Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:98.115.67.10 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result:24 hours )[edit]

Page: White people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.115.67.10 (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]
  • 5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:White people#Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people

Comments:
3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - blocked 24 hours. AniMate 22:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: No action taken)[edit]

OF doesn't want action taken, therefore there's really nothing for admins to do here. Further discussion should occur on the article's Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: List of wars between democracies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]

  • 6 Aug: 13:38: [9]
  • 6 Aug, 14:13: [10]
  • 6 Aug, 17:03: [11]
  • 8 Aug, 17:23: [12] (Revert, but not of tags)
  • 8 Aug, 17:57: [13]
  • 8 Aug, 18:53: [14]
  • 8 Aug, 19:42: [15]
  • 9 Aug, 15:31: [16]
  • 9 Aug, 16:37: [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19], and more (much of the discussion is about this now).

Comments:

Pmanderson is a respected and useful editor, but he has a history of revert warring with a long list of blocks and topic bans. In List of wars between democracies there are several entries that are highly doubtful, and these entries and the sources are currently under discussion. I've tagged the wars in question until we can resolve the issue. For example he claims that The First Kashmir War is a war between democracies, using sources that I claim doesn't support it. I took it up on on RSN and the conclusion there was that the source doesn't support the statement, but Pmanderson both refuses to consider that, and even to let any tags stay. Instead he reverts them. He also rarely marks his reverts as being such in the edit summary. I've asked him to stop reverting, and I've also asked him to provide better edit summaries, as his nondescript edit summaries act as to hide his reverts, to no avail.

I made this first as a AN/I, but during that I noticed he in fact has racked up five reverts the last 24h, and that I had gotten 4. I self reverted as to not break the 3RR rule. I was asked to move it here, as this is the correct forum as it is in fact edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud OF. There's an entire talkpage full of sources, and discussion about how to use sources, all of which is - admit it - going right over your head, so your only response is to stick tags on everything. PMAnderson isn't edit warring - you are edit warring with everyone else on the page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Elen, that is not true, as you very well know. As the link to the RSN shows above, the source discussed first does not support the statement. Even if it in the end is a question of different people reading in different things, that is *not* a reason to remove the tags until the discussion has been resolved. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I've reverted your WP:POINTY tags now, because as far as I can see the discussions closed with everyone else agreeing except you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That is simply not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If that (an edit war followed by AN3 report by one of the parties) was not baiting, I do not know what is. PMA should have known better not to react to a provocation the way he did, but I think that OpenFuture's conduct on the article and here deserves a serious scrutiny, and possibly an appropriate punishment. (Igny (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

