Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:71.219.172.174 reported by User:Vsmith (Result: )[edit]

Page: Raft River Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.219.172.174 (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]


  • Comments:
User has been slow edit warring on several pages and refuses to discuss their concerns on talk pages although asked repeatedly. On this article some of the above edits were only partial reverts with other changes made. The ip is in the same range and exhibits the same behavior as those discussed here. Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:99.243.108.148 reported by User:Ophois (Result:3 months)[edit]

Page: Lee Jun Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 99.243.108.148 (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: [diff]

Comments: This is the banned user User:InkHeart, who has continuously evaded her block through proxies such as this. Ωphois 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ophois keeps adding unsourced information to a BLP 99.243.108.148 (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Steinberger reported by User:Literaturegeek (Result: blocked 24 hrs)[edit]

Prolonged disruption has been going on on harm reduction related articles, edit warring being one of the primary problems. I also believe that there are ownership issues of articles and POV pushing which is driving the edit warring by one editor in particular who I am reporting.

Here are examples of edit warring by User:Steinberger.

Edit warring on harm reduction

Previous version

Previous version

Edit warring on safe injection site

previous version

I issued an edit war warning template, for edit warring on harm reduction.

Then I learn that he is continuing to edit war on another article despite me warning him about edit warring on other articles less than 24 hours earlier.

Edit warring on Blood libel

previous version

  • 1st revert [32]
  • 2nd revert [33]
  • 3rd revert [34] Revert after 3rr warning
  • 4th revert [35] Revert after 3rr warning
  • 5th revert [36] Revert after 3rr warning

The motives, or at least the justification for the edit warring on blood libel appears to be the advancement of a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the israeli military being involved in organ harvesting. See, Talk:Blood_libel#Defined_as_untruthful.3F.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns that this editor is using edit warring, filing an RfC against his oponent and wikilawyering tactics on talk pages to overwhelm editors with a differing POV and effectively take control of both the content as well as the POV of the articles on harm reduction. He often cites an array of wiki policy violations to justify the edit warring but while at times he is right about WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR I feel that he often is wrong or justifies a violation in one sentence to delete multiple cited paragraphs. I did issue an edit warring warning template to Minphie and he seems to have heeded my warning and stopped edit warring.

