Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive137

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Norcalal reported by User:Ginelli (Result: Advised Ginelli)[edit]

Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norcalal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: 08:47, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,117 bytes)
  • 2nd revert: 08:46, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,108 bytes)
  • 3rd revert: 08:49, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,072 bytes)
  • 4th revert: 00:35, 29 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs)(95,108 bytes)


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

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

Comments:

It seems that Norcalal is using intimidating or harassment tactics to discourage me from making valid edits to the San Francisco Bay Area page. He has an obvious bias toward San Francisco and for some reason seems to think that I am biased toward San Jose. I have tried communicating with Norcalal civilly by e-mail without success. Wikipedia should consider banning this individual until he or she improves their behavior.Ginelli (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginelli (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - As a WP:CAL member, I am familar with Norcalal and have seen his edits. I consider his edits level-headed, mature and beneficial to all the articles he visits. On the other hand, I just reviewed the article in question, San Francisco Bay Area, and see that three other three other editors have reverted Ginelli for the same reasons as Norcalal has. In fact, had I seen the edits, I would have reverted Ginelli too. Ginelli's talkpage is very revealing as well. In this series of DIFFs, Norcalal chose not to template Ginelli by engaging him to discuss the matter.
From this next DIFF, TJRC made the same attempt to get Ginelli to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. TRJC is one of the other editors who has reverted Ginelli.
In the next DIFF, TJRC issued Ginelli a formal 3RR warning.
In this next DIFF, Binksternet notified Ginelli that his actions were being addressed at this board. Binksternet also has reverted Ginelli.
In the last formal warning on Ginelli's talkpage, TJRC warned him in this DIFF about no no personal attacks.
It's probably too late for Ginelli to rescind this section or report, I would urge him to do so and apologize to all concerned. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:The rev av reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: The Rev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The rev av (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]


Comments:
User is edit warring to keep out an unsourced section template and to keep in a statement of ownership telling other editors not to touch the section. User just came off a block for edit warring to keep in copyvios on another article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - One week. The editor continued to revert on 29 July after been blocked on 27 July for edit warring and copyright violations. He shows a long-term pattern of article ownership. I hope he realizes that this is his last chance to contribute to Wikipedia. Any admin may lift the block if they think the message has been received. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:StephenBortz reported by WuhWuzDat (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Cincinnati Country Day School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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


  1. 15:07, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  2. 15:10, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  3. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  4. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  5. 15:16, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  6. 15:31, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  7. 15:37, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  8. 15:39, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")

User:Lebronfan6 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: indefblocked)[edit]

Page: Ron Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lebronfan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [3]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None Comments: User insists on adding the same politically biased text that is not backed up by the source given. Has been informed multiple times that these edits violate WP:SYNTH. User has also been reported as a sock of User:Tarpon1.

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Epic of Gilgamesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:11, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "rvv - see policy on switching articles from BC format to "BCE"")
  2. 00:27, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "rv - once again according to the policy this should be a BC article, because BC was used from the beginning. It has changed back and forth a few times, but it started out BC. and the E is just stupid")
  3. 02:31, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "I gave a valid reason. Your reason was "reverting to original format" which is erroneous, as BC is in fact the original and stable format. Find something better to do than date edit war")
  4. 02:47, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "rvv - your math is wrong on two counts. 1) the original version dates to 2002 2) this is my third and last revert in the last 24 hours. If you continue to date war steps will be taken")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Please check the user's block log, as he's been repeatedly warned (and blocked) for edit warring on other articles. Thanks.

Jess

talk
edits

02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have many important things to do on wikipedia, but it is very sad to see that Mann Jess has nothing better to do than follow my contibs around and provoke date format wars etc.. The original format of the article is BC and has been for most of its history, and there is no consensus to keep changing it, and attempts to change it are supposed to be reverted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention of engaging in any disruption here, so I'll leave my reply at this: The date format was apparently stable since at least 2006, until it was changed this year without discussion. Secondly, I was not the first to revert, Wilson44691 was. But most pertinently, you have been repeatedly warned for edit warring on numerous articles, and in fact have been blocked 3 times for just that. I warned you myself, twice, which you saw and ignored prior to your final revert on the article, amounting to 4 in 30 hours. Based on your history, I can only gather you were well aware this was a violation of policy, so I'm really not sure what action you expected on my part. If you have any issues with me or the content of the article in question, please bring them to the article talk page, my talk page, or ANI, as this noticeboard isn't really the place. Thanks. 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Til's comment in the edit summary 'the e is just stupid' certainly suggests a pov edit. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Three-revert rule not technically violated, and this edit war is extremely stupid. -- tariqabjotu 10:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked Both users were equally culpable in this lame edit-war. Mann's response to my initial decision to decline demonstrates an unsettling and puzzling approach toward edit-warring. For example:
  • "As a result, at this point I'm left with two options. One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats), or two, I can engage in an edit war."
  • "I wasn't the initial revert, nor was I asked to discuss on talk."
-- tariqabjotu 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Windyhead reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h per ANI)[edit]