What? How is that baiting? How did I provoke him? I wasn't even aware he did that many reverts until I was preparing an AN/I to get somebody to ask him to stop hiding his reverts in non-descript edit summaries. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, if you look at the discussion, OpenFuture ignores all sources suggested by myself, and just continues to go on and on about how PMA won't accept OF's interpretation of one source. All suggestion to tackle the question by further research is ignored, the only thing he will accept is PMA to back down and say that the source says whatever OF says it says.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Also not true, but I suggest we keep the content discussion on the article talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Few of these, if any, are reverts; I believe all of them add text.
  • The version supposedly reverted to has little to do with the present text of the article. A compound diff of the article from the supposed reversion text to my last edit will show how frivolous this complaint is.
  • Insofar as this has substance, it consists of removal of {{or}} and {{fv}} tags while recasting the section complained of, and adding new sources. I could just assume that no edit will please OpenFuture (who has added tags at least as often as I removed them), but that would be uncollegial.
  • Since OpenFuture complained of such removal, I have not removed any; but another editor has disposed of them. There is no consensus on the talk page that these tags have even merit enough to be disputes.
  • This is an effort by a tireless, albeit isolated, editor to win a content dispute by administrative means. This pileup of irrelevant, non-substantive evidence is part of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Reverts are reverts even if you also add text at the same time, and even if you hide them by not mentioning them in edit summaries. That you haven't done any of them since I complained is also not true, as I complained already the 6th. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. OpenFuture deletes and tags in a manner contrary to discussion on the talk page, where there is no consensus. A better tag might be "dubious" when he feels one is needed. OpenFuture often argues his point by claiming that other editors either can't read and understand the sources they're citing, through reductio ad absurdum tactics, or by implying that other editors willfully misrepresent their sources. He refuses to provide his own summaries of the cited material he disputes on the talk page, claiming that his readings of the sources are self-evident even though other editors interpret their meaning differently. OpenFuture's objections regarding WP:UNDUE may at times have validity, but this is difficult to determine, as he also refuses to provide adequate sources for what he claims to be a majority view. Although he says he wants the material in the article to reflect the scholarship in a balanced, accurate way, as far as I can see he never contributes positively by rewriting or adding to the text, and instead deletes or adds alarmist tags. Because his edits are deletions or tags, other editors can respond only by reverting — he doesn't provide text that could be rewritten, amended, or nuanced. I believe his editing to be contrary to WP:NPOV, in that he wishes to exclude (rather than describe) points of debate among scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the reverted tags is indeed a dubious tag. If you feel that would have been better in the other place too, you could have said so. The important part is that the entry is flagged so that people don't believe it's true while there are no sources supporting it. Your description of the discussion is completely false. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an extensive and complex multisided dispute here and while OpenFuture is technically correct here, their behavior is contributory to the overall situation.
I am (still) working on a now multi-day review of the situation on the article. I recommend other admins not take action on PMA for the time being, until I'm able to address the larger situation.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't want any action om Pmanderson, I don't care about the 3RR rule per se, and it probably wasn't intentional. I jst want Pmanderson to stop removing the tags while we are discussing the issue. As mentioned, I didn't even notice it was a 3RR violation until I was almost finished with the ANI. A freeze would probably help. Pmanderson needs to start respecting the same Wikipedia policy as everyone else are subject to. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to have a moratorium on editing until you have completed, to prevent anyone burning the Reichstag down? I would support you freezing the article (and talkpage if necessary) for 48hrs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would hurt; I will do so if there's not a large objection by tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We are polishing the present statement on Kashmir, which was phrased poorly (writing around too many footnotes); but there's no rush to do that.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommend "no action" This is a poorly prepared report. Three reverts on Aug. 6 do not violate 3RR and no account is taken that the Aug 8/9 edits include consecutive edits. I count four groups on that date:

  • 8 Aug, 17:23
  • 8 Aug, 17:57
  • 8 Aug, 18:53, 8 Aug, 19:42 and 9 Aug, 15:31
  • 9 Aug, 16:37

I do not know if all these were reverts or modifications to edits that Pmanderson had made earlier. It appears that OpenFuture reverted all these edits. Since OpenFuture has said, "I don't want any action on Pmanderson", and Georgewilliamherbert is working on the RfC that OpenFuture took against Pmanderson, I recommend that no action be taken against either editor, but this incident should be noted in the RfC.

TFD (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Forsts23 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Mitanni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Forsts23 (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: [27]

Comments:

Warring different variations into the article. No participations @ talk despite being invited to do so by Dougweller (talk · contribs). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 48h - has recent 24h block for same reason. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Article protected)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Port Adelaide Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

User has various warnings for edit warring and 3RR on his talk page. Recently returned from 72 hour block for edit warring (extended to one week due to block evasion). Jevansen (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - It takes two to edit war... usually. The three most recent SPA Swedish(?) IP's reverting GPW: clearly related to each other. Who is this? Doc9871 (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Eathb I'd imagine, based on the article's recent edit history. Jevansen (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 It looks like a duck to me Ya think? Eathb, you're not in Sweden, I trust... Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I realise you would expect Eathb to say this if I was him, but no, I'm not Eathb, but yes, all 3 ip edits were me (I don't have an account, but I will probably register now). I reverted to his version as I think it's a better version of the page. I stopped on my 3rd edit to not break the WP:3RR. I wasn't baiting him, but I do believe he has WP:OWNERSHIP issues. And finally yes, I am currently in Sweden due to work, but I was born in Adelaide and support PAFC, so I watch the WP page carefully. 93.182.146.52 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Fourth IP, "one" editor account has to revert four times in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. "Y'all" could have technically reverted 12 times and not violated it: right? Do resister, please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been editing via IP for a long time now and I have never violated the 3RR. Because I currently don't have a static IP doesn't change this. It was obvious that all 3 were me, so in answer to your question, no, I couldn't revert 12 times. Registerd: Forevn (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool! The thread's been resolved for over an hour: now that you have a reliable talk page, we can discuss things there. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fully protected article for 2 weeks. I too detect a hint of WP:BAIT here. Rather than just block both GPW and Eathb, let us try cutting it at the point of contact. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:90.214.206.127 reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: blocked 24h, article semi-protected 24h)[edit]