One editor has already been blocked for sockpuppeteering.[37] As you can see it is a very abusive editing environment which is why I am escalating this to admin attention. For what it is worth, I am WP:UNINVOLVED. I have never edited any harm reduction articles. I became aware of problems on these articles via the content dispute being brought to the attention of Wiki Medicine Project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He's made a lot of alterations to the article, but could you please add in the previous versions where the accused editor is removing or restoring content. Betty Logan (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The previous versions, as in content added by one editor and then reverted by him? I can do that. If you mean like a single version that he kept reverting back to, there are several examples of that. The Blood libel is pretty clear reverting back to one version. The other harm reduction reverts are reverting any content that doesn't suit his POV. Often these are repeated reverts of the same content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I realised you couldn't put it in one diff because it's different content. I was just having problems following what was going on. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Literaturegeek recognizes that Minphie (the other editor that I was warring with) is soapboxing and is a problematic editor. But instead of reverting, he encouraged me to rewrite his edit and add to balance. He warned me. Since then, the only edit that can be viewed as problematic, was not so problematic if one look closely. I did not blanket revert, I took the most prominent source and summarized it. Most of the other was either misrepresented from the sources or already stated in the summurisation of EMCDDA's review. Steinberger (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I recognised your claims and concerns of soapboxing, I did not endorse nor accuse the other editor of soap boxing. Be careful twisting my good faithed words of dispute resolution against me. Yes he was problematic because he was edit warring. You and your banned sockpuppeteer friend had successfully conquered the article by tag team warring him. He should have walked away and reported you but as he engaged you in WP:BATTLE he was problematic as well. I wanted you all to work out a compromise. I did not know I was dealing with sockpuppets of another editor who was joining you in a tag team edit war against user Minphie.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither did I know that there was a sockpuppet involved. I though that Minphie genuinely tired out rakkar and that FMP was a new chap, although I became curious when Minphie launched his request of investigation and rakkar answered so soon. And Minphie did infact try to get rakkar blocked as a vandal before FMP appeared, the request was declined as it was an content dispute and Minphie was urged to try and seek consensus. Did he try to seek consensus, try to understand our worries of policy breeches or was he insisting on being right? Steinberger (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) That edit you link to Steinberger while not a revert of previously edit warred content at first glance, is still worrying as you are making large scale controversial changes to edits done by the other editor you warred with, a matter of hours after being warned for edit warring. Not exactly the calm dispute resolution type environment and behaviour that I would have hoped for. Anyhow you went into an unrelated topic and edit warred on a different article a matter of hours after I warned you about edit warring and as stated another editor who tag teamed with you has been discovered as a sockpuppeteer, which changes things in that the harm reduction articles have been GAMED and this is more than just edit warring.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aroused right now and have a hard time grasping my feeling with this. I don't feel LG is totally unfounded but that he is overreacting and have put the blame at the wrong place (where is the case against the other combatants?). I hope administrators review the evidence carefully and don't take LG's assertions of me being worthy of a block at face value. Steinberger (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The other editor was warned and did not edit war on any articles after the warning, otherwise he to would have been reported. Warn first, if warning does not work, then the user is reported. I am sorry you see this as over-reacting but the facts are the facts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Then, could you explain what this is: [38]? Steinberger (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that is an edit after I submitted the diffs here. I was not aware of it. I would suggest compiling evidence against him here on the noticeboard for fairness. You both are not responsive to warnings. I will compile a report on him later if you don't do it but now I have to go offline to eat and do a few things. Thank you for providing that diff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Blocked 24 hours. Too much edit warring, on multiple articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Monkeyevil reported by User:ZacharyLassiter (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page: Kalamazoo, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: user:Monkeyevil


Previous version reverted to: [39]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been no communication however I recieved a facebook messaged from this user: Daryl Hutson Daryl Hutson June 11, 2010 at 5:25pm Subject: Stop deleting KWL on wikipedia. Thanks.

Comments: It seems pretty obvious this user has no intention of following 3RR or Notability Requirements. Perhaps some outside input is necessary.

ZacharyLassiter (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR is over three reverts in a 24 hour period, however this user has made three reverts, two today (June 11) and the other May 21. This is not a 3RR violation. I will see what the other contributions are and whether another option is viable. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
RESPONSE The 3 reverts were well within a 24 hour period. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
this, the first one you linked to, is May 21. The other two are June 11. I have given the user some strong words of advice on the issue. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MagdalenaPudzianowski reported by User:Favonian (Result: blocked indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

The user is very likely a sock of 68.156.95.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and VictorFlaushenstein (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely for edit warring and socking so as to give the appearance of more support than they actually have.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX reported by User:ThinkEnemies (Result: Content dispute taken to appropriate venue)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [52]

  • 1st revert: [53]
  • 2nd revert: [54]
  • 3rd revert: [55]
  • 4th revert: [56] This was a revert by removing The survey noted that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful."[improper synthesis?] In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."[improper synthesis?][1][failed verification] even after tagging it after his/her 3rd revert. TETalk 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57], notification of noticeboard: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]. Linked to section instead of countless diffs. It is the section I started prior to BigK's 1st revert. TETalk 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