Page: Ukrainian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Windyhead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

  • 1st needless tag: [11] (started adding unnecessary tags here)
  • 2nd needless tag: [12]
  • 3rd needless tag: [13]
  • 4th needless tag: [14]
  • 5th needless tag: [15]
  • 6th needless tag: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17], [18] Editor has also been told multiple times by multiple editors that until he actually reads the sources I have cited, he has no basis for placing these tags or complaining: [19], [20], [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22] (last half of that discussion)

Other editors telling user how to proceed: [23], [24]

User stubbornly unwilling to check sources: [25]

User forum shopped to find someone to agree with him (unsuccessfully): [26], [27], and now [28]

Comments:

This editor is unwilling to check reliable scholarly sources on his own because they are books rather than websites. Instead he is engaged in a slow-motion edit war adding unnecessary and malicious tags to the paragraph he doesn't like. The paragraph is completely NPOV since it cites both points of view (and well-sourced with both citations and quotations), but based on his own nationalistic POV, he objects to one of the described points of view. Rather than citing his own sources or checking the printed sources, he is simply adding repetitive tags to the article while forum shopping for a willing ear. Multiple editors and administrators have told him that the paragraph is NPOV and that he needs to actually read the books that I have cited, but he continues to tag this paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, it was actually the reporter who performed numerous reverts for the last few days.

Previous version reverted to: [29]

The reporter occupied the page being discussed and reverted every my single edit for the last few days. He is also acting against Wikipedia:Assume good faith by posting everywhere (and here) that his opponent "has not read the sources", degraded to uncivil personal arguments like "his nationalistic POV" (and other personal epithets which I will not report on Edit Warring board), and harassed his opponent by various empty accusations like "forum shopping" and posting an "edit warring" report which contains no single revert diff. Is this how things get moving here? --windyhead (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

None of my reverts violate the 3RR rule. Indeed, the issue is not about me removing malicious tagging without supporting evidence, but about Windyhead wasting time with repetitive, baseless tagging of verifiable, reliably sourced material written in a NPOV way. He is POV pushing without bothering to check sources. --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:AhMeD BoSS reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: )[edit]

Page: FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AhMeD BoSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: The diff's are completely equivalent. He reverts to the same version each time.

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: This is not the first time he does this, see his talkpage for more. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:92.32.33.49 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: List of Serbian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.32.33.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]


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

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

Comments:
I find it funny that the IP actually suggested that we discuss the issue in one of the summaries of his/her reversions. However, he/she never turned up on the talk page where four users (including me) agreed that a large part of the list needed to be removed. From then on, he/she never said anything in the summaries, not even after I warned him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected, since the dynamic IP continues to revert. (He was already past 3RR with his other identity). EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:OX in the BOX reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Gabriel Cousens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OX in the BOX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]


Comments:
Whitewashing and Deleting well sourced content about homeopathic doctor. (malpractice case, pulled medical license). - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article has now been semi protected and the user given a short block due to sock puppetry. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.246.156.86 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.246.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]


Comments:
Apparent single purpose account, making changes to Jason Leopold against consensus. User is not willing to discuss the matter civilly, and has claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. Issue goes back this far. Some sort of admin assistance would be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Disruption is ongoing and repeated today, IP has a huge COI and simply wants to write his own BLP and is desire less to discuss with experienced users, laughable really. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


This guy has been asking and asking for a block and instead we protect the article, protect it again, and then add reviewed changes? I say take a look at all the last warnings on his talk page and block him accordingly. Yworo (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you muchly! 'Course, with his history, he'll likely have to be blocked again as soon as that expires, but we'll cross that bridge, and all that. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

24.224.195.28 reported by Modernist (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Steve McQueen (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.224.195.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Talk page:[68] - This is a clear indication that the IP does not understand wikipedia. I came on this edit war rather late, but this diff indicates the IPs lack of understanding...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: IP clearly does not respond to any warning, except to continue the edit war...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - 72 hours. Long-term edit warring across a range of articles. He systematically takes out the link to Nouvelle vague from articles since he doesn't like use of the French term. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )[edit]

Page: Bose Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Phoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69] – First time THX Commercial certification sentence appears in article.