Page: Brian Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 90.214.206.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:55, 9 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 23:57, 9 August 2010 (edit summary: "Added key information which would be useful")
  3. 12:07, 10 August 2010 (edit summary: "I Have added important info, reference = http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_brian_griffins_birthday&updated=1&waNoAnsSet=1&status=VGhhbmtzIGZvciBzaGFyaW5nIHlvdXIgYW5zd2VyLiA8YSBjbGFzcz0idW5kZXJsaW5lIiB")
  4. 15:53, 10 August 2010 (edit summary: "this information is strongly relatable and important to the article, this info i have added is compulsury and wiki needs it a lot")
  5. 19:12, 10 August 2010 (edit summary: "This information is crucial, do not delete, trust me that is is important and useful, and truthful!")
  6. 21:54, 10 August 2010 (edit summary: "listen up wikipedia you bullshitfuckface, this is important information that you need! my reference and sources are http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_brian_griffins_birthday and two others")
  • Diff of warning: here

User trying to avoid 3RR by a registered accountCTJF83 chat 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: IP and Frodobagginsman (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for edit warring, article semi-protected 24 hours with note on talk page explaining the rationale behind the semi-protection. –MuZemike 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: OK now)[edit]

Page: Antony and Cleopatra (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

While this [33] was my first work on cleaning up the page it still contained a few MOS:DAB errors. This one came closer [34] but I still discovered that I had left in some piped links so this version [35] the one that I was aiming for. I know that this is a later version than the one that was being reverted so please see the comments section below for clarification of what is going on.

A note about the 1974 television version. I was in error with my first attempt to create a name for it. After I had a chance to think about it I changed the entry to include the RSC page that Valerius wanted to go to without it being hidden by a piping.


Due to the fact that Valerius makes several small edits at a time the only way to see the edit warring going on is by looking at the page history here [36].


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] and here [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to discuss this with the editor on their talk page here User talk:Valerius Tygart#Disambiguation pages rather than on the disambiguation talk page

Comments:

The main problem is that this editor is ignoring the fact that the MoS guidelines are different for disambiguation pages than they are for articles. In spite of my giving Valerius links to the proper guidelines the editor is ignoring them and continuing to add piping to the main article links and to add numerous other links. When we edit disambiguation pages we even get a nice instruction box at the top of the page explaining what should and should not put on the page. This is also being ignored.

As you will note the bulk of this occurred on August 6th. I decided not to file a report at the time as after my last message on Valerius' talk page the incorrect edits stopped. Sadly today IP 140.139.35.250 made the exact same edits that Valerius had. Per this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive (towards the bottom of a long list of socks) this IP is one that Valerius used before in a sockpuppetting situation. Valerius received a block at that time. I feel that another one is warranted. If you decide that a new sockpuppet investigation needs to be opened please let me know and I will get the ball rolling on that also. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: It seems that I acted too swiftly this morning. The anon IP did not go back to the MoS violation version that Valerius was insisting on. Thus you may close this with "No action needed" if you wish. I would remove this completely but the socking situation is still worrying as Valerius and the IP also worked on the same article here [39] today. We might want this report here just for the record. Sorry for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned about Valerius' usage of 140.139.35.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to edit articles which he also edits with his main account. This is an issue under our sockpuppet policy. If Valerius will promise to stop using IPs, it seems to me that this report could be closed with no further action. This IP's talk page shows that it has has previously received warnings and has been blocked in its own right. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - No action needed. Valerius has placed a voluntary alternate-account notice on his Talk to explain his usage of the IP. MarnetteD's original concern about the DAB page has been resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsdave1 reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: United States Academic Decathlon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nsdave1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Not exactly a 3RR matter here, but I have an editor who has repeatedly added the same content over a period of months and refuses to discuss on the talk page. I would appreciate if someone could help me out in giving him some advice. NW (Talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent for some reason. My guess would be that its a sock of someone else,but thats just my opinion. Hard to see it as a huge problem as I don't see it as actual vandalism, but I don't see it as productive either. I'll add to my watch list though.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have left a warning for the editor that points to this discussion. Not sure we can do more here, because he was never notified of 3RR policy and has very few edits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Warned. Restoring a link to Facebook, over and over, is a slow edit war. Action can be taken the next time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.51.166.54 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Page semi-prot)[edit]

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

User being reported: 75.51.166.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:16, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378273734 by Materialscientist (talk)")
  2. 00:19, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378274442 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk)")
  3. 01:05, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378280855 by Dabomb87 (talk)")
  4. 02:04, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378288455 by Mann jess (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Please check the article history. This user is a sockpuppet edit warring with a number of users.