This started after BigK inserted a version that was contested and being discussed [60]. It comes after an exhausting discussion on the talk page with BigK showing little inclination to find consensus. After seeing BigK attempting to circumvent the process, I summarized all the proposals into a fundamentally sound addition based on every proposal (on talk page). I then made a plea on the talk page[61] before BigK made his/her first revert. TETalk 20:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the second or third 3RR report I have seen for this article, it is getting regular editors in trouble. I'm tempted to request a 1RR sanction, or put in a persuasive edit notice. Thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Pretty obviously, the link marked as the "4th revert" is NOT a revert. It is a new version of the text containing largely elaborations meant to clear up the misleading WP:SYN continually inserted by ThinkEnemies without consensus. Even further, the first reverts were to a version that had consensus to be used provisionally until a new version was achieved. I was enforcing that provisional version of the text, and NOT a version that I personally support. BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to before your 4th revert but after you tagged the content disputes. Now you should discuss the tags and seek consensus on contentious edits. You will see that I've addressed your concerns on the talk page and revised my proposal according. You have made numerous edits over many hours without addressing it on it's merits. TETalk 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't really the appropriate venue, but I feel compelled to point out some of the issues with ThinEnemies's statement: "After seeing BigK attempting to circumvent the process, I summarized all the proposals into a fundamentally sound addition based on every proposal (on talk page)". Pretty obviously, just creating a compilation of talk page proposals without regard to verifiability and no original research is rather useless. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"Verifiability" and "no original research" was discussed and established on the article's talk page. TETalk 23:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@ User:SGGH. If you ask me, the problem at the article isn't edit warring of the normal sort, but rather a disruption problem. Personally, I've never seen so many occasions where WP:OR is used justify destruction of edits which are even acknowledged to be faithful representations of an WP:RS. One or two of these edits have persisted even after noticeboard consensus has sided against an editor's disruptive edits. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the prevalence of WP:OR coupled with WP:IDHT is certainly a large part of the problem. (Please note that I'm not accusing ThinkEnemies of being one of the prominent participants in the aforementioned problems. He has been pretty patient and accommodating ... even if mistaken on the small point which brings us here.) BigK HeX (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, hope you don't mind but I collapsed these comments into a smaller space. I don't think an outright 3RR block is viable here, for we may have to block the reporter as well as the subject. I'll close it as such. The articles does need eyes, I'll post on the appropriate noticeboard. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) If I may ask, what are we to do with the undiscussed material BigK added during his/her 4th revert [62], and after [63]. Which I might add, utilizes the same source that BigK mistakenly deemed to be WP:OR when it didn't comply with his/her own original research and/or POV. There is definitely pushing to be seen in his/her diffs. Should I file that? TETalk 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I have gone back to BigK's reversion before his/her 4th revert. This is after they tagged the content. I assume it will be a tag-->talk situation. TETalk 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't say the source was WP:OR ... I said that particular use of it was OR (specifically a synthesis implying a conclusion not reached by the source). BigK HeX (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You have indicated WP:POINT behind your 4th revert in the edit summary and on separate page. You have actually violated WP:SYNTH, where I have not. TETalk 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem with the collapsed text.
Thank you for any attention you can bring into the various disputed issues! BigK HeX (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lion and Sun reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (talk) (Result: page protected )[edit]

Page: Lion and Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nobody pending review


There's an edit war going on at Lion and Sun, it's not my fight, however I am concerned about repeated removal of large amounts of sourced text, and have reverted to the sourced version.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please warn this user. He tries to add an unreliable source to a Good Article. He keeps adding materials that are WP:SYNT, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I explained enough the reasons to remove the awful edits added from an ultra-nationalist and unreliable source here. But, he fails to get involved in dissections and keep adding OR, WP:SYNT and poorly sourced materialsUser:Pasitigris1|Pasitigris1]] (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Comments:

Note: I've protected the article for a week following a request from Kintensubuffalo (Chris) on RfPP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


User:ThinkEnemies reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [64]

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

  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:

As one can see, ThinkEnemies reported a different user directly above. An admin reviewed that request and closed it with "Content dispute taken to appropriate venue". Subsequent to TE's own complaint being closed that way, TE continued to perform reversions on the article, and they have both continued arguing in the "closed" case. The diffs above show a clear violation of 3RR. I personally think it's time to put a 1RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the warning you are using is how old, and wasn't it a dispute only you were involved in? The discussion following that templating from 6 days ago, can be found here. TETalk 23:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Second, aren't you currently reported for something at ANI. [69]? Didn't you template me in an inappropriate manner? Are you somehow attacking me by doing this?
Also, I asked the administrator for advise of what to do with BigK's 4th and current revert(at the time). All I did after sufficient time was bring it back to before BigK's 4th revert and after BigK tagged the content, which was after I formally warned them. I am not edit warring, my revert comes after BigK indicated WP:POINT for their last version[70], removing my text they disapproved of and adding text they approved us from same source they disapproved of. It's clear POINT and was indicated in their edit summary and separate page posting. TETalk 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Why would you [ThinkEnemies] perform a 4th revert back to your inaccurate version, when you already were warned above that you, yourself, were in danger of being blocked from the edit warring report above? And surely you're not here complaining about the age of your 3RR warning template, when it's certainly no surprise that you were in danger.... Hmmm. BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression you were warned 3 times by 3 different editors about the WP:3RR in the last 3 days. You were saying... TETalk 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh .. I merely said that you knew that you were at the hard 3RR limit and then you were even given a warning by an admin about how you were in danger of being blocked .... and then you still persisted in reverting text. BigK HeX (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
And I warned you of your 3rd revert before you made your 4th revert. Mind you, there are diffs of you tagging the content you dislike after my warning to you. That shows you acknowledged the warning, and took the next step to have you POV/OR heard. I would hope so, as you've been warned for 3RR by 3 editors in 3 days. I will also point out that I took it back to your 3rd revert, but clearly after your inaccurate tagging of the paragraph. It's like the 4th didn't even happen... which must be why you weren't blocked already. TETalk 07:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Not blocked / stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [71]

Entry- Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers. [2]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:Editor Esoglou is adding outrageous and simply unjustifiable amounts of citation requests after I have sourced my contributions and given citations. Under the justification that the sourcing failed verification, Esoglou does not see the information in sources I have added. Esoglou is engaging in this and other policy abuse behavior. This is making it so my contributions to the article will be removed later on. Removed as justified under the reason of the contribution being "unsourced or improperly sourced" content. Esoglou is refusing the sources I have posted (retagging them as failed verification because Esoglou does not see the exact words in the source that I have added to the article) and I have started to copy and paste content from sources in order to try and appease Esoglou.

This has started to fail to appease Esoglou as well. This example and difs I provided is just that. If an administrator were to open the link to the google books page and actually read the entry. They will notice that I have copied it word for word. Even so Esoglou keeps adding back into the article (really to almost all my contributions in general) the citation tag stating failed verification and requesting that I copy the text word for word. When I have already done that. Since I have reported Esoglou before and nothing was done [78] Esoglou has become even more uncompromising and unruly. Esoglou's appears embolden in their conduct. Which is not hidden nor is it hard to miss what they are doing (go look at the mess they have made of the article, every entry of mine is attacked, reword, deleted etc). Esoglou's refusing sourcing to the filioque article for no other reason than to frustrate and discourage editor contributions to articles Esoglou believe Esoglou owns. Contributions of opinions that Esoglou opposes and does not want to hear.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talkcontribs)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale I don't see four reverts, but he hasn't edited in over 2 days anyway, so even if he had been blocked, it would have expired by now anyway. --B (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Taztouzi reported by User:JamesBWatson (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Mister World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Taztouzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Also some evident sockpuppets: Taztouz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Tazouz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and the IPs 86.69.10.62, 82.124.180.207, 79.92.69.15, 82.124.142.48, 79.89.112.223, 86.205.103.243, 212.12.173.208, 82.167.35.133, 90.35.44.217, 80.125.175.197, 92.154.73.143 - there may be more.


Persistent removing of well sourced information and replacing with unverifiable claims. The earliest case I have found of the version reverted to is from 16 April 2010, in this edit.