  • 1st revert: [70] 05:32, July 23, 2010
  • 2nd revert: [71] 19:29, July 23, 2010
  • 3rd revert: [72] 10:44, July 27, 2010
  • 4th revert: [73] 11:07, July 27, 2010
  • 5th revert: [74] 22:06, July 27, 2010
  • 6th revert: [75] 05:11, July 29, 2010
  • 7th revert: [76] 10:50, July 29, 2010
  • 8th revert: [77] 07:58, July 31, 2010
  • 9th revert: [78] 08:50, July 31, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bose_Corporation#THX_references, three entries from me, no response from Phoenix79.

Comments:

Slow but sure edit war involving this URL:

Phoenix79 continually removes the URL which establishes that Bose Commercial audio products are not THX certified. It is not a positive statement but it is a true one, so it is neutral and accurate. This is a specific THX "Commercial" webpage where people can look up all commercial audio products which are certified, and there is no Bose. (Note that there is a separate "Home Entertainment" webpage published by THX that has been allowed to stay in the article.) The latest removal of this reference follows three attempts by me to engage Phoenix79 in discussion about the THX bit, but he has not taken part. Even though the above diffs do not include four reverts in any one 24 hour period, I believe they demonstrate a willingness by Phoenix79 to engage in edit warring each time it appears, and a refusal to discuss on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I will point out that I didnt realize the last one was a revert as like I said I was giving this one last shot. I thought I save it twice. My intention was to take this to the WP:RS/Noticeboard if reverted again and allow them to resolve this. The problem is we are both culpable. I have previously stated that the opions section also holds this chritism and it is not needed here. But you have also revered other cited sections from reliable sources
  1. 23:18, 21 July 2010
  2. 22:20, 22 July 2010
  3. 15:11, 23 July 2010
  4. 21:35, 23 July 2010
  5. 15:08, 27 July 2010
  6. 02:40, 29 July 2010
  7. 10:11, 29 July 2010
  8. 22:29, 29 July 2010
  9. 08:35, 31 July 2010
I still hope that this can be taken up by 3rd parties. Last time I did that my record will show that I waited until the converation ended before making any edits ot the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71#Bose References. If I wont be allowed, can someone take this to them to get this silly disagreement over? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I would not characterize the dispute as silly. Not being THX certified is a serious factor in the world of commercial audio. Your removal of this unflattering fact and its reference is a violation of neutral point of view. My insistence that it be in the article is neutral and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MakmoudHassan reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: indef)[edit]

Resolved: blocked for disruption by Toddst1. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Page: Medical University of Łódź (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MakmoudHassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Comments:
Unsourced assertions repeatedly added. I'm surprised no-one gave any WP:OR-warnings... User reverts both vandalism and 3rr warnigs, as well as advice from his talk page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User vandalized this report twice. Reported at AIV Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointless slander by the above users, if you see my edits you will have seen no cases of vandalism whatsoever. This is case of slander on the part of the above users. My history speaks for itself! MakmoudHassan talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

This board is not for vandalism, it is for cases of edit-warring. Your vandalism (to this board) has been reported separately at WP:AIV (by Jusdafax). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted the page once or twice via Huggle and thus am kind of involved. As I told the user via my talk page, replacing promotional wording with wording that makes the school looks subpar is just a violation of WP:NPOV, especially if those assertions are unsourced. 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a suspected sockpuppet of ProfessorJane. Elockid (Talk) 00:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


[86]

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: [93]

Comments:

None of the above breaches 3RR and all edits were a result of extensive discussions on the talk page. (1) They were over a period of three days and (2) they were not all reverts. For example, the final so-called revert was the fusion of the consensus version and a bold version by another editor. This is part of the consensus building process. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that user:Noloop has made a dubious 3RR report of myself. On the last occasion, user:Noloop was actually blocked. --Ari (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:Blocked for 2 weeks )[edit]

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I added the following before seeing someone else had already reported it; see above. I'll leave this here anyway for background.