Jesstalk|edits 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected by Fastily. If that doesn't solve the problem please make a new report or drop a note at my talk page. If the problem recurs after 25 August, request an extension at WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freshfighter9 reported by User:UrbanNerd (Result: No action for now)[edit]

Page: User talk:UrbanNerd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Freshfighter9 (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: [44]

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

Comments:

  • Not sure if this constitutes edit warring but I assume it does. Unfortunately I was lured in by his taunts and received a 24 hour block myself, which is regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talkcontribs)
    Edit warring? If anything you were the guilty party... constantly reverting the warnings you were issued in order to hide them. Was it not you who received a temp block for harassment, and not I? I'd be happy to share the fomenting comments you left on my talk page if need be. Who was attempting to lure whom? Freshfighter9talk 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    You are not an admin, I left the official block notice up. You have no right to repeatedly interfere with my user page, especially after repeatedly being asked to stop. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Note that though UrbanNerd is allowed to remove comments (even legit warnings) from his/her talk page per WP:OWNTALK, Freshfighter9 performed only three reverts (as such didn't break WP:3RR) and was not warned for 3RR. Additionally, UrbanNerd was not blocked for edit warring, but for a personal attack prior to the edit warring. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW Freshfighter, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, so UrbanNerd is correct in that regard. I would note on this report, however, that since being advised to disengage, Freshfighter did so and has not interacted with UrbanNerd since. He was also provoked by Urban Nerd who, after a series of WP:NPA violations at Talk:Ottawa Senators, brought the personal attacks to FreshFighter's talk page. As it stands, until this report, FreshFighter had completely disengaged from UrbanNerd as requested. Any sanction would be punitive at this point. I would advise UrbanNerd to consider backing away himself. Resolute 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This may not be the place to bring this up, but UrbanNerd is currently reviewing my list of edits and reverting as many as he can. I view this as an attempt to provoke, particularly if you look at his history of WP:NPA violations. Freshfighter9talk 00:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just noticing the same. This is bordering on wikistalking and WP:POINT. I'm inclined to take it to WP:ANI if UrbanNerd doesn't back off. Resolute 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
He's hitting my talk page again now as well. This is getting creepy at this point and I'd appreciate it if an admin would take action. Freshfighter9talk 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed a few of your edits to see if you had a history of edit warring and noticed two very pov unreferenced edits. I hardly consider reverting two edits "as many as I can" I will not be reviewing anymore of your edits but if I see any pov unreferenced edits by ANY user I will revert. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You just confessed to wikistalking. Thanks. Freshfighter9talk 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not wikistalking. Please stop flooding this page with allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talkcontribs) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:STALK, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which seems to be what UrbanNerd (for 2/3 edits) did. In any case, UrbanNerd said he will stop-- problem solved. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So far, UrbanNerd was blocked (now expired) for personal attacks and Freshfighter9 was proven not to have edit warred, and in the meantime, the debate at Talk:Ottawa Senators seems to have cleared up. I don't think any more admin actions are required; can't we all just get along and go back to normal editing? -M.Nelson (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - No action for now. If these two editors resume abusing one another on any talk page, I suggest that both should be blocked for disruptive editing. In the mean time, I suggest taking the advice of Djsasso that the two editors should disengage. This means not reviewing each others' edits and not commenting on each others' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:70.251.231.183 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Article semi-protected for 3 days)[edit]

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

User being reported: 70.251.231.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. 03:17, 11 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:40, 10 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  3. 20:23, 9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")

User also appears to be 70.255.228.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  1. 7 August 2010.