This has been repeated dozens of time since then. A few recent examples are:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments:
Messages have been posted to the talk pages of the named accounts and all of the IPs which have been involved recently, but there has been no response. Nor has there been a response to the messages on the article's talk page. The page has been semi-protected, which has stopped the IPs, but Taztouzi is continuing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page for three days in the first instance. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Taztouzi has once again replaced the sourced information with the unsourced information, an hour after you protected the page. Susfele (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Susfele
As I stated on my talk page, the protection was only a quick measure to stop the socks and the IPs - I was expecting someone else to pick up on this report. S.G.(GH) ping! 06:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
He continues to post the unsourced information, even after receiving a last warning. I guess I will ask for him to be blocked. I don't know what else to do. Susfele (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Indefblocked by PMDrive1061 --B (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:87.210.232.221 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Pages protected)[edit]

User being reported: 87.210.232.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Kiev This user is repeatedly making the same edits - i.e edit warring.

Page: Lviv This user is repeatedly making the same edits - i.e edit warring.

My belief is that this user has a user-name, but chooses to edit war not logged in. I asked the user "Is there a reason why you are not logged in when you make these edits?" The user says "Yes, there is, but it doesn't have anything to do with this topic, though". See User talk:87.210.232.221 --Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has also been uncivil in several of his/her edit summaries and refuses to engage in discussion on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This user continues to ignore Talk pages and uses his/her own unreferenced opinion as the basis for reverting. I have left quite sufficient reliable references on his/her Talk Page, but he/she ignores the issue and simply pushes his/her own POV. It's hard to discuss on a Talk Page when the warring party refuses to carry on a discussion. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
His incivility continues as well. I suspect that he is a topic-banned user editing anonymously. --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This guy is completely ignoring discussion and the conclusive evidence presented. --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please do something about this anon IP. --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Also edits to languages such as Scottish (English), French (removal of Anvers as an alternative name for Antwerp ??), Belgian, Dutch and American (English) have produced contention. I doubt very much that this editor knows how to correctly pronounce all of these languages. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Pages protected by SlimVirgin. --B (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:EnochBethany reported by CTJF83 pride (Result: 24hr)[edit]

Homophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EnochBethany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:20, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Correction and establishment of neutral POV.")
  2. 05:45, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Correction & Neutrality. No concensus will be reached with homosexuals who wish to call the opposition by this slur word.")
  3. 05:58, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "addition: Neutrality establishment; Nothing deleted from original. Changing my contribution requires consensus; Vandalism at work on my contribution.")
  4. 06:25, 13 June 2010 (edit summary: "Restoration of Neutrality. Do not insist on your soap box. Stop vandalizing my contribution.")

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Blocked 24 hours by Shirik --B (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Diffs:

Removes "Palestine" while claiming he has consensus for the change while edit warring with at least six different people. He is edit warring with:Tiamut, NickCT, ChrisO, Nomoskedasticity, Roland and me Supreme Deliciousness.

  • Diff of warning: I have previously warned him when he was involved in an edit war and I was threatened: [94] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Please work it out on the talk page. --B (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

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

Blocked twice from previous 3RR complaint; editor immediately returned to edit warring after recent week-long block lapsed, altering content against consensus. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked I have blocked him for two weeks. He has gone from 24 hours to 48 hours to 1 week to 2 weeks in record time. Perhaps this will be sufficient for him to discern a pattern? --B (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmedalla reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Indefblocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [95]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Indeffed --B (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushsinghmd reported by User:Cuchullain (Result:Blocked 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Muhammad's wives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Forced conversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kushsinghmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


For Muhammad's wives: Previous version reverted to: [104]

For Forced conversion: Previous version reverted to: [111]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115] and [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117] and [118]

Comments:

This is a clear case of a user letting his point of view of a particular religion get the better of him. A good part of his edits so far have been inserting material critical of Muhammad and Islam into various articles. Unfortunately in these cases the edits are problematic and he has resorted to edit warring to get his way.--Cúchullain t/c 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:83.38.89.212 reported by User:Beagel (Result:Blocked 31 hours )[edit]

Page: Deepwater Horizon oil spill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 83.38.89.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill&oldid=367934893]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125], [126], [127]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128] This is the lates one, before that the topic was discussed a number of times (all talks are archived).

Comments:
This is a dynamic IP blocked at least four times for the same disruptive editing on this article (also as User:80.31.248.45, User talk:83.59.244.54, User talk:88.26.26.159, User talk:79.146.111.65.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 83.38.89.212 blocked 31 hours for blatant disregard of 3RR- if this continues I'll semi-protect the article. Courcelles (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Minphie reported by User:Literaturegeek (Result: Not blocked / stale)[edit]

previous version

Edit warring on harm reduction

previous version

previous version

I issue an edit warring warning template as well as to the other editor who was involved.

The other editor Steinberger edit warred on another article after receiving the warning which led me to report him to this noticeboard. He was given a 24 hour block. I would encourage admins to read over this section, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Steinberger_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek_.28Result:_blocked_24_hrs.29 to gain some background understanding of this dispute. It is complex.

I then learnt that Minphie did another revert of the same disputed content approximately 34 hours after I issued an edit warring warning.

I am unsure if this reaches the threshold of a violation as he did wait more than 24 hours after the edit war warning before doing the revert but WP:3rr does say that even if this is the case an individual may still be seen as edit warring in such a case, so shall leave it to admins to decide.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Minphie, he has been battling abusive editors one of whom used sockpuppets to tag team edit war and is now indefinitely blocked to WP:GAME the system as well as using sockpuppet account to file an RfC against Minphie. So on the one hand I see Minphie as taking on an article controlled by sockpuppet accounts and POV pushing edit warriors but he himself failed to heed my edit warring warning and did another revert so I am reporting for fairness. So on the one hand he is the victim but on the other hand he is a participent in the disruption. I would like some other uninvolved eyes to look into this and decide what action is required if any against Minphie or if page protection is the way forward. Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't have the expertise to know if he was attempting to add a fringe POV to the article or attempting to save it from it, but if, based on your statement, it was the latter and his sparring partners were sock puppet POV-pushers, I don't see what purpose a block would serve. We block to prevent disruption, not to punish good faith users for getting involved in attempting to rectify a messy situation or "to be fair". (Other admins looking at this, please don't consider this to be a decision not to block - just my initial opinion based on the above - this one is sufficiently complicated that it needs more eyes on it.) --B (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Being pointed out as an abusive editor and meatpuppet to the alleged sockpuppeteer (he who received a soft block, as his accounts where used in sequence rather then parallel) I feel I have to defend myself. But, I figure It would not do any good with some verbose answer to the allegations and instead put my faith in the independent thinking of the ones who will decide. However, I am sorry to see that Literaturegeek have become so judgemental, having thrown good faith overboard when identifying villains and victims in this. I genuinely have a very hard time getting around the fact that no one else seem to recognize what an obvious POV-pusher Minphie is. Steinberger (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are the four most recent edits by Minphie at Safe injection site that are listed by the 3RR helper tool:
  1. 00:24, 4 June 2010 (edit summary: "Added section on SIS Evaluation - see Discussion")
  2. 12:03, 6 June 2010 (edit summary: "Removal of inaccurate statements as per Discussion")
  3. 11:30, 7 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting unsubstantiated changes to text - see Discussion")
  4. 01:48, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Small addition re rigor of evaluations to match the citation")
It seems to me that if an admin decides to close this, they will most likely evaluate it as a long-term edit-warring case. The outcome may rest on whether Minphie is making a good-faith effort to find consensus, or is just reimposing his personal opinion over a long period of time. If he was reverting sock edits, can anyone say which ones they were? Minphie (talk · contribs) was notified of the discussion at this noticeboard at 00:35 UTC on 12 June, but has not edited Wikipedia since then. There is not quite enough information here yet to evaluate this for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my view that Minphie was unable to find consensus because his additions were repeatedly reverted (which he reverted back the revert see above) and engagement on the talk page led to wikilawyering which basically said none of Minphie's edits were allowed on the page due to ,,, insert wiki lawyer reason here. Figs might ply was the sock account, so any reverts of figs might ply were reverting sock edits. Rakkar, was the main account before the sock account was created. The reverts of steinberger were not sock reverts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger, the facts are, rakkar edit warred repeatedly with Minphie, then retired his account, created a sockpuppet account to continue the edit war and file an RfC ironically accusing Minphie of "gaming" the system, which is hypocritical for a sockpuppet account. Also he never declared that he was an alternate account. I am judging the situation by the facts. The abusiveness that I saw on your part was participating in an edit war to keep out any content on those pages which did not match your POV, participating in an RfC against Minphie despite your own behaviour being at least as bad; your defense or playing down of abusive sockpuppeteering by another editor does not help either. The claim that rakkar and socks were only soft blocked makes little difference, the blocking admin was unaware of the full picture and how the accounts were abused. I accept that you were not aware of the sockpuppeteering and apologise for jumping to conclusions without any evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking Harm reduction as an example to illustrate the so-called consensus-seeking behaviour of Minphie. To the first revert of rakkar/Figs Might Ply (henceforth R/FMP) on January 18 there was a corresponding talkpost detailing some of his concerns while he said to happily want to "include the perspective Minphie wants to write" if only those concerns where addressed (mainly WP:NOR and WP:V). Minphie then reverted back his posts on February 6 without some rational or edit summery. R/FMP reverted away Minphies edits again on 21 of February, calling attention to the talk page. Minphie then wrote a talkpost on Mars 1 calling rakkar a "vandal", that there was "no substance to his rationales for removing text" going on to defend his edits, while not really addressing the policy issues raised and reverted back his edits again.
Next R/FMP adds templates to Minphies edits an does some rewrites on Mars 3 and writes a short message where he said that he did so as not to start a edit war. On Mars 7 he removes a unsourced claim. Minphie reedits some of R/FMP's changes, while not adressing the templates on Mars 24 and writes a talkpost explaining and justifying. (Some anonymous editor removes Minphies bit in the lead.) R/FMP is back again on Mars 25 and makes a series of good faith edits to Minphies and his own texts [162] (the preceding diff is notable) [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] and does edits to and adds rationale on the talk page. On Mars 26 Minphie complains at the talkpage and copies from what he had written at Needle-exchange program (it is worth a look).
The day after Minphie writes at the talkpage saying that he will revert R/FMP's good faithed removals although that does not happened until Mars 29 when he also adds to the lead. The day after R/FMP moves the lead edit as it was specific and not general to another place within the article. Minphie reverts the same day, and R/FMP complains at the talkpage urging Minphie to assume good faith. The same day Minphie justifies his revert at the talkpage. Early on Mars 31 R/FMP reverts after saying why on the talkpage. Later that day R/FMP shortens and move text to appropriate mainpage after giving a rationale on the talkpage. Minphie reverts (also while not being inlogged) after writing on the talkpage. R/FMP defends his changes at the talkpage and tries to come up with some compromise. On April 1 Minphie reverts and goes to AIV and tries to get sanctions at rakkar...
Is that enough? It mainly continuous in the same style. Rakkar retires on April 31 and FMP appears about the same time (both are indefinitely blocked, together with a third unused account). I join in on May 17 (Literaturegeek opened a case against me above and I got a 24 h block for participating in this). Steinberger (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
In defense of myself I need to clarify a few things:
  1. I had thought that only an Administrator could issue a warning re edit warring, and was not aware of Literaturegeek's status regarding the issue. I communicated with Literaturegeek in good faith after the warning was posted. I then went on to revert text, but with changes to my text to reflect anything that was valid in Steinberger's discussion text.
  2. Steinberger has alleged above that I have reverted without discussion at times in the past, however I believe that this would be best judged by looking at my contribs page. For instance, Steinberger alleges no communication for revert on Feb 6, however my communication for the revert is on Rakkar's Talk page rather than the article's discussion page. So my reverts are indeed discussed, but sometimes on a Request for Comment/Wikiquette page or a User Talk page.
  3. When defending myself on the Request for Comment page instituted by Steinberger and Figs Might Ply, I listed various categories of reasons [169] for reverting their text, which of course are backed by my text on the relevant article discussion page (or User Talk page etc) and in each case these were invalid rationales that had been offered by these users. Where there was a valid rationale I have in every case made IMMEDIATE changes, and there is also a list of these changes, not comprehensive, but solid enough to demonstrate the truth of what I am saying here on that same Request for Comment page.
  4. Re the sockpuppet relationship there had appeared to me some previous relationship between Rakkar and Steinberger because Rakkar directly asks Steinberger to take over the edits against my text here but in all fairness I do not know of any relationship between Steinberger and Figs Might Ply.
  5. In regards to the long list of reverted edits I have given solid reasons for each revert, which in many cases were accepted by the other party/parties by them moving on from that issue. In others I made changes to my text if there was a valid reason given by the other party/parties. I had thought that this would have removed the label of edit-warring if there indeed was demonstrable progress being made with the article.Minphie (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be true that Minphie communicated with rakkar on February 6. He accuses him of being a vandal and threatens to "take things further". This is the first communication Minphie has with R/FMP and that it would heed WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF is a not on the chart. Steinberger (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All that I would like is for you all to work out some sort of a compromise and come up with a balanced article and the edit warring to stop. Maybe you both could work out a peaceful compromise on the article talk page? The fighting will just lead eventually to topic bans if things continue the way they are going.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection would have been a great first step, but is should have been taken before I got blocked. I worry that one sided action such as only blocking R/FMP and then me and then protecting the pages, guided by the unfounded notion that "Minphie was unable to find consensus" won't make the articles greater. Minphie will invariably see that as if his edits where perfectly fine and within the word of the policies. To me it is quite clear that Minphie not is interested in discussions, rather he uses the talk pages to announce his justifications and "warn" others not to "vandalize" his "evidenced and well cited" changes. Or how should we interpret that he haven't engaged criticism to his changes at Talk:Needle-exchange programme#Misrepresentation or not engaged in what I have written lately at Talk:Harm reduction#Point for point? Steinberger (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps so, but I wouldn't say Minphie has gotten off scot free. He has had an RfC filed against him, which is generally viewed as worse than a single 24 hour block by the community. With regards to the example of the problematic edit by Minphie, I did acknowledge problematic edits such as this in my submission to the RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Not blocked / stale. The user has only edited this page in the last four days so even if he/she had been blocked, the block would have expired by now. --B (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by R.Schuster (talk) (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Template:South Slavic languages sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:09, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367388319 by R.Schuster (talk) the Resian and Prekmurians languages was the separate dialect of the Slovene, another 30 not")
  2. 17:57, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Schuster!!!!! Here ist the Torlakian, Banat Bulgarian and others south slavic dialects!!!!")

Mura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:12, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 09:26, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367577582 by R.Schuster (talk) however the Mura is the river of Prekmurje and not the Rovtarsko")
  3. 09:48, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "")

Prekmurian dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doncsecz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:48, 8 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Slédnjo večérjo (The Last Supper) */")
  2. 08:51, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367380650 by R.Schuster (talk)")
  3. 14:59, 11 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367396170 by R.Schuster (talk) The Last Supper and Lord's prayer not words, but coherent text, or else this is comprasion")
  4. 09:23, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367577218 by R.Schuster (talk)")
  5. 10:03, 12 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 367583023 by R.Schuster (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

R.Schuster (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't an edit warring issue. The issue is that he speaks English about as well as I speak Spanish. (At times, it looks like he is using Google translate or something similar.) Blocking him 24 hours for edit warring isn't going to do anything. What he really needs is for someone who speaks his language to explain to him that his behavior is unacceptable and that, even though he probably doesn't mean it, a lot of what he says comes out as personal attacks. --B (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Blocked for 1 week by Sandstein for disruption. --B (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi reported by Adrian (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Diffs for edit warring: