. Homunq (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit war has resumed on Bucklin voting. Apparently, User:MarkusSchulze's appetite for edit warring continues unabated. Twice in 20 minutes, he restored a disputed section with the edit comment "removed original research" (emphasis mine). We need some kind of mediation; the article protection was no solution at all. Homunq (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Homunq, it is well known that Bucklin voting violates independence of irrelevant alternatives. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem. Please stop vandalising. Markus Schulze 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

MCA is a form of Bucklin voting. Please stop making identical edits and repeatedly showing your misunderstanding of Arrow's Theorem and discuss this. I am not vandalizing; even if everything else I've said is wrong, my [citation needed] tags are still perfectly valid, as the material is unreferenced. Note that even now I'm refraining from making a WP:POINT by adding such tags to other nearby information which I don't dispute. Homunq (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated violation by User:MarkusSchulze reported by Homunq (talk) (Result: Both parties warned)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bucklin voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:07, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 363097321 by Homunq (talk); removed original research")
  2. 23:21, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 363098993 by Homunq (talk); removed original research")
  3. 23:35, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "Dear Homunq, your claim, that it is unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is ridiculous. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem.")
  4. 23:43, 19 May 2010 (edit summary: "Dear Homunq, your claim, that it is unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is ridiculous. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem.")

He just violated 3RR again. I came pretty close myself, but one of my edits was an honest attempt at compromise, and NOT a reversion to any prior content of the page (I added two [citation needed] tags, to allow the disputed material to stand but note the lack of references, and I was honestly surprised and disappointed when he reverted even that). I'll accept any discipline I get but at this point I am finally asking for him to be banned from these two pages (Voting system and Bucklin voting). That's a pity and I may change my mind when I cool off but I certainly don't see him learning any restraint so far. Homunq (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've warned both parties, and suggested a few things to try, on their respective talk pages. If reverting continues, blocks are possible, but in a two-person revert war, both parties are likely to be sanctioned. So they should cool it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
mmmmphpbbltpx! I'm not going to continue the edit war, but rules have certainly been broken already. I believe that one or more blocks are already in order. I understand that that may mean that I am included.
There is no clearer violation of 3RR than the above: 4 identical edits in under an hour. My own case (the other half of the above story) is, I believe, not a violation, but that's for you to judge. I am not proud of edits 2 and 4 of my half; I stand fully behind edits 1 and 3. Anyway, I think that the split-the-baby decision in protecting Voting systems without any warning to either of us helped lead to the second violation(s?) above, and I don't think another split-the-baby decision is helpful now. It's time to be firmer. Homunq (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (By "split-the-baby" I mean to maintain an appearance of evenhandedness by treating both parties symmetrically even though the situation is not symmetric.)
The comment immediately above refers to the short-term situation of editing behaviour, which I believe merits being addressed on its own. As to the content disputes: one of the two content disputes is already effectively resolved (I ceded due to a source cited by RRichie). In order to help resolve the other one, I've asked on my talk page for permission to alert (via user talk and an unbiased email heads-up) what in my opinion is a fair selection of editors who I believe would help attain consensus? I'd of course welcome MarkusSchulze to do the same (and even suspect that he already has emailed RRichie, with which I'm fine). Homunq (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I am an optimist (perhaps incurable) about the potential for consensus on content. However, I still consider the most recent 3rr violation(s?) to be unresolved. I do not think it is healthy if my continued willingness to seek consensus results in impunity for rules breakers (including me, if I am judged to be one). Homunq (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Both parties warned. If either one continues to revert on the subject of voting systems, without getting consensus for their changes, they may be blocked. Homunq should get busy trying to organize the discussion that I proposed on his talk page. MarkusSchulze is advised to participate in that discussion and to follow consensus. This report is now closed. EdJohnston (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: malformed report)[edit]

Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs)


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:

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Tim Song (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:Binksternet (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [122]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments:

The issue revolves around whether the notion by Kantarō Suzuki that the Soviets would be amenable to an alliance with Japan in mid-1945 (when the Soviets were preparing to attack) was an unrealistic or fantastic one. Sources support this view, saying it was hallucinatory or foolish; none deny it directly or say it was a solid, realistic idea. Pdfpdf is using edit warring to remake the article for reasons unknown to me. Note that the article is already FA class and has been vetted multiple times by subject-matter experts. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Protected by The ed17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein Edit war reported by User:Hammy64000 (Result: 24H petard)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted from: [125]


Diff of edit warring / Edit war warning: [129]

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

Comments:


Hammy64000 has added a great deal of content to this article in a relatively short period of time. Much of it reads like a personal essay, and violates NPOV and NOR by introducing the author'sown argument into the article. Much of it is not directly about the topic, and instead develops an argument about Darwin and sociobiology that is tenuously - if at all - related to patriarchy, and is clearly in violation of NOR. I tried to raise this issue several times with him, but my remarks were dismissed. I recently deleted only that material that was written in essay style, and not directly related to "patriarchy." I explained why in the edit summary and on the talk page. Hammy has placed a warning on my talk page, for making deletions without explanation. he also accuses me of deleting material that was added "by consensus," when he is the ony one who added the material, with no discussion on the talk page. I do not think Wikipedia articles ought to be the place to post personal essays. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please note that he identifies my first edit as a "reversion." That is not true. i di dnot use the revert or undo function. I deleted only that material I considered in violation of policy, as I explained on the talk page. Hammy apparently does not know what SYNTH is, or ESSAY, or NOR, which is a shame because he violates these policies and guidelines casually. He also apparently does not know what we mean by "consensus" or "revert" although he uses these words liberally. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
Slrubenstein illustrates the problem with his approach. I did not add anything new. Alistair added POV and NPOV material.[131] [132] I let it stay until the arbitration was over and then deleted it. Then Manus put it back--twice. Then he actually looked at it and deleted the table and the "sources" for the table. [133][134]He acknowleged on the edit history and on the discussion page that Alistair violated Wikipedia policy with this material. The remaining stuff was unsourced and POV, but I tried to discuss it until Slrubenstein jumped in there with both feet. He apparently thinks the new stuff was from me. After he scolded me I re-wrote Alistair's material, deleted things after asking for discussion, and put it in the Biology section as Slrubenstein suggested on the discussion page. After that was done he was still so peevish and rude I still have no idea what it was all about. He is complaining about Darwin but I can't think why. Everything was sourced. Then he swooped in and blanked large parts of the biology and anthropology sections, which he never discussed.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the article was stable for a long time before Alistair's addition. The only reason the Anthropology section was added is because Alistair appeared during a previous ban to add this questionable material and I was trying to ward off more of the same. It didn't work. But I got this message on my talk page from someone who remembered the mess this article was in before I worked on it.

Wow. Thanks for cleaning up the patriarchy article. I had tried to implement revisions back when Alastair was dominating it, but I gave up. Nice to see it so... balaced. Maybe my faith in Wikipedia has been restored. Neuromusic (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Hammy64000 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also I checked and read more books since the arbitration and I think he has deleted some of the new information from these books. They are not irrelevant. The anthropology text info is the result of Manus' comments to me and neither of them have even spent the time necessary to understand what is really going on with the article. I think the textbook info may have been deleted too. I've spent time I don't even want to think about, trying to get this right. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Advice left for both editors, Hammy64000 blocked for 24 hours for editwarring WP:SYNTH and a little WP:OWN. Please be more careful to seek consensus and remember there is no deadline. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou reported by User:jheiv (Result: warned, protected)[edit]

Page: Kappa Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·