Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Al-qamar (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364537591]

  • 1st revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364578238]
  • 2nd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627134]
  • 3rd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627673]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

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

Comments:
The point for Bloodofox´s reverts is, that he claims, my claim is to dismiss Stephan Grundy as a neopagan person. As a fact, this writer is a neopagan man, and I see no problems behind it. I think it is essential in the article about the assumed goddes to mention this fact. Well, about, we can discuss. But I did also some changes and brought some citations, which Bloodofox with his revert has deleted.

Besides User Bloodfox´s has an earlier change in this article of his hand reverted. His behaviour against me is very bad and ashaming. I am not e native speaker of English and instead of correcting the grammar he starts to ridicule about it. Also he is not willing to discuss on a friendly and scientific level. --al-Qamar (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I'll just copy and paste what I last wrote to Al-qamar here: "Do it—it's clear that this article could use more eyes. Again, claiming a specific scholar that you disagree with (and makes your point of view inconvenient to push) is a "neopagan representative" is absolutely inappropriate. Again, the cited work comes from a scholarly publication, as is quite plain to see, and makes it clear that not all scholars dismiss the source in modern times, unlike what the unsourced paragraph you've introduced claims." (From talk page)
With that in mind, take a look at the edit history ([1]) of the article and the situation should be plain enough. And for what it's worth, I'm sure that we can all agree that the business about "unthrustable" "hole"s is pretty epic ([2]). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation -- tariqabjotu 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now given in the discussion of Talk:Zisa (goddess) what I think about it. The administrator was in my opnion to fast and did believe all the denunciations of Bloodofox against me, without waiting for a fruitfull discussion, I have startet. Now the only point of view written in the article about Cisa is Bloodofox´s view!
It s a shame, user Bloodofox call s me ridicule since my first contact with him, says my English is bad (o.k. he is right, but I am not a native speaker), he says I am not capaple to write Wikipedia articles (allthough I am administrator in the Alemannich Wikipedia), he states that I tries to settle my point of view. But in contrary to him, I never have deleted a statement of him in an article!!! So the only one who tries to settle his only opinion is the Bloodofox, who deletes all edits in his article about Zisa and tries to page an edit-war. It is not true at all, that I have somethig against Stephan Grundy, I have now idea why he thinks that, and claiming this is pure denunciation! --al-Qamar (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:66.177.182.247 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (Result: no vio)[edit]

Calvary Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.177.182.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:51, 27 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364465529 by Tubby23 (talk) revert false positive")
  2. 11:35, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364597275 by Tubby23 (talk) I strongly disagree")
  3. 11:42, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Revert false positive - source issues had been previously discussed on talk page!")
  4. 11:47, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Sorry...I have played by the rules and had explained that sources from wiki's and blogs are not suitable (not alone on this on talk page)")
  • Diff of warning: here

IP is complaining that the reference given is inadequate, but appears not to be amenable to discussing it on the talk page (note the article itself has a number of optional extra references provided in comments). Despite the IP's insistence comment at my Talk page here, I don't see a consenus to remove this material -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - my reverts of edits by Tubby and Boing were based on what appeared to be reversions by them without knowledge of the previous discussions on the talk page regarding sources from wiki's, blogs, etc. It seemed that 3RR would not apply in that case since the user adding material had been notified of verifiability standards in the past but continues to add content from poor sources.
Additionally, it seems appropriate to notify editors to be very careful of throwing out the 'vandalism' claim, as reversion of poor sources and reversions based on good-faith efforts should not constitute vandalism.
Regardless, I will abide by any admin punishment deemed necessary. The content in question does relate to biographical information about a living person and I feel strongly that sources (positive or negative) should be of the highest caliber in that regard. Take care! 66.177.182.247 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not about punishment - the WP:3RR rule is about preventing edit-wars. Whatever your personal judgment of the actions of others, you cannot simply decide that your own opinions override everyone else's and keep reverting edits contrary to the actions of three other editors. If you disagree on a contentious issue (and this one is contentious - there was no consensus on the Talk page, and you cannot simply assert that your own judgment overrides that need), you must not act until you achieve consensus, and the current consensus in the edit history appears to be against you. I will be happy to start a discussion of the contentious references on the Talk page, but not until you agree to stop edit-warring and agree to abide by whatever consensus is achieved. (I'm actually undecided on the issue of the actual text under dispute - but that's not for this forum - all I'm trying to do here is stop you abusing the rules and guidelines that have guided Wikipedia so well for so long) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to close this as no-violation due to BLP 3RR exemption. However, I have instead chosen to revert the article to remove the poorly sourced material and so will not be closing this report myself. I would still recommend that the unregistered editor receive no sanction and direct interested parties to the report at WP:BLPN. CIreland (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there is a genuine case for a BLP exemption here, and the contentious claims really are judged to be potentially defamatory and inadequately sourced, I'll be happy to go with that decision (and I will also be happy to strike the warnings I issued to User:66.177.182.247) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Falls within the BLP exemption to 3RR as poorly sourced controversial material. Tim Song (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Happy to accept that decision, and will now make good on my promise to strike my warnings and will offer an apology at User Talk:66.177.182.247 -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Adrianbius reported by User:Native94080 (Result: Semi-protected/36 hours)[edit]

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


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

  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]
  • 5th revert: [7]
  • 6th revert: [8]


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

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

Comments:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougieb reported by -- Cirt (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Sharron Angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougieb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:57, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Did some major cleanup and reorganizing. What a pile of garbage this article is. Looks more like a slam piece. Could use some MAJOR monitored editing")
  2. 22:12, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364741648 by Cirt (talk) Agreed - this edit should stand until section is rewritten though.")
  3. 00:04, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364754694 by Cirt (talk) Not true. I removed citations for irrelevant drivel.")
  4. 00:16, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364757694 by Coffeepusher (talk)")
  5. 02:08, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Happy now? Chronological.")
  • Diff of warning: here

—-- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Protected three days. BLP makes this murky. If consensus is reached, ask for unprotection. Due to the harsh language in his comments ("irrelevant drivel", "pile of garbage", "removing bias") one might suspect that Dougieb is editing in support of a political POV. If this continues it could draw sanctions, since we strive for neutrality here. Editors don't have an unlimited right to insult one another. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:HalfShadow reported by User:FanOfBackyard (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: List of The Backyardigans episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: Revision as of 19:28, 29 May 2010
  • 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:44, 29 May 2010
  • 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:14, 29 May 2010
  • 4th revert: Revision as of 22:27, 29 May 2010

I am trying to make article better, but he changes it back before I can fix it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I have told him that I am trying to make it better. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

It is me, FanOfBackyard. I don't want a block too, I just want to add newest episode without other person changing it back.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined You made no attempt to discuss these edits at the article talkpage. You yourself have reverted just as much as HalfShadow, so if I were to block anyone I would block both of you. Finally, to be honest your edits are just bad; they're not vandalism, but leaving a bunch of blank space in the article is not constructive, and HalfShadow was perfectly justified in removing it. If you disagree, discuss the issue at Talk:List of The Backyardigans episodes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Andres rojas22 reported by User:Rjanag (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Dorgon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Andres rojas22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Andres rojas22#Dorgon

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dorgon#Protected

Comments:
Blatant edit-warring behavior. Andres was starting to edit war with User:Colipon (first two reverts), and I went ahead and protected the page and invited him to discuss at the talk page. This was 5 days ago. During the interim he made no attempt to post a single message at the talk page and instead focused his efforts on my talkpage to complain about how I was playing favorites. After the page protection expired, he showed up and made another unexplained revert. User clearly doesn't get how collaborative editing works, and is incapable of communicating constructively. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really?, i guess you're boy knows how to "comunicate constructively" since he didnt leave a single message on my talk page just ran to cry to mommy and get the article protected,HYPOCRITE.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blatant edit-warring behavior. Andres was starting to edit war with User:Colipon (first two reverts), and I went ahead and protected the page and invited him to discuss at the talk page. This was 5 days ago. During the interim he made no attempt to post a single message at the talk page and instead focused his efforts on my talkpage to whine about how I was playing favorites. After the page protection expired, he showed up and made another unexplained revert. User clearly doesn't get how collaborative editing works, and is incapable of communicating in a mature way.

— original comment of Rjanag
  • Result - Warned User:Andres rojas22 that he may be blocked if he reverts the article again before getting consensus on the talk page to support his change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:96.237.120.38 reported by SaltyBoatr get wet (Result: No violation)[edit]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 96.237.120.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:06, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restored original content")
  2. 01:15, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ cite states "nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law."")
  3. 01:22, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restoring well sourced original content - SB- at this point you may be in an edit war.")
  4. 01:33, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ restored wiki links - seek OK to me")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Also, note that the AnonIP which geolocates to the Cambridge Massachusetts area has a long history of disruptive tenditious editing at this article, see this[15] for a portion of this history from 2009.

SaltyBoatr get wet 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these four reverts? Or four stages of one revert back to a previous version? SGGH ping! 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Consecutive reverts count as one revert. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Mdupont (Result: No 3RR violation, WOA given.)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [16]

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


There are a series of edits that he is reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have repeatedly asked the user to not revert my edits.

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

Comments:

I would like some advice on this issue. Our goal is to include the albanian names in addition for the articles in kosovo. there should be no problem with this, and would like some advice on how to deal with it.


Please give me some advice on how to proceed. James Michael DuPont 10:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been no violation of WP:3RR here, this is a content dispute. I would advice messaging the user in question directly to reach some sort of consensus, or failing that request a third opinion, a request for comment or some form of dispute resolution. SGGH ping! 15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Subtropical-man reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")
  2. 13:56, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Please read WP:SOURCE - government's sources write about Statistical Division - according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, this is not subject to discussion. I'm sorry.")
  3. 14:04, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This article is not about a metro area. Name is "Sydney", not "Sydney metropolitan area". Government's sources write about Statistical Division, Wikipedia also.")
  4. 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")
  • Diff of warning: here

Bidgee (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning: First edition (12:19, 30 May 2010 "according to the government's sources") this is not revert, this is standard change, reverts take place after this edition. Administrators, do not let yourselves be deceived :) Subtropical-man (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First edition "# 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")" is not revert. This is my normal change. Please check. It is therefore not 3RR. Four edition "# 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")" is compromise, mix my on User Bidgee version. I made the only two reverts, not four. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardly a compromise as myself and another editor clearly do not agree with the edit, you have breached the WP:3RR (Look at the listed edits you made above). Bidgee (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a 3RR. Does not agree with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. First my edition is not revert, this is normal change. Four also, four my edition is compromise. Is this a scam? User:Bidgee make three reverts and write to User:AussieLegend [17] and this user undo my edit [18]. This is 3RR (4 reverts) with the help of a friend. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It sure looks like it stepped over WP:3RR to me, at least according to the diffs above. Disclaimer: if I'd seen this going on I'd have reverted you, as well. You should have started to discuss this much sooner - like after the first time you were reverted. TFOWRpropaganda 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Doesn't matter, you still breached the 3RR. Are you saying my report is a scam? I made a comment after they undid your revert, I in no way asked them to revert but rather discuss about your editing, so please to not make a claim which is false. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Assuming good faith would have been a smart move here. As you can see by the diffs I reverted your edit at 14:18 UTC,[19] but Bidgee didn't post to my talk page until 14:23 UTC,[20] so his comment had no effect on my decision to revert, which was based on your edit-warring at a prominent page that is on my watchlist. You might care to note that the three revert rule applies per person, not per group. It is sometimes necessary, if not necessarily preferable, for multiple editors to revert multiple edits by a single editor who is disruptively editing or vandalising an article in order to maintain the integrity of the project. As for your last edit not being a revert, WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Since your edit was a partial reversion, it's still a revert. As a final note, I'd like to point out that the edit summary that I provided encouraged you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you had a problem, something you still haven't done. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Quotation :"As for your last edit not being a revert, WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" - even if 4th edit is revert (although it is a compromise, at least I tried), this is not 3RR (4x revert). I did exactly the same number of reverts as User:Bidgee - three reverts. This notification on the page of WP:3RR is invalid. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the first time you changed metropolitan area to something you wanted[21][22]. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The first link is not a revert as I don't get the impression he intended to revert anyone there, but rather just make a simple change to the article. That being said, there were clearly some poor editing choices here (reverting three times in twenty minutes? seriously?) -- and not just from Subtropical I might add -- and I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped. But I'll put the article on my watchlist anyhow. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a comment on Subtropical-man's talk page about the changes being made (did you even look at Subtropical-man's talk page), this isn't the first time the editor has changed metropolitan to something they want and not the community[23][24]. Calling my reverting poor? I do not believe I made a poor choice since I was reverting to a stable version, I gave Subtropical-man a link showing that it is a metropolitan area. "I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert?, again I NEVER asked AussieLegend to revert, I suggest you remove the accusation that I did, as well as your claim of bad editing. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert

No it wasn't. How on Earth did you deduce that? -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:98.88.88.100 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result:12 hours)[edit]

Page: Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.88.88.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [25]

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


IP is shouting and reverting and was requested to move to discussion but continued to revert to their favored position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IP is also continuing to revert after the diffs reported here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Non-admin's comment. I asked for the semiprotection of the page, to avoids having to block the IP user... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours for 3RR and general incivility. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:SamsX reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Indef)[edit]

Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamsX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:49, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Used more common name for controversy")
  2. 21:50, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  3. 21:55, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365096855 by Stephan Schulz (talk)")
  4. 22:03, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Removed empty/red link")
  5. 22:05, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365098829 by Yworo (talk) Clean up per WP")
  6. 22:12, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365099989 by Yworo (talk) undo 3RR violation")
  • Diff of warning: here
Never mind, he's been blocked as a sock of banned user Scibaby. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:sirozfox reported by User:cindamuse (Result: indef)[edit]

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

violate WP:3RR

This page is confusing. User:sirozfox is the husband of the subject of the article Annie Lobert. His comments represent a conflict of interest, lacking a neutral point of view. He has been warned regarding COI and NPOV. He fails to respond to comments on his talk page, but rather continues to revert editing. Additionally, he threatens others from editing this page. He has reverted article four times now. Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. You also went over 3RR, Cindamuse, but it is clear to me that sirozfox is the instigator here so I'm not blocking you. Please be more careful next time. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indef'd for legal threats after I saw this. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Androstachys reported by User:DVdm (Result:No vio )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [35]

  • 1st revert: [36]
  • 2nd revert: [37]
  • 3rd revert: [38]
  • 4th revert: [39] - after a significant number of sources was added
  • 5th revert: [40]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page Talk:Lindblad resonance, and specially Talk:Lindblad resonance#Dictionary and source say Resonances

Comments:

See also:

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility by User:Androstachys - Note the summary at the top: "Subject is unreceptive to feedback - escalate to ANI or next step in dispute resolution (RfC/U) if it continues." - (talk) 08:38, 31 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I was going to close the same but commented that I locked the page for 3 days to force discussion. If you reach a conclusion then feel free to request an unlock before that. None of the above is recent enough to merit action and it does strike me that you are using enforcement of wikiquette or 3RR as a substitute for resolving the content dispute. May I suggest you see an article RFC to provoke further input into this and make the consensus clearer. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: Not blocked / stale)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
General WP:BATTLE issues, too. ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 13:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok! leave your Admin's unpleasnt lies and inferrals wherever you want them. Somewhere nice and invisible - I surrender - give up - you Admins win, yet again - peddle your lies where you like.  Giacomo  13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If they are lies (and you restoring a comment in which you call Wehwalt (talk · contribs) a "deceitful and unfit admin" was not the deletion of a lie, anyway) then that is what dispute resolution is for. Not what edit-warring is for. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Admins must do as they think fit to defend themselves when guilty of peddling falsehoods. I would quite like an example of me willfully deceiving anyone EVER - do you have one?  Giacomo  13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I found this edit you made, which looked like a personal attack towards . Also, this attack was kept in an edit summary. Fortunately that edit summary attack wasn't directed at any editor. Minimac (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
10 out of 10 for observation. It is indeed a comment directed 100% towards Wehwalt. Nothing ambiguous or deceitful about that.  Giacomo  14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt's post arguably was a personal attack, and one that Xeno subsequently pointed out was unfounded. Suggest closing this. --JN466 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    But we don't delete personal attacks, and we certainly don't violate 3RR to do so. Giano is not exempt from the rules, either. ╟─TreasuryTagconstablewick─╢ 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    Still rabbiting on here are you TreasuryTag? Have you nothing better to do? I know, this section must have been a grave dissapointment for you, but, hey! life goes on.  Giacomo  21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I am gravely disappointed that there appears to be a reluctance on the part of the administrators to enforce a very clear policy against you. I suspect that the reluctance is down, in part, to lack of patience for the fuss you make every time anybody dares hold you to account for your actions. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, TreasuryTag, I expect it more that (a) they agree with me and (b) they are reluctant for a slanging match involving an Admin defending the use of the word "cock sucker" as an insult between editors. Now, I strongly advise you to go and find something useful to do as I shall be doing. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not engage it little vendettas hours after the event has passed and I have decided to drop the matter. Don't you agree?  Giacomo  21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale - there is no current threat of ongoing disruption and though I don't endorse the user's behavior in this matter, I don't see a block as being a beneficial exercise here. The user has agreed to drop it and so there is no further disruption to prevent. --B (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DoctorNeutralNoBias, User:94.193.216.80, and User:94.193.217.130 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Not blocked / sprotected)[edit]

Page: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

  1. DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 94.193.216.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 94.193.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 16:48, May 30, 2010 as user

  1. 11:43, May 31, 2010 as user
  2. 15:38, May 31, 2010 as IP
  3. 16:17, May 31, 2010 as IP
  4. 16:31, May 31, 2010 as IP
  5. 16:43, May 31, 2010 as second IP


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:47, May 30, 2010
  2. 16:39, May 31, 2010
  3. No, I haven't warned the 2nd IP yet. It doesn't seem necessary. However, he did start immediately after I warned the 1st IP.

I'm afraid not. However, I only reverted numbers 2, 3, and 4. Different editors reverted #0 and #1. I did make an unrelated revert 24 hours 55 minutes before the first one.

Comments:

The second IP admits that he and the first IP were directed here by a third party (not necessarily the user making revert #1 above). The question of whether the edit was reasonable was not discussed by anyone (other than in the edit summaries removing reverts #0 and #1) until after revert #5. So it may be meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The page has been semi-protected by Crum375 so that should stop any edit warring using IP addresses. Because there hasn't been anything since the s-protection this morning, I'm willing to assume good faith for the moment. If the user (from his/her logged in account) starts reverting again, please open another request or let me know and I will block them. --B (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007 reported by -- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Diffs:

Ads "paintball"

Ads "occurred" and removes "was a raid by Israeli military forces"

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Manila davao ph reported by LK (talk) (Result: 72h)[edit]

Herbert W. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Manila davao ph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Earlier edit warring from last week:
Edit warring last week was reported by SarekOfVulcan.

  1. 01:35, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ redundancy&whoever unethically deletes this i recommend to be banned from wikipedia")
  2. 01:47, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ clarity&redundancy with two 'and' in one sentence")
  3. 01:58, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Theological */deleted is nitpicking witch-hunting wherein other religions also profess their brand to salvation but Armstrong respected people@Ambassador International Cultural Foundation charities")
  4. 02:15, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ i recommend the one who deleted these factual groups for slander or libel anywhere anytime and banned from wikipedia!")
  5. 02:17, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ reformat")
  6. 04:42, 25 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ see my reason for deletion of this redundant subtitle@talk page 7")
  7. 00:43, 26 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */redundancy for WCG and don't delete these legitimate pro-Armstrong groups(3RR)")
  8. 00:45, 26 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */ redundancy, wordiness (3RR)")

Current 3RR violation:

  1. 14:39, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ content needed to fully understand impact of the man to pro-groups")
    - 14:45, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Theological */Armstrong disagreed with some Christian leaders but respected people on the personal level evidenced at Ambassador International Cultural Foundation so demonizations should be deleted")
    - 14:51, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personality, personal conduct, and governance */this subsection is redundant and witch-hunting.It does not do justice to why Armsrong preached Seven Laws of Success and why some people are poor...")
  2. 23:10, 31 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */additional information is to show how many groups will defend and provide unbiased reference on this man")
  3. 02:53, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */the man is 24years dead&cannot defend himself.let these pro-groups defend the man.be fair&ethical")
  4. 03:27, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ additional information")
  5. 07:43, 1 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Pro-Armstrong */ additional information")
  6. Another revert since the submission of this report: 08:11, 1 June 2010
  • Diff of warning: here.
  • User is well aware of 3RR, as he includes the term in his edit summaries: [59]

Comments:
This user is pretty much a SPA who has been POV pushing and edit warring intermittently on Herbert W. Armstrong and related pages since joining three years ago. As can be seen from his talk page, several people have tried to explain policy and resolve the difficulties with this user. I can discern no improvement in behavior or respect for Wikipedia policies.

LK (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - 72 hours. Any admin may lift this block if the editor will agree to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou reported by User:jheiv (Result: 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 · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Comments:

This is a continuation of this AN3 report. This WP:SPA refused to engage in the discussion on the talk page during the protection, yet immediately when page protection expires, again makes the same controversial edits he was warned about making without consensus. I'd also point out that many editors were involved in the discussion about how to improve the article, but he was not one of them. His motives are not to improve the page, but to insist on adding material and references that do not meet the standards and policies.

I reverted the page ([60]) to the state it was in during protection and asked him to seek consensus, but he refused and undid it ([61]). I would like to again revert the page to the state it was in during protection, and then begin to make the edits that were discussed on the talk page, but his vandalism and reverts are extremely disruptive and prevent coherent improvement of the article.

Please consider blocking this clear example of a single purpose account with no desire other than to disrupt article. jheiv (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TLDR summary: there are serious WP:OWN and WP:COI problems at the Kappa Sigma article.
User:Jheiv is a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity, the article in question's subject, one of several WP:COI editors active on their fraternity's article. He removed a Conflict of Interest warning tag from the top of the article, and even reverted simple grammar and capitalization changes. Despite my going to the COI Noticeboard for outside input, no administrator will pay attention to the obvious tag-team violation of the COI policy on the Kappa Sigma article. Instead, Jheiv "edit wars" with me and then uses his knowledge of Wikipedia's rules to portray me as "disruptive" when I have taken pains to provide references, grammar/capitalization corrections, and Talk page explanations.
Jheiv may know more Wikipedia policy than me, but I have read and I can see that WP:OWN and WP:COI are being completely ignored at Kappa Sigma. When I solicited additional input for the article at the COI Noticeboard, other uninvolved editors arrived to point out the obvious NPOV problems that have developed from extensive COI editing. I welcome any additional attention this discussion might bring to the situation at the Kappa Sigma article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is excruciatingly simple. You were asked to seek consensus, you were warned by the admin who closed the last AN3 to seek consensus ([62]), there was an active discussion on the talk page during page protection that you refused to constructively participate in ([63]), as soon as page protection expired you immediately continued to add contentious material without seeking consensus ([64]). jheiv (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Pictogram voting comment.svg Note As far as I can tell this is a complaint about a single revert, accompanied by an accusation of bad faith. Editors are allowed to focus on whatever topic they like; the "single purpose account" label is not a grounds for blocking or banning. Shii (tock) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who is involved in adding the same contentious material ([65]), if you are attempting to close this, don't you think you should at the least disclose this fact or conservatively recuse yourself?
Sorry, "the same" material? The material AEKDB is reverting to is not the same that I am adding. I don't have any problem with your questioning the reliability of my sources; I was going to bring the question to WP:RSN, but I decided maybe we should look for more publicly available sources instead. Shii (tock) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If you go back, that source was continuously added by AEKDB -- and removed for WP:V and WP:RS among others -- but it if you disagree, it seems that WP:RSN would be appropriate. jheiv (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry about that. I haven't been following this debate at all, I just occasionally add stuff to Wikipedia based on what I saw on Wikileaks. I'll be happy to simply forget about the Wikileaks page if this has already been discussed. Anyway, since I have been editing this page before I'll leave this unresolved for now and come back to the page tomorrow. Shii (tock) 20:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The only person who needs to recuse himself from contentious editing at Kappa Sigma is you, Jheiv. I would also note that User:Jheiv has in the last hour twice reverted the inclusion of Template:COI from the article despite being a COI editor himself. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm reverting to the page that was under PP -- if you'd like, I can re-add that template next time you refuse to seek consensus before adding material. The fact is, that contentious material should be discussed on the talk page before being added. jheiv (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you not get it? You are a WP:COI editor who is making controversial changes, including the removal of sourced information and Template:COI, on the article of an organization you are a member in. YOU are edit-warring with serious WP:COI and WP:OWN tendencies, and need to recuse YOURSELF. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Protected. See next report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jheiv reported by User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Kappa Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jheiv (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: [70] (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] (no further response from Jheiv) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (no further response from Jheiv)

Comments:

User:Jheiv, a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity who is editing with a WP:Conflict of Interest, has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to WP:Edit waring against uninvolved/outside editors on the Kappa Sigma article in violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN. He has reverted myself and administrator User:Shii four times since the article was unprotected. I am tired of him demonizing me and filing reports left and right while not being held accountable to the policies that apply to his own editing. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. Removing vandalism or contentious material that wasn't discussed on the talk page (that you have already been warned about) on the talk page is not a revert. Please just follow the rules and seek consensus for contentious edits on the talk page. jheiv (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Result -- Protected two months. The article came back to AN3 very quickly (see [73], from 20 May), showing that no lessons were learned the first time around. Though the talk page has been used, neither of the warring parties has been waiting for consensus before reverting. Use this time to try to get agreement. See WP:Dispute resolution for some steps you can try. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP if a compromise is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ja_62 reported by User:Westbrabander (Result: Both blocked 24 hrs)[edit]

Page: Battle of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ja_62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
User:Ja_62 is very agressive towards me, and falsely accuses me of vandalism eventhough I have always explained my actions clearly and openly. I didn't want to report him, but he seems blinded by bad faith and continues to push his version prior and during the discussion on talk.Westbrabander (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually I was reverting obviously unconstructive edits by Westbrabanter when his edit summaries were obviously false, as he repeatedly refered to non-existent sections of article Battle of Britain from which he was persistently removing name of said battle in German language under various untrue rationales. Therefore, as I was been reverting obvious vandalism, 3rrule does not apply. Moreover I was completely in good faith, as he hadn't reacted positively to notifications on his talk page. On the other hand, his actions bear strong resemblance to misuse of procedures.--ja_62 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you deny breaking the 3-revert rule?Westbrabander (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing to deny, as I hadn't broken it. See above, here and there.--ja_62 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly the 3RR rule does apply here since this is an editing dispute rather than "obvious vandalism", but ja_62 has not actually breached it (only 3 reverts in a 24 four period). However it is an editor's perogative to remove an unsourced edit. I recommend that ja_62 providea a source for his edit if he wishes to persist in adding it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - both blocked 24 hours. I was beaten to the punch by EyeSerene (talk · contribs), but I was going to do the same thing. I have also removed Ja_62's rollback for abusing the privilege by using it in a content dispute. You may ask to have it re-added after some reasonable period of time of edit-war-free behavior (like a month). --B (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xnacional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
While this latest instance is not technically 3RR in a 24-hour period, Xnacional has a long history of ignoring consensus, WP:MOS issues, personal attacks in edit summaries, and edit warring on all three of the original trilogy Star Wars film articles (among others). He refuses to compromise or accept a consensus version, occassionally going away, oly to reappear at a later date to try and sneak his changes in again. This current instance has been continuing for several days. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 48 hours. As per the above, this is not a 3RR violation, but this user is repeatedly edit warring against a clear consensus across multiple Star Wars related articles. As the user was previously blocked for edit warring, I have blocked for 48 hours. --B (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:67.193.58.115 and User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:OpenTheWindows (Result: IP user blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Thousand Foot Krutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User(s) being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 67.193.58.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Revision reverted to

More: [92] [93] [94] [95] (diff users:) me (1RR) IP HelloAnnyong IP user


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Walter IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff but a message to try resolving instead

Comments:

I and one other user have only did 1RR.