I'd appreciate some help with serial reverting at the above, which has been going on for many months. Ari89 is avoiding 3RR by engaging in partial reverts, and stopping short of the 24-hour deadline. He otherwise does nothing to contribute to the article, and the reverting is making article development close to impossible. Ari has a strong religious POV, and has been blocked five times this year for edit warring on articles related to religion, the last time in May for one week. I offered him the opportunity to self-revert before reporting this, but he engaged in a partial self-revert that made the edit even worse. [94]

The following is just a snapshot of his reverting at that article. As far back as you look in the history for many months, it's the same story, combined with no actual contributions to the article.

  • Version reverted to: 20:04, July 29, 2010, I removed from the lead that the Christ myth theory has no support among classical historians, after multiple objections to it on talk.
  • Version reverted to: 18:56, July 31, 2010, I removed "classical historians" and added material from a Swedish scholar, Alvar Ellegård

I asked him on his talk page to self-revert. He said in the edit summary that he was partially self-reverting by removing "classical historians," but he made the edit even more inaccurate by removing "classical" but retaining "historians," and he did not restore Ellegard. [95]

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I looked into this and believe that a block of Ari89 for edit-warring is necessary. However, I am not going to block him myself because I have been unable to come a satisfactory decision regarding the most appropriate duration for a block and so prefer to leave this to another admin. CIreland (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a single-purpose account, maybe something topic-related is in order. Noloop (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
A singe-purpose account that edits articles from every conceivable area? --Ari (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I went back a year and saw mostly edits about Christianity. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no breach of 3RR, and my reverts were on the basis of extensive discussions. This report sounds much more like a misleading attack. For example, there are claims that I have a strong religious POV yet this is not demonstrated. There are claims that I have not contributed to the article, oddly missing out facts that I have written entire sections of the article and am always contributing to the talk page discussions. Furthermore, the so-called reverts from today were not reverts but the fusion of a consensus version and SlimVirgin's non-consensus bold version. This was done to build consensus, implementing both SlimVirgin's bold edits and the consensus version. Abusing the 3RR reporting because SV has a content dispute is not appropriate behaviour, especially from an administrator. --Ari (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. Someone had to be restoring the material that Ari was removing. Looking at the page history, looks like SlimVirgin was doing at least 2 reverts. I'd say block them both, and/or protect the page. There is no excuse for edit warring. None. If you don't like that someone reverted you, SlimVirgin, don't restore the content, but discuss it. If you don't like new content, Ari, don't keep removing it. Both of you should know better. -Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ari89 has a warring approach to things, as is seen on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, for a long time. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You mean those articles where much of the talk page content is me discussing many issues? Noloop, your personal distaste for me was noted on the various noticeboards that rejected your allegations against myself and other users. --Ari (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks I'm not going to block SlimVirgin, because she didn't toe the 3RR line. To Ari; avoiding the 3RR by a matter of minutes is not a defence to edit warring, and your edits, while not classical undos, clearly meet the relevant definition of reverting, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

user:195.50.69.30 reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warning, ARBPIA notification)[edit]

Page: Halamish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:195.50.69.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There's no use.

Comments: The user is engaged in slow motion edit warring on every article they edit. They add POV, slanderous information, and vandalism [102]. They just got back from a week long block, and again edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned User advised of the 3-revert rule, as no warning was previously issued and notified of WP:ARBPIA. CIreland (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The warning did not work [103];[104].--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Talk:Prem Rawat (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:27, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect */ removed PatW's fabrication")
  2. 00:05, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376669870 by Will Beback (talk)Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges")
  3. 00:44, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* This sentence in the article appears to be unbalanced and incorrect */ As per WP:TPG")
  • Diff of warning: here

There are only two reverts, excluding the original deletion, but this editor seems intent on edit warring to remove another editor's comment. His user talk page comments make it clear that he will continue to revert.[105] He has been blocked for edit warring and disruption in the past, and a one-year topic ban expired only recently.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 01:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ventura488 reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Kohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ventura488 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:55, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376692209 by Jayjg (talk)")
  2. 03:06, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376693903 by Jayjg (talk)")
  3. 03:26, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376695278 by Jayjg (talk)")
  4. 03:44, 2 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376698291 by Nyttend (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Looking back over the recent history of the article, it seems this editor has been edit-warring for a couple of days with User:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, and before that was edit-warring as an IP 24.189.97.251 (talk · contribs), which eventually got the page semi-protected, forcing him to login to his account. Attempts to get him to discuss issues on the article Talk: page, by several editors, have been fruitless. He seems to be able to find User:Talk pages, and make repeated reports on WP:AIV and even AN/I, but has apparently never made an edit to an article Talk: page. —Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: article 1RR 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Each rv explained

  1. 01:04, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by Cryptonio (talk) Ooops") --labeled a rv
  2. 02:16, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by Cryptonio (talk) Per Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag")--labeled a rv
  3. 03:12, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.")--reinserts pov tag as before
  4. 00:43, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.")--reinserts "commentators claim" as in this edit


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza War#POV tag

Comments:
nableezy - 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess this is reaction to wacky discussion. Cryptonio was clearly wacky warring. Changes with Nableezy are incremental improvement effort with phrasing coined via discussion and balancing his remarks. It is sad that Nableezy prefers notice board festival to sources discussion on article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick review: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), recently banned 5 weeks (editwarring and POV pushing) from all the Israeli and Arab city articles a second time this year (See: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2010), has made 3 reverts himself (00:37, 31 July -- 00:32, 1 August) and is playing the electric fence game. I see two very long bans this year and also 2 editwarring blocks (all in 2010). AgadaUrbanit, blocked once for editwarring in September 2009, on Gaza War (of all articles) and, on the face of it, has made 4 reverts. AgadaUrbanit should be again reminded that repeated reverting can easily turn into a sanction. He has a fairly clean log for almost a year, but his one block was in relation to the same article. As such, I would suggest a one week ban on him from this article which causes him to lose his calm (not very often, but still) as a reminder that if he can't work out his differences on this page without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work on it at all. As far as Nableezy goes, I figure including this article into his Israeli-Arab city ban is worthy but probably not enough to get the point across. Perhaps a two week topic ban from the entire Arab-Israeli conflict area will be a good hint that if he can't work out his differences within this topic without using the undo button he won't be allowed to work in it at all. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Added note: I noticed this type of commentary from Cryptonio on the talkpage:

      Self revert this you little freckled house mouse. Final warning, and not because there are only three, but because I simply can't be here all night babysitting you. Cryptonio (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

      The editor is clearly confrontational to the point of trying to gain the upper hand by bullying his fellow editor off the page through incivility. Looking at his block log, I'd recommend a 48hr block. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, and also thanks for trying to canvass a selected admin. Oh, and there is one edit warring block in 2010, and on my second edit-warring block I later found out you had privately communicated with the blocking admin who later said he should not have blocked me. And one of my supposed "reverts" here was adding an additional source from a peer-reviewed journal article. nableezy - 03:30, 1 Augusst 2010 (UTC)
Jaak, every edit you have made for more than a week has been to get me banned from something or another. Would you mind terribly trying to find a new hobby? nableezy - 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy using noticeboards to push out other editors is a common enough complaint about him. However, unless it is judged that Cryptonio was vandalizing the page (his talk page stuff makes it look like he is trolling but not sure), then AU did cross 3rr. This addition to the discussion makes it doubtful that anyone (including AU) would assume good faith. Nableezy did not cross 3rr himself but he has been reverting anything based on the term "massacre" for over a year while being unmovable to alternative methods of inclusion on the talk page if that means anything. And why is an experience user making so many reverts in a day anyways? Both should be reminded to use the talk page more and AU could be blocked for crossing a bright line while Nableezy's possible edit warring should be considered.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I really need a reminder to use the talk page more. nableezy - 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. Use the talk page... in an effort to establish consensus. Or to put it in a little harsher terms: not stonewalling.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG what a mess. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

  • For persistent incivility, misuse of talk pages, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, Cryptonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. I will not entertain any appeal until a minimum of three months has elapsed, although Cryptonio retains the right to appeal to the community or arbcom at any time.
  • In lieu of protection or blocks, Gaza War is subject to a 1RR/24h parole for two weeks. Notice will be placed on talk page and given via editnotice. Everyone involved is strongly urged to resolve the issue without resorting to edit warring. The sky will not fall if a {{POV}} tag remains for the time necessary to reach a consensus.
  • Any future attempts to edit war will be viewed very dimly and will likely result in a lengthy break from this topic area.

T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptonio has just violated his topic ban.[107] I also think a 1rr is sweet and could go for even longer.Cptnono (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. As to the 1RR, we can worry about extending it if necessary (I hope not) after or soon before it expires. T. Canens (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I disagree with extending it being unfortunate if it keeps people calm. Of course walking on eggshells is not something that this project should be about so totally get it. Anyways, is this reasoning enough to limit talk page access?Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
People shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. Would it be appropriate to restrict access to his talk page for three months until he can make an appeal to the admin who made the topic ban? Shorter would be fine to but I am just going to continue to remove what looks to me like disruptive behavior and would rather not break 3rr.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Restricting access to his talk page during the block, something which already been done is sufficient. If he persists after his block, he can be reblocked. -- tariqabjotu 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that was done after I made the request. I should have mafe mention that it was resolved.Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User:Tao2911 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Stuart Davis (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [108]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:

I carefully reviewed article and edited to sourced information; article had consisted of mainly un-sourced original research and hyperbolic POV editorializing and commentary. I also found new sources and cited, adding other factual information, and added citations for facts already present but uncited. Goethean seems to have written the unsourced material, and inaccurately calling my edits "section blanking" has reverted the page 4 times now to biased version. Another editor has pointed out to him that the page is not the place for promotional material or personal opinion, and has pointed out possible ownership issues. Goethean has refused to discuss issues in talk before making edits, and is not making individual points, simply reverting whole page without providing any new sources or citations, etc. Editor has a long history of obstreperousness and contentiousness on a few different page, as evidenced by user:talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Both parties warned. The four reverts listed are not within 24 hours, so there is no 3RR violation. Over the past few weeks there is a long-term edit war, between Goethean (who favors a laudatory 20Kbyte version of the article) and Tao2911, who favors a 3K version. Since the bigger version lacks extensive citations, the case remains to be proven. Please use the talk page to try to justify the respective versions during that time. Any party who continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page risks a block. A WP:Request for comment is one way to bring in more people to a debate if those who are directly involved have no patience with each other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Trouble with other people checking in is they are accused, by Goeathean to be socks and chills any meaningful discussions on any article with Goethan thinks he owns. This is the problem when bullies like Gotheanan are enabled by admins who don't fully understand the situation and just knee jerk.

Sock puppet accusation a complete red herring. Goethean himself vigorously voices his belief that I am not such. As for actual TOPIC here, Goethean still has not addressed the simple fact that all of the information he keeps re-including to article has no source support. 3 revert rule is not the only standard - if there is a clear pattern of reverting page, 24 hour rule is not the only measure by which edit warring can be gauged. Goethean needs to make case for reinclusion of individual points, that show secondary source support. This is my whole point. I should not be warned for simply maintaining the integrity of a carefully and respectfully edited page, that maintains much of the info there before, with sourced material researched and added to boot.Tao2911 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you come back as being unrelated via the CheckUser tool, then I will apologize. I just feel there is sufficient evidence to justify and SPI case being opened. Tiptoety talk 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Victor Chmara reported by aprock (talk) (Result: )[edit]

Page: History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:59, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv: what's your source for "paid advertisement"; according to Gottfredson, op-ed editor David Brooks agreed to publish it; there's a similar quote from APA report") undoes revert
  2. 22:46, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 1960-1980 */ restored NPOV") undoes revert
  3. 22:49, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 1980-present */ restoring sourced content")
  4. 23:03, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv: the interview was published in Kuukausiliite, which is an affiliated but separate publication from the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat") removes restored wiki-link

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
User:Victor Chmara started a flurry of editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy at 18:53, 1 August 2010[117]. Some of these edits restored typos, added references and otherwise improved the article. On the other hand, several of the edits shifted the POV of the article. Several of these edits were reverted, and attempts were made to open a constructive dialogue: [118], [119], [120]. Instead of discussing his proposed changes, Victor Charma took a combative position on the talk page [121], while admitting that he was making changes without checking sources "I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis..."[122]. Instead of actively participating in discussion, he has restored many of the reverts, and declared that his edits should stand until others take them to talk, putting the responsibility of checking and discussing sources on the shoulders of other editors, not himself. He has also falsely accused me of reverting him wholesale: [123].

It may (or may not) be worth noting that User:Victor Chmara, myself, and other users active on the talk page are actively involved in an open arbitration case related to this article. [124]

aprock (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there have been some misunderstandings here and this ought to be settled appropriately and not through yet another ANI? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Victor has started to discuss constructively, and stopped edit warring, both of which are good things. aprock (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This whole thing is ridiculous and unwarranted. I have been ready to discuss constructively from the outset, and I have not made a single edit to the article after aprock complained about my (wholly justified) reverts on my user talk page. Bizarrely, aprock decided to start this ANI process while we were in the middle of discussing the issues on the talk page. The problem was that aprock deleted lots of my sourced edits and falsely claimed that I had removed content from the article (he has admitted to his errors here[125]). He also did not discuss his reverts beforehand on the talk page even though I had specifically asked for comments on my edits there. However, the situation seems to be okay now, and I think everybody should get back to editing articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I notice that Aprock filed this report only 38 minutes after warning Victor Chmara about edit warring on his userpage, even though Victor Chmara did not revert the article again after Aprock’s warning. I also see from the discussion about these edits that Victor was attempting to discuss Aprock’s reverts with him, and that Aprock himself admitted there that he was failing to clearly justify them: “I'm just on a very small laptop, which makes the comparisons difficult when the diff goes awry (as they appear to have done). So yes, I do admit that I didn't read those diffs correctly, and I again apologize…” (and in another comment) “I misread the original edit. I did not see that the red text had been replicated below the references you added. My apologies.”
If I’m to assume good faith about this report, which is difficult, the best I can assume about it is that it was a mistake. Reports for edit warring are meant to be for dealing with editors who are aggressively adding or removing material instead of engaging in discussion about it. They should not be made by an editor who (by his own admission) is himself failing to justify his edits, as a substitute for discussion with other editors who are trying to engage in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:CenkX reported by Takabeg (Result: Both users edit warring, article protected)[edit]

Page: Bumin Qaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Bumin Kağan

  1. 08:48, 2 August 2010
  2. 08:52, 2 August 2010
  3. 09:03, 2 August 2010
  4. 09:26, 2 August 2010

He/She removed information with Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Both users were edit warring. I'm not going to take sides on the underlying content dispute, but the right answer is not to continue to revert. Because this report is stale, I won't block either party (and recommend against anyone else blocking) but I have protected the page for three days. Try and hash things out on the talk page. If you cannot come to an agreement, seek a third opinion or some other avenue for dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Binksternet reported by User:BS24 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Susan B. Anthony List#Dispute about Anthony's views

Comments:
User continues to add ridiculous and biased information. He insists on using the term "Academic history experts" to describe pro-choice authors and uses a citation from a biased pro-choice source to try to prove their "expertise". User did the same at the Susan B. Anthony page and was rebuked. The edit war has been going on for several days now. User has a history of edit warring as evidenced by his talk page. Please advise. BS24 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This report appears to me to be the wrong venue for the concerns of BS24. There is no edit warring involved—I added things, I changed things and I discussed both wording and sources on the talk page. BS24 visited the talk page only once to add a brief thought about the choice between calling angry Anthony scholars "pro-choicers" (BS24 wording) or "academic history experts" (wording of the Susan B. Anthony Museum). Discussion is still open, still in progress. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Musashi miyamoto Reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result:)[edit]

Page: Amish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Musashi miyamoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 92.10.208.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

1st Revert [126]

2nd [127]

3rd [128]

4th [129]

Comments:
Talk page discussion of lengthy Discussion with IP User talk:92.10.208.209 Warned about 3RR Warring and User:Jmlk17 Semi-Protects page and then user in the 4th Revert is Quacking with a megaphone like a Sleeper account. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: IP had previous edited in a 3RR the Same content and article two weeks ago Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  • My first question is, why are you using rollback in an edit war? Is the disputed content vandalism? Protonk (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I consider, going way against consensus to repeatedly add content is vandalism in my book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Well I consider what is under WP:VAND#NOT to not be vandalism. Which specifically includes adding content against consensus. My second question is, why was there not