User 205.250.9.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  1. 2 May 2010

And also 70.136.102.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  1. 12 January 2010
  2. 11 January 2010
  3. 11 January 2010
  4. 11 January 2010
  5. 11 January 2010

As well as others. All 4 ips map to Dallas, Texas, USA, all edits add the same word in, and revert behavior is identical.

  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Edit warring over this phrase has been going on for years. e.g. July 2009, February 2009, June 2008, and so forth. Even back to 2006. All of these represent one part of a 5-10 revert edit war from an anon, and only skim the surface of the article's long history. Can we have this page semi'd for an extended period?

Jesstalk|edits 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi for 3 days. --Chris (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cleanup Kid reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: TCK blocked for 24h, page protected for one week)[edit]

Page: Pontiac Silverdome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Cleanup Kid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:Note that 7th and 8th revert came after the warning. Also note the second user involved (X96lee15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) made no further edits to Pontiac Silverdome after being warned. [57]--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


  • There are many editors involved in the dispute and reversion has been going on over several days by several different editors. However, TCK is the only editor with a to-the-letter 3RR violation. Therefore,
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected --Chris (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Electric power transmission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:58, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "copyedit caption")
  2. 19:27, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption Undid revision 377140568 by Floydian (talk)")
  3. 21:37, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts! These are not EHV or UHV lines. Undid revision 377189946 by Trekphiler (talk)")

My apologies for this late report, but I did not notice that another user had come along to revert in my favour only to be reverted again until today. Wtshymanski is a generally uncivil editor, but this is an actual violation to go behind the rude methods this editor uses to get his way.

After an edit to Electric power transmission on August 4, I was reverted by Wtshymanski with the misleading edit summary of "copyedit caption". In reality, the caption was almost entirely reverted. Only one word was retained, one which wasn't important whatsoever. I reverted this edit with a summary of "That's not copyediting, that's changing the meaning outright." and was promptly reverted by Wtshymanski with a summary of "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption"

The caption I changed read "Electric power transmission lines", which I changed to "High-tension transmission lines can carry several hundred thousand volts". No mention of 700,000, nor even a reference to the specific object in the picture necessarily.

I did not revert this. I instead left a polite, but affirming message at the talk page of the user.[58] The response was certainly less than friendly.[59][60]

I admit in frustration, I later warned another user about the behaviours of Wtshymanski on his talk page.

However, a second editor, User:Trekphiler reverted Wtshymanski with the summary of "I see no sign of a 700KV claim, but they're surely 100KV range".[61], which was again reverted by Wtshymanski with yet another misleading edit summary of "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts! These are not EHV or UHV lines."

I think everything speaks for itself. — ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale That was more than a week ago. -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So? It was still commited. Basically this editor gets away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Oh the beaurocracy of wikipedia, moving along the rails of progress. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the editor does get away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Considering there have been no reverts in over a week, blocking Wtshymanski will prevent nothing. -- tariqabjotu 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I left a warning for Wtshymanski not to describe routine 3RR notices as 'harassment', and suggesting he could respond to the edit warring charges here. He has already removed my warning, and seems uninterested in discussing the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure they'll be back here soon enough if nothing changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard by User:Cptnono (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) The page is currently under a 1rr/24hrs restriction. The editor has made two reverts in less than an hour:

His first edit summary said that it was removing duplicate information but it worded it to be something completely different (almost to the point that it was hard to assume good faith). His second said that YouTube was not reliable so that was the reason for removal. There are times when YouTube is acceptable. I am sure all of this can be worked out on the talk page but two reverts is prohibited, has been for some time now, and it says so right there. If it was a mistake than it happens. He needs to self revert and see the talk page Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Shooting in the legs. Others have been blocked for less though so I don't care that much what happens on that end as much but wouldn't mind it either.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd given this user a warning, twice, and he's received warnings from administrators before both in terms of 3RR and straight edit warring. As awful as this sounds, I'm not surprised. So far as I can tell this user has done nothing but push a point of view and edit war since coming on Wikipedia, and I was planning on opening an RFC until SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) told me that just reporting him for a block would be a better solution. By the way, I have been in no ways associated with the above edit conflict, but I saw the notification that Cptnono placed on his talk page and decided to comment on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: in case it isn't clear, I believe a block of this user would be more than appropriate; it probably should have occurred beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was all feeling bad sine he has a clean block log but if he has a history of edit warring and then disregards a 1/rr I really have no sympathy.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he does have a history of edit warring, and shows signs of WP:TEND. [64] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Dr. Lords (Result: No action taken, not 3RR)[edit]

Page: Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
On the article in question I have attempted to question the notability of subject (Jain), due to several reasons (WP:BLP1E chief amongst them), but every time I added the template for notability dispute I get reverted, regardless of the fact that I'm not the only one of mind in that regard (see talk page Talk:Naveen_Jain#Notability and Talk:Naveen_Jain#Adding_Tags).

I and others have attempted to discuss it in the talk page but get responses which are terse and dismissive in nature ("No, this article is about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)", "This is nonsense. Jain meets WP:N and WP:BIO many times over, and has for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)", and "It's nonsense. We've multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage about Jain. That's much, much more than enough. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)").

I am not sure on how to approach this in a manner that is within the guideline of Wikipedia (still relevantly new here), and would appreciate intervention of more experienced users before this escalates further (frankly this behavior makes me feel unwelcome, and leaves me with a bad taste in regard to editing :( ).

Thank you in advance, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Info: See also this ANI thread Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --Chris (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this is a place to report any edit waring, not just the breaking of the WP:3RR (which I was trying to prevent by reporting about my concerns before it happened). Quoting from WP:EW

In particular, the three-revert rule prohibits any editor from performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (note that this does
not necessarily mean exact reverts, and that there are certain exemptions, like reverting vandalism—for details see below). Breaking this rule is sufficient—but
not necessary—to warrant a block for edit warring.

and Wikipedia:Three_Revert_Rule#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit_warring_behavior

If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to
appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm.
(emphasis mine)

If I'm mistaken, then please advise as to the proper venue of such complaints. Thank you, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Given the recent report on ANI etc, I would like to see how this situation is going to play out now that the user is aware that more eyes are on the article. I am watching it and will step in if the edit war does not cease. --Chris (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Finn Diesel reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 1 week)[edit]

Page: Attila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and Turanid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Finn Diesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

F.D. was already blocked three times for revert-warring over this same article (in fairness, note that the second of the three recent blocks in his log was partly in error, cf. here, but the revert-warring charge is pertinent). Returned immediately after his block, continuing the exact same reverts against consensus of multiple other users. This is exacerbated by the fact that he blanket-reverts irrespective of multiple unrelated intermediate edits, without ever discussing any objection to anything except one aspect (image use). Conduct on talk page shows he is utterly incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue on this matter and simply doesn't "get" what others are saying.

Warnings since latest block: [68], [69]

Also now edit-warring at Turanid, using fake sources [70].

I request a lengthy block and/or topic ban (possibly indefinite) under WP:DIGWUREN. See earlier report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Attila the Hun. Fut.Perf. 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Future Perfect, I'm not going to treat this as an arbitration enforcement action, please file at WP:AE if you wish, but this block is explicitly for the 3RR and only the 3RR. Courcelles 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Monkeymanman reported by 90.200.240.178 (Result: Page protected for one week)[edit]

Page: Racism in association football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monkeymanman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]



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

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

Comments:

An editor in clear breach of 3RR here. Perhaps more worryingly, he or she is refusing to WP:FOC and insists that additions from a particular user are de facto "bad faith" or "pov". He or she is now repeatedly deleting them apparently without even examining them. I would note this editor has caused problems for other editors at the same article before [78] and has been warned for edit warring in the recent past [79] Personally, I have made genuine attempts to discuss content on the talk page, which has only been met with ad hominems. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay where do I start. This user has used IP addresses User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58, and has an editing history of adding controversial, dubious and potentially damaging material onto peoples BLP’s across Wikipedia. He has been warned before here and here. With previous block here. The user stated that he would comply with the rules after his block but has gone straight back to editing in the same manner. He has now received numerous warnings here. I have given the user plenty of opportunities to open dispute res about this and every other edit that they have made recently but they have refused. I would welcome someone to review this users editing history of the material they have been adding to articles and the numerous experienced editors (I do not include myself in that) that have rejected the inclusions on various grounds. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This user the IP is operating from multiple IP addresses and was recently blocked for policy violations, he is edit warring at multiple articles and is the subject of at least two recent threads at the BLPN. The user is adding controversial content at multiple articles most of it with a strong POV against the subjects, most of which is flagged as possible violations by bots. Myself and Monkey and another couple of users have been attempting to discuss the issue with him without any success and multiple experienced editors have been reverting the IP at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Controversial" maybe but always neutrally worded and attributed to a reliable source. Whatever you and other involved parties have been "attempting to discuss" it isn't content. Anyway, this report does not relate to the validity of my additions at Racism in football or elsewhere (though I stand by them). It relates to this clear and conspicuous breach of 3RR. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All of your additions are controversial, and all of them are being reverted by multiple experienced editors. This report is actually about you are your disruption at multiple locations, this report is just a point on that disruptive path that you are on. I also notice that you didn't even give monkey his warning until after he made the last revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Use dispute resolution, not reverts please. --Chris (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit he has made has been controversial. He is only on here to wind people up (although he'll deny it). He has never contributed anything positive to wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd admit that rather than carrying on with this act of his and acting innocent when anyone complains about him. stanley87 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is a topic for a different noticeboard. --Chris (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Whether There's Weather Underground reported by Wikidemon (talk) (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Whether There's Weather Underground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor, has been edit warring against at least 3 others to re-open a discussion closed on WP:BLP grounds speculating into the sexuality of a judge. The BLP harm is that editors working on this active article, seeing the discussion, believe unconfirmed rumors that the judge is in fact gay, and obviously inaccurate claims that he is "openly gay". The new editor is an apparent WP:SPA originally created to insert "terrorist" into the William Ayers article, and does not seem to have made any productive contributions to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:52, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
  2. 03:02, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No, it's not.")
  3. 11:41, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
  4. 14:11, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Cut that out. You don't get to lie and claim "consensus" when there isn't, and your tactics of trying to "close" the debate when discussion is still ongoing are dishonest at best.")
  5. [80] (after report filed)
  • Diff of warning: here


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Vexorg (Result: Page protected for one week)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  1. 04:21, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "if that counts as proper sourcing then David Cameron is a secret Trotskyist who has gay sex with Nick Clegg all night long")
  2. 04:27, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Animal Abuse */ "breathing air has been critcised by the carbon monoxide society"; that is, don't say that people are criticising something when it's fucking obvious they would do")
  3. 04:28, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Vexorg (talk) to last version by Sceptre")
  4. 04:45, 14 August 2010

=


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has jumped in without bothering to go to the talk page and looking at he edit history feels he owns the page. I also draw attention to his inappropriate comments in his reversions.

Comments:

Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Two reverts, not even close to breaking 3RR. Please note complainant has been blocked before for edit-warring on this article. Sceptre (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It take two to edit war sonny. I am restoring properly sourced material. You are the one who jumped into edit war. Your politically biased rationale at ANI explains all. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
just to note. the editor Sceptre has continued to edit war even after I filed this report. I rest my case. He has removed a whole section which was properly sourced. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... YouTube and the other sites you're sourcing aren't reliable sources. Netalarmtalk 05:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Ummm.. Some videos at YouTube are acceptable. The ones in question may or may not be but it is best to not make such a broad statement when there is already confusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but very few. Only videos for partner channels of already reliable sources (such as, say, CNN) are reliable. YouTube is unreliable by default. Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You were doing fine until "YouTube is unreliable by default." It is those sort of statements that have caused confusion throughout the community.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I didn't make it clearer. He's citing some user's page and a search query (I had looked at it when this issue was first brought up). Netalarmtalk 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
...But it is. YouTube videos, by and large, fail the guidelines at WP:IRS. Even a lot of partner channels do that. It's not wrong to suggest a website where 99.99999% of the content posted is inadmissable as a reliable source is unreliable by default. Sceptre (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, Netalarm. I assumed as much. I am just extra pissy about statements like that since for over a year I assumed it was no good EVER and then found out it wasn't. I even wrote an essay. Not the best place for an overall discussion on it anyways so oops on my end. And use "many" or "most" instead of blanket statements next time Sceptre. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The talk page is thataway. --Chris (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. hopefully this Sceptre kid guy will see it. Vexorg (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
See what? That you insist on introducing policy-violating, anti-semitic bullshit that others have to clean up? Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The user 'Sceptre is clearly an anti-social and hateful editor by spewing this bile like 'anti-semitic bullshit'. I won't lower myself to respond to it this hate talk. Wikipedia should be above this kind of thing. I leave administrators to deal with editors like him. Vexorg (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

139.48.25.60 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Cautioned submitter)[edit]

On the Blitzkrieg this IP is repeatedly adding nonsensical information which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Despite the intervention and suggestion of another editor[82], with whom I agree but nothing yet has been done, he persists in reverting my logical restorations and calling it vandalism. This I deem to be a personal attack. He won't engage any constructive discussion, bar this [83] post made on my talk page –unless of course his version remains in while discussion remains on going. I would appreciate some assistance. Dapi89 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Cautioned submitter. The IP seems to believe *you* should be required to discuss, while he himself has never been to the talk page. Even so, nothing prevents you from starting the discussion. Please don't scold other editors in the move log. Consider opening a discussion at WP:RM to see if your idea for renaming this article is widely supported. Otherwise your move of the Blitzkrieg article to Blitzkrieg (Military term) could be seen as a way of continuing your content dispute with the IP by other means. You could leave a neutral message at WT:MILHIST asking other editors to give their opinion on the proper scope of this article, and whether the uses of 'blitzkrieg' in cancer research merit inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You haven’t made any sense. If I have a problem with an article, the onus is on me to make the approach. *He* should discuss first. Thanks for wasting my time, legitimising poor edits, and allowing an anon to make a mockery of a serious article. There already exists a disambiguation page for other uses of the term. Perhaps you should have looked a little harder. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimmy McDaniels reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Page protected for one week)[edit]

Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:15, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Salon article removal */ Discuss it on the talk page. As I stated previously, this 8 year old article is still available via Lexis from Salon")
  2. 22:20, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
  3. 22:55, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378787657 by Off2riorob (talk) Like everyone else, including me, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it thereYworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)")
  4. 23:09, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "actually, you're wrong. Jill Stewart has her own wikipedia page. She's quite prominent. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stewart I will link to her")
  5. 17:35, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* California Energy Crisis */ link fixed")
  6. 17:41, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Career */ added kurtz. It's relevant that the author of the story is also featured in the book by his own admission. Readers deserve to know that")
  • Diff of warning: here

Yworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy was also warned not to edit war by the admin who unblocked him early from his last block. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Yworo reported by User:Jimmy McDaniels (Result: Page protected for one week)[edit]

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

As you can see, Yworo is accusing me of being Jason Leopold. He offers up no evidence. Apparently, someone who is passionate about something is automatically deemed to be the subject. This false allegation only serves to underscore my point that this person should not be involved in editing this article. Yworo, since you're supposed to be working in the world of facts and sources, find a source that proves I'm Jason Leopold. Until then, keep your claims to yourself. I am using my real name for transparency. Should I accuse you of being Howard Kurtz maybe?

And as I said on my own talk page, I went to Amazon.com and looked inside Leopold's book using the "look inside" feature and found the Kurtz reference, which is criticism. I then have been working to find a source to cite that has this material. I've read the edit warring and I am just stunned that Yworo appears to have difficulty adhering to his own advice, which can be proven by looking at the edit history and the comments he/she has left on the talk page and my talk page. Yworo's comments are not that of an unbiased editor but rather someone who have a personal issue. Accusing me of being the subject of the article is a perfect example. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  • (cur | prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo) [automatically accepted]
  • (cur | prev) 18:00, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,557 bytes) (Undid revision 378905170 by Jimmy McDaniels (talk) you still haven't sourced that fact) (undo) [accepted by Yworo]
  1. (cur | prev) 07:13, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,079 bytes) (→California Energy Crisis: neither link in this "reference" works, remove) (undo) [automatically accepted]
  2. (cur | prev) 07:05, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,581 bytes) (→Career: quote the report rather than inaccurately summarize it) (undo) [automatically accepted]
  3. (cur | prev) 06:49, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,383 bytes) (→Career: this bit is unsourced) (undo) [automatically accepted]Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Refutation[edit]

I've made only three unbroken series of edits to Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the last 24 hours:
  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

And I self-reverted the third to allow Jimmy to show that the source given verifies the last statememt preceeding it. This is simply a retaliatory report and an attempt to excuse his 6 reverts in the last 24 hours. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: notified)[edit]

Page: Mikheil Saakashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: John Shalikashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Mikheil Saakashvili

Previous version reverted to: