Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive140

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

Noticeboard archives


User: reported by User:RDBury (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Plimpton 322 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


The editor persisted in restoring material when it was deleted as apparent OR by two experienced editors (this does not include myself). The editor seems unwilling abide by the community consensus and has attempted to carry the argument over to my user talk page.RDBury (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Plimpton 322 for three day, and started a discussion on the talk page. --Salix (talk): 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply by the IP editor

Thanks very much indeed for entering into this matter so promptly. I am very grateful to User:RDBury for reporting it.

As I have been pressing User:RDBury, I should like to learn the precise reason for the excision of this particular material. Various reasons have been given, and I have tried to address them carefully, point by point, as the reasons have changed. For example, David Eppstein first had concerns that the material might lead to conclusions about the use of Plimpton 322, then there was worry about inferences that might be drawn about the skills of the Babylonians, although such implications are already present in setting out the interpretations in the article itself. I have tried both to counter these concerns and to make the material quite explicit on this score.

I understand that Wikipedia has a policy on original research. To point this up, I have now edited the material to provide a first source, in the form of an internal link to the Wikipedia article on Difference of squares - it is this age-old trick that appositely enough provides the mathematical reconciliation between the the theses of Neugebauer and of Robson, which would seem innocent enough. But here is the rub for Wikipedia's policy. The article on Difference of squares is itself flagged and open to challenge, although somehow it survives. Could it be that when it comes to mathematics, the policy on original research and sourcing needs to be reviewed?

The objection to original research as synthesis is surely where synthesis is tendentious. It is very difficult for mathematics simpliciter, say, the difference of squares, to be tendentious. On the other hand, User: AnnekeBart gave some fine examples of tendentious synthesis and non-sequiters in seconding David Eppstein's objections. I am afraid these comments do rather make it seem that there is some underlying objection to the section quite other than that the mathematics is unsourced as mathematics at Wikipedia is wont to be, so that even if sourced the material would still be excised.

Surely it is melodramatic to describe discussions as warring. I do hope that none of you at Wikipedia feels at all embattled. I only started because I was amazed that there was not this section in your definitive article already. If I have persisted, that is because I prefer to be constructive and to try to learn exactly what objections are, especially when there is some appearance of being given the run around. If this discussion helps you come to grips with your policies on mathematics, perhaps actually removing an article such as Difference of squares, that will be all to the good. But naturally I hope that you will not do anything that makes you look foolish in a wider society.

It is likely that the material in the section under consideration can probably be sourced further, not just with internal links to Wikipedia articles, but to publications. There is a large body of material by Jens Hoeyrup that is actually cited very prominently in one of the principal references for the article, Robson's contribution to Historia Mathematica, as I have been mentioning for some time. Hoeyrup certainly discusses such tricks as taking sums and differences of two parameters and difference of squares, in the very context of Old Babylonian mathematics. But I am uncertain whether any of the editors recognise or care that Robson cites sources that can be drawn on in this way.

Do you see, there is a certain inconsistency there with, say, Difference of squares, which survives to be worked on further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Morris User: Salix alba has now weighed in on the talk page of Plimpton 322 with a travesty of what I wrote in the excised section, in the face of an explicit disclaimer that I was making any of the sort of claims he asserts. While I am naturally perturbed that he should voluntarily reveal himself as such an inattentive reader, it certainly does help explain otherwise bizarre behaviour; and I am grateful for this insight into the operation of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Menuet111 and User:MjMenuet111 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Full-protection, former account blocked)

User user:Menuet111 (a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111) is keeping revertion of his poorly formatted version of Temple of Caesar after numerous corrections attempts, from me and user:Johnbod. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I call here an investigation about the behaviour of '''Attilios'''.

User '''Attilios''' here has been insulting, mobbing and threatening since August 31. And I am scared.

User '''Attilios''' is regularly insulting and threatening me and other people.

First of all user:Menuet111 is not a sockpuppet of user:MjMenuet111, but is the independet account of my brother. As you can see, we have always respected Wiki-Rules and tried to give help and improve the Common Knowledge through our professional expertise. But on August 31 '''Attilios''' started insulting us, and, then not satisfied, started mobbing and now even threatening us: I say, is this Encyclopedia editing? Is it? Really? So I opened a serious Talk discussion, but, as you can see, '''Attilios''' just keeps insulting, mobbing and threatening and no discussion: as you can easily see through all his messages,'''Attilios'''' behaviour is always: do what I want or I'll kill you: sorry this is not discussion, this is not editing. Now I am really terrified and afraid of '''Attilios'''' behaviour.

'''Attilios''' has already reverted Temple of Caesar, I think, tons of times only in 24 h: it seems even through an automatic device. Is it legal this behaviour? I have told him and others I had accepted their work and their advices, as you can see in the Talk page and everyone thanked me apart from this person, and I was going to further wiki-fy and fix the style of the article and wrote that I will have finished the full wikification of the article the next days. But '''Attilios''' was not satisfied: he started reverting furiously everywhere and heavily insulting me, keeping calling me with insulting words, and this everywhere and now even really threatening me! even in the talk pages!, everywhere '''Attilios''' says he is only editing: but, sorry, it is sure this (insulting and threatening people here and furious automatic reverting) is not encyclopedic editing.
Pay attention: because, as you can see, the editing of '''Attilios''' always involves the content of the article and his editing destroys de facto the content of the article!

I call here an investigation about the behaviour of '''Attilios'''. This person should moderate his own manners.

MjMenuet111 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - This report is malformed. Badly. No WP:DIFFS whatsoever. Lots of bold text, though. See WP:BROTHER concerning the other account... Doc9871 (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, we'redealing with somebody unaware of any of the simplest basics of Wikipedia, insisting and insisting in his theories of his ownership of Temple of Caesae, not accepting any of the advices with which I began the discussions with him, keeping reverting the article to his version also after editing from other volunteers, and so on. Since the beginning I told him that the content he added was good, but just the style was horrendous. I invited him many times to give at least a glance to WP:Manual of Style, for example, and you can see from the previous lines that he didn't at all. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I've done this for a period of one week, and I've also blocked User:Menuet111 for obvious sockpuppetry. This is a slow moving edit war with no technical violations of 3RR. Please hash out the discussion on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary; if you're able to come to an agreement before protection expires, feel free to place a note at WP:ANI asking for the page to be unprotected. However, please don't return to edit warring after the protection expires, or a block may be necessary for anyone that engages in it.Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Andy120290 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef)

Page: United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andy120290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments: There are multiple sections on the Talk page discussing the Criticism section and its removal. There are also similar discussions on the Talk pages of United States Supreme Court and President of the United States. Similar Criticism sections were inserted into all three articles back in 2009 after much discussion (I was not a part of that discussion). The recent 2010 removals of the sections were all done by one editor (not the editor being reported). Last I looked, the sections on the court and president pages were restored and remain restored. However, on the Congress page, the reported editor keeps removing the section, in one instance saying he doesn't want to talk about it in his edit summary ("Talk gets me nowhere"). More than one editor has undone the reported editor's reversions, but he keeps coming back (I have undone the latest, but I don't intend to undo any more). Finally, I didn't really understand the instructions on "previous version reverted to," so I put in the original version before the reversions. My apologies if that's not what you wanted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - Forgive me if this comment is unnecessary. Since I reported the editor, he has continued to revert (and be reverted by others). More important, he removed the section from the President of the United States article here and has been reverted here. I'm staying out of the reversions pending a result here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment He just this edit. I reverted, but its obvious that he doesn't seem to care, or his account has been hacked. Either way, he has ignored various attempts to discuss, and continues to remove content.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Result - Blocked indef, on the assumption that his account has been hacked. He has made legitimate contributions in the past. Any admin can unblock if they are sure this editor is back in control of his account, and if a good explanation can be given. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Bzuk (Result:no action)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

  • 1st revert: [14] Edit comment: Feedback: usefull (sic) comments only please
  • 2nd revert: [15] Edit comment: Undid revision 384430179 by Bzuk (talk) to keep the discussion on topic, that's how. It is a useless post, Wikipedia is not an exercise in Free Speech
  • 3rd revert: [16] Edit Comment: Feedback pp
  • My edit: [17]

In the discussion "string", I did not notice when the third revert had been made but did note an antagonism towards other editors who had a contrary opinion, primarily in making derisive comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

I find this a completely lame edit war on both sides. It was an off-topic comment and didn't need to be there, but it also didn't need to be edit warred off the page. I'm inclined to close this with no action for the time being, but would be ready to block for further lame edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure which is the bigger waste of time: the edit war, or the five minutes we had to spend investigating it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
How about we just call it a tie and let that be good enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, as this is one of the few times I have resorted to this type of report but I do believe that refactoring comments is not acceptable, although I admit that the original comment was more of an aside. I did not want to engage any further in an editwar and will let it go. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jenks24 (Result: Blocked two weeks for now)

Page: 2010 AFL season (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: There are other constructive, non-related edits interspersed, but basically, I think, to this diff, when he first removed the logo.

  1. 07:31, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384303964 by McAusten (talk) I will report this. You are not giving me a reason.")
  2. 11:41, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "That is not a proper answer.")
  3. 12:21, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Give me a proper reason first. The AFL logo isn't the offical logo of the season.")
  4. 12:32, 12 September 2010 (edit summary: "Listen to what the admin wrote and stop stalking me.")
  5. 04:42, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
  6. 05:20, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Even though this was changed while the discussion was on the way. The discussion started when it was like this so please leave it.")
  7. 05:30, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Is there a reason why you took it down. Please do not. Thank you.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

This user has consistantly removed an image from the article even though consensus at the talk page is clearly against him. Please note that it is my opinion that the article looks better with the logo, but if consensus were to remove it (there also seems to be some sort of copyright issue) then that would be fine. I just want the constant reverting to stop and, unfortunatley, I believe a block of GPW would probably be the best way to achieve this. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not convinced a temporary block would achieve anything. Guinea Pig Warrior has said himself that he doesn't intend on changing his ways. Jevansen (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - based on that diff above, I'm heavily considering an indef block. Second opinions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems a bit severe, apparently its an old logo and there may be minor copyright issues with it also, all needed clearing up and would have been better imo to have done that with the logo out of the article. I also notice that after Guinea Pig warrior was given the warning by Jenk24 he did not make any edits at all and then Jenk24 reported him, I don't see any value to having given him a warning and then reported him after when he did not again edit, you are supposed to warn and then if they revert again then you report them at least that is the correct method as per guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He has been warned plenty before, and has a history of socking, edit warring, and personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he has but he wasn't warned correctly today and any previous socking has got nothing to do with this report either. Even better as regards a decent report is after you warn them on their talkpage and if they then revert you can offer them the opportunity to self revert and if they don't then you have a decent case for making a report. Off2riorob (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I'm not convinced an editor needs to be warned about 3RR more than one time before the warning is unnecessary, let alone more than multiple times. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As had been pointed out he has previously been banned for edit warring and has 3RR warnings pasted all over his talk page so I think it's safe to say he either knows the rule or isn't interested in reading up on it. If you want something from the last 24 hours see the last paragraph from my post at Talk:2010 AFL season. He continued the discussion after my post so it's fair I think to say that he read it. Hours later he was back edit warring. Also if anything has issues with the specific edit war listed in this report he has also been warring at Port Adelaide Football Club. Jevansen (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I issued a previous 3RR block of this editor. He has built up a record over the last few weeks, showing he is both well-intentioned and very stubborn. (He has socked twice to get around a block). Unless we want to *give* him the sports articles for him to do with as he pleases, it seems like an indef block is necessary. A permanent change of heart would be welcome, but seems highly unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am frastrated with the people who are even discussion this. I want a "netual person", somebody who has never been involved with me instead of people who mock me, abuse me. Jevansen, you called me a imarture twirp and now your discussion on how to get me off wikipedia. Please get an admin who is fair and not a smart alec and serious on the issue. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd just like to apologise if I didn't warn GPW correctly, as Off2riorob says above. This is the first time I've reported anyone at the Administrators' noticeboard (indeed it's actually the first time I've even come to this page) and I did try to follow the correct procedure. I just didn't think it would be beneficial to leave the 3RR warning on his talk page, then revert him on the article so that he could then revert me back and then I would have my "excuse" to report him here. Instead I thought that seeing as he has had 7 reverts in the last 24 hrs it would be ok to bring it here straight away, but again if I have done this incorrectly I truly do apologise. Jenks24 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries, the user clearly was stepping over the line and as someone said, he has enough template warnings on his talkpage to understand what the situation is. I have left him a note here with a couple of suggestions for him that may well be a better outcome for him if he is willing to accept one of them, but this is something he could also consider from a blocked position, just trying to help. I will leave it with you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks User has a pretty long history of behavioral issues and has been blocked once before for edit warring. No warning should be necessary in this case; he should be well aware of our policy on edit warring. Any administrator may increase the length of the block if they deem it justified, but hopefully two weeks will be enough for the user to get the point. --Chris (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

  1. 05:30, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "→ Criticism rv, not justified")
  2. 07:03, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "→ Criticism, unjustified rv")
  3. 09:27, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384550556 by Wehwalt (talk) is directly related to the statue")
  4. 09:47, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384552587 by Wehwalt (talk) you have no consensus, please discuss on talk page before reverting again.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Editor keeps trying to add section on "Criticism" which is actually a plug for the Statue of Responsibility, a barely notable proposed statue to be built somewhere on the West Coast, and has reverted myself and User:DCGeist four times in the last several hours. I thought i had only done 2RR, actually I had done 3, though it is by a matter of minutes. I limit myself to 2RR, so any personal fault I apologize for. The editor in question does not seem interested in discussing the matter. This is the only article the IP has more than one edit to.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Editor has not made any edits since warning. Feel free to revert the last edit the editor made. If the editor makes another edit, please Just go ahead and restore the result: portion of section header to blank and add the last diff of the edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I see no warning on the IP"s talk page, other than the one I left, which he may discount.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That is quite enough. If there's more edit warring, point any administrator to this thread if you need to prove a block is necessary and warranted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:Lithistman (Result: already blocked)

Page: Republic of Ireland national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]; There are warnings all over his talkpage for similar behavior.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]


He's made it very clear that he's going to keep reverting, no matter what, because he's very certain he's right. Lithistman (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


User:Pmanderson has now moved the page Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) as part of a content dispute three times today - twice after being told that he should achieve consensus first. It is a clear case of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. As move warring is much more disruptive than simple revert warring I believe a sanction is in order. Prior to his third move I had protected the article, but as Pmanderson suggested that I am somehow involved in the dispute (I don't think I am) I unprotected it, whereupon he promptly moved it again. The page cannot be moved back by non-admin users since the move involves deleting the dab page that he created in its original place.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:POINT would be doing something I opposed as a demonstration against another action; if I had seen a marginal article kept, creating "an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making."Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
For the substance, see below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of WP:POINT is wrong - we will see what other admins think about your display of diplomacy and collaborative editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)

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

I don't know how to mark diffs when the offending editor is moving pages. Sorry. User has moved Aorist to Aorist (linguistics) three times without getting consensus.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] in edit summary from admin

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] and other places in the discussion.


User:Pmanderson has proven to be a disruptive and non-contributing editor on this article. The consensus was to move the discussion of Greek aorist to Aorist (Greek), but to leave the general discussion at Aorist. PMAnderson proposed on several occasions to move Aorist to Aorist (linguistics), but the consensus was against this. PMAnderson today then proceeded to move the article anyway. He was reverted twice by an admin. When the admin lifted protection on the article, PMAnderson again moved the article without a word of consensus. In the discussion on the Talk page, PMAnderson has objected to nearly everything that the other editors have agreed to and refuses to recognize consensus. --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo's "consensus" consists of the opinion of two editors, himself and Kwamikagami, that the article on "aorist", a Greek term, must use the terminology of one school of modern theoretical linguistics, and must include erroneous statements on the Greek, Sanskrit, and Slavonic aorists, because he has found something like them as generalizations in books talking about something else.
His contributions have consisted almost entirely of revert warring; indeed the article was protected on August 31 because of his and Kwami's activities.
There was actual consensus on having two articles; so the material on the Greek aorist (inaccurate though it was) was moved to Aorist (Ancient Greek) as a BOLD way to deal with the problem. His complaint is that I have moved the remainder to Aorist (linguistics), since this obscure and recent jargon is not the primary meaning of the term - if there is one.
If he had consensus, as opposed to a revert button, his remedy would lie at WP:RM. But he comes here instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You are being disingenuous - there are several other editors commenting on the talk page, none of whom thought the move was a good idea. Secondly you didn't even post on the talk page before moving and thirdly you repeated the move after being instructed (by me not Taivo or Kwami) to seek consensus and discuss on the talk page before moving. There really is no excuse for your behaviour which is simply disruptive and leads to escalation of conflicts instead of improvement of article content. It also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding on you part of how collaborative wikipedia editing works.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)PMAnderson has understated the consensus. There are approximately five editors who have participated recently in the discussions in one way or another. Myself and Kwami, as well as Erutuon and Maunus (the latter to a limited extent). There have been a couple of others who have not posted recently. PMAnderson stands alone and has gained absolutely none of the other editors to his POV. He opposed the split of the article to "Aorist" and "Aorist (Greek)". He moved the article to "Aorist (linguistics)" by edit warring. His previous attempts to get the "Aorist" article to "Aorist (linguistics)" were opposed and no one agreed with his proposed move. He has promulgated an edit war on the matter and has been reported twice here, by an admin and by myself. That should be evidence of his edit warrior mentality. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
And WP:RM is not the appropriate place when the mover has moved against consensus, ignored the warnings of an admin, and edit warred to get his way. This is the appropriate place to report edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Maunus - although he clearly disagrees with the move - has objected at length to Taivo's obscurantism; he has done something at last to clear it up. Akhilleus, Cynwolfe, Radagast, Wareh, and myself have objected more or less firmly to all or part of Taivo's dogmatic program; Erutonon has expressed doubts. That this intransigent revert-warring vandal has driven most of them away is not the recommended way to produce consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Taivo's last claim is equally false. The consensus was to split; there was no consensus on where to split. If Taivo's bafflegab about consensus were true, he would be able to prove it by a move request; but he makes none, because it isn't true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Listing instructions, top of the page, "Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution." Is there a 3RR violation to report here? Doc9871 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is not just for 3RR violations but also for editwarring which you have - a very disruptive kind.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct - but this is "continuing a dispute" that is escalating, and not a properly formed report for this board. There's personal attacks and everything. Calm down, everyone: it's just a wiki... Doc9871 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I think not. As Doc9871 said, take the dispute where it belongs. There is move warring for sure, but it takes two to tango. There appears to be at least some reasoned discussion going on, which will be ground to a halt if participants are blocked. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Faust reported by (talk) (Result: page protected)

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

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

Time reported: 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:42, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)")
  2. 21:46, 8 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383716972 by Zaspino (talk)Don't start an edit-war. Try to reach consensus first.")
  3. 06:28, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383721840 by Pfhorrest (talk)Please, stop this edit-war and cite at least ONE source for you POV.")
  4. 09:14, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383799881 by Pfhorrest (talk)Sources do not support this wording. Please, do not edit-war.")

  • Diff of warning: here (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Other instances of the problem which have yet to become not 3RR violations:

  1. 16:07, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384502416 by Pfhorrest (talk)All cited sources contradict this version.")
  2. 16:10, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "replaced last undisputed version.")
  3. 20:00, 13 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384631138 by Zaspino (talk)Quit it Zaspino, discuss your POV and motivate it properly.")

Other instances which are not 3RR violations but show persistent general edit-warring against the consensus:

  1. 22:14, 6 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 382858025 by (talk) Kindly discuss. It is not about the standard, but about the will for universality.")
  2. 07:02, 7 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383390752 by (talk)No consensus, nor correctness.")

In addition to 3RR, in this edit war Faust is acting against the wp:consensus. He is the only editor that has shown this viewpoint. -- (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this fellow that's just shown up and reverted it to Faust's version? I wonder if the page should just be protected until you can all work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the user noticed the talk page per diff comment, but I'll assume good faith here. The disucssion has been going on for quite some time (end of August/start of September). All editors other than him and Faust support the consensus as well as an RfC opinion. Faust appears the only editor opposed to it. Anyways, he still violated 3RR, but it might have been too long ago for you to take action. I'm not sure.-- (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked User:Ohnoitsjamie (the "this fellow" mentioned above), after his revert, to read Talk:Morality and comment there. I note that he is an admin and appears to have been in the process a general sweep of vandalism/spam/etc when he reverted, so he probably just happened by, saw some reverting going on, and undid it with a comment to take it to talk, without noticing we already have. Since he hasn't replied and was actively editing for a good while after I made my comment, I doubt that he's especially interested. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Because Faust's edit summaries (as shown here) sound misleadingly benign, I've compiled a short annotated list of links to all relevant diffs (changes to the article and Faust's reversions thereof), viewable at Talk:Morality#History links for everyone's reference. As you can see there, the bulk of the conflict has not been Zaspino and I against Faust (as the edit summaries above suggest), but it began between Faust and several different anons, and Zaspino and I are relative latecomers. I personally make a point of not entering into disputes like this in the article space (vs talk) until there are at least three other editors struggling against one single edit-warrior like Faust. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that the above is untrue on all accounts. All of the edits I undid have been attempts of mine to revert the project page to the undisputed version and to get people to discuss their POV's at the talk page so that we could come to an agreement by menas of rationality, but so far all attempts have failed with this group. As can be seen by checking the talk page the discussion was started by me on the talk page because Zaspino undid the addition of a reference (which I then had to reference...). Later Theobald Tiger joined on zaspino's side. Since both lack any kind of knowledge and interest in the field of philosophy and as such were unable to give ANY source for their claims I patiently argued my case, even though it was a transferral of related problems to When it turned out the two were in trouble the anon's joined in to form a majority so as to block an honest explanation of the term to stand against their POV. Later Pfhorrest joined in, who apparently honestly believes his POV is objective. Since all are behaving in a similar manner I have decided they are tag teaming (apart from Phforrest, whom I think is sincere).

To prevent this edit-war from getting started I have asked Zaspino and Theobald to stop their behavior and in every edit I have asked them to argue their case on the TP. I have placed a request at the philosophy project to help me out, but this had no effect. Since Theobald told me in an email he does not care about the content of this encyclopedia, as long as my knowledge does not get public, I do not have the idea that these individuals will ever relent. That is why I previously asked to block the whole lot, which can be seen from this edit (I didn't look for the initial edit btw). Since the edit-war has subsequently taken a second life (from the linked version on), from either adding a reference or not to actually changing the undisputed version to a POV, unfounded by any source, I have continued (as I did before) to revert the page to the last undisputed version (from far before the linked edit) (which had been undisputed for a year or so, but since I started to propose edits suddenly was disputed by user...a big coincidence).
UNTIL SO FAR, I have not seen a single source actually stating what all these users are saying. The sources used by this group actually confirm the undisputed version (among other places), which I support. Apart from that I have also added some sources of my own, explained why this is the case and why it is important to pay attention to how this is being said, added even more sources for my previous reference, shown the change that this group is trying to make to be a POV, given linguistic evidence to support my case, but nothing seems to be of interest to this group. Now, it is my understanding that until am agreement has been reached, the undisputed version should be restored. That is what I have been doing.
In my opinion the only thing I am guilty of is that I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective. If this is a reason for a ban, while this group is transferring issues from to, trolling, edit-warring, placing POVs as truth, than I am having a far too idealistic view of this project as a whole. I hope the handling admin will prove my idealistic idea right.
I will be on a short trip the coming week and may not be online. Please, make sure the undisputed version is still present when I return.
--Faust (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: In an attempt to prevent this escalation from occuring I had even contacted TFOWR and Shell Kenney to mediate or lend me advice on the matter. I had also left a message at History2007's talk page for a third opinion. (All this after having seen the first edit Zaspino made on, his account having been newly created and all his edits being about cancelling mine and his reamrks being exactly similar to the issue on the and these remarks being easily unmaksed as being POV's and these remarks showing clear signs of the user not being interested in the subject at all, which leaves a great question as to why this user is actually editing only the subjects that I am involved in then... --Faust (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Since 3 September, when the RfC opened, Faust has reverted the lead of the article nine times. I believe that Faust should stop reverting until the RfC is closed, and that sanctions should be considered if he will not agree to do so. His comments above indicate he knows there is a majority against his view. "I will not let a majority bully me into allowing a POV being presented as objective." The majority does not always rule here, but there is no justification for him continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed is clearly confused. I am the one reverting the page to the undisputed version. In the mean time the tag-team Theobald has formed keeps trying to push their unsupported POV, while the undisputed version is backed by at least 8 mentioned sources. Why these users keep changing the lead of the article to their POV is beyond me, especially since it is a continuation of a dispute I had with Theobald_Tiger on and is, as such, a transferal of this issue to the Now, again I would like to state my silly example of somebody wishing to add a POV that Bush is an alien without a genetic research as a source. No matter how much of his friends agree with him, it should not be is the case here. --Faust (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to editors as confused, it can be taken badly, also there is no such thing as an undisputed version that is disputed. Also you have already been warned not to bring your off wiki disputes here. Also you are clearly edit warring and you have had plenty of warnings. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This user seems to refuse to accept the notion of our consensus policy. He has been warned time and time again on his talk page over the past two weeks. Perhaps it is time to turn the warning into an exclusion ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    I first became aware of it here (end of July), at which point Faust was warned not to import disputes from I'm surprised, therefore, to see referred to above. More recently (on 6 September, after the RfC at Talk:Morality began) this issue returned to ANI. Back in July, Uncle G (talk) had this to say (to Faust and others):

    There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.

    At the most recent ANI, Hans Adler (talk) had ths to say to Faust:

    Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game.

    Echoing Uncle G: nothing TheDJ has said to Faust appears to have sunk in; nothing I've said to Faust appears to have sunk in. It's difficult to escape Hans Adler's perception that Faust is treating as a roleplaying game: certainly consensus appears to be an alien concept. Frankly, I'm out of options. TheDJ's "exclusion" option is the only one I feel is left, and I also feel it's long overdue. TFOWR 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A few comments in my defense:
  1. My involvement on the Morality talk page has been minimal. There are two posts by me in support of comments made by Zaspino.
  2. I have not "transferred problems from to".
  3. What Faust tells about an e-mail exchange with me is an outright lie. There has been an e-mail exchange, but I told him something quite different (see: User talk:TheDJ). I am interested in the content of as my edit history amply testifies.
Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I note there has been edit warring by all parties involved. All parties are admonished against edit warring, which may result in a block in the future. Faust and other parties are admonished that any violations for 3RR in the future, no matter how well intentioned, will unquestionably result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine, fair enough, but this isn't going to solve the problem. Besides, you protected the page in Faust's version, which a majority of users doesn't agree with. Normally the parties involved in an edit conflict are urged to discuss the matter on the talk page, but we have already done that and reached a consensus that only Faust objects to. Zaspino (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, Zaspino, nothing within the scope of this particular noticeboard is going to solve this particular problem on more than a temporary basis. I would advise you to try something like WP:RFC/U. If you believe a user has a long-term pattern of editing against consensus, you can demonstrate it there and longer-term sanctions can be applied. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I have to point out WP:WRONG. I've commented further on the talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:PraxisConsensus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: User blocked for 72 hours. [28])

Page: Austrian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PraxisConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] (he has since blanked this talk page section, removing the warning without response) and [37] (he has blanked this notice without response as well)

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

Five editors (User:BigK HeX, User:N6n, User:Ravensfire, User:Lawrencekhoo, and User:Cretog8) have attempted to get the editor to discuss the edit on the talk page. He has disregarded these editors. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had also reported the same user, but it seems they were already reported. Anyways, to add my comment that I was about to add to mine before I saw this one, it appears that attempts to take the problem to the talk page have been ignored by Praxis. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

None of my edits violated the three revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisConsensus (talkcontribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, you are edit warring to keep in an unreliable source. You explicitly reverted the removal of that source 5 times, without discussion on the talk page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
With 6 clear reverts, your assertion may need further elaboration, please. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruthFighterX reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result:24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [44]


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Villa del Cine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The current issue, at Villa del Cine (I did not report the edit war at Hugo Chavez)

Last version before reverts: 22:57, September 13, 2010

  • 1st revert: 22:57, September 13, 2010 (removes reliably sourced text because he doesn't like it, says based on talk, but there was no discussion on talk at that point)
  • 2nd revert: 00:06, September 14, 2010 After discussion on talk, I reinstate the text, which ValenShephard deletes a second time.
  • 3rd revert: 15:35, September 14, 2010 Then he installs his favored text, in spite of unanimous consensus on talk for different text: [45]
  • 4th revert: 15:39, September 14, 2010 Then fully reverts another reliably sourced text addition I made.
  • 5th revert: 16:19, September 14, 2010 Continues cleansing reliably sourced text in spite of weeks-old discussion on talk that article needs balance, and without discussing this particular text removal. (Also refers to reliable sources as "editorials", a recurring problem at these articles of casting aspersions upon my use of reliable sources, by classifying them as "opeds"-- something that has been repeatedly called to ValenShephard's attention on his talk and article talk.) An indication of the POV-pushing behind his edit warring is that, after these three instances where he deletes text unfavorable to Chavez, he immediately adds text favorable. His editing goes only one-way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary-- there are enormous discussions of the problems with his edit warring on his talk, and he has been warned many times and blocked twice. These diffs do not indicate four reverts to the same version; they indicate ongoing disruption, POV and edit warring from someone who has been blocked twice and with whom there has been significant discussion on his talk of his disruptive editing at numerous other articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his entire talk page-- it's huge.


For background, ValenShephard was blocked a few weeks ago for edit warring, and then unblocked on August 31 following lengthy discussion indicating he understood the problems with edit warring. Only a few days after, he engaged in another edit war at Hugo Chavez, which I did not report to this board, as I was still hoping to mentor him (see User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Blocked and User_talk:ValenShephard/Archive_1#Resumed_edit_warring in addition to the numerous complaints on his talk page about his edit warring, some now archived.) ValenShephard continues to edit war and edit by revert, even after two blocks and long discussions involving multiple editors. He made repeated promises on his talk that he would stop editing via revert and engaging in edit wars, but said continues (along with other disruption that is not the scope of this board, and will be addressed elsewhere). He has been amply warned about edit warning, and should understand by now that three reverts are not necessary for a definition of edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - this report doesn't surprise me at all, and in fact I find it rather sad. I'm borderline involved, only because I've been tracking this user's poor conduct for a while now. This user clearly didn't get the point after the last block; if I were the blocking admin, I would throw down a week-long block, and I think that's lenient. You'll notice that this user's conduct on pretty much every page he/she's on is to revert war and POV push. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for the long history of disruption, only at Venezuela articles, not including the last two weeks, and not including on other articles. He has the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever encountered, and I've been expending hours daily trying to help mentor him, to no avail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Only a couple of these could count as reverts, while the rest, as you can see by the diffs, are changes and tweaks. There was no clear consensus on talk, where sandy thought I was agreeing with her while I was agreeing with another editor (which I later explained). ValenShephard (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week John (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thezob reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. June 1
  2. June 2
  3. June 7
  4. June 15
  5. June 17
  6. July 7
  7. July 15
  8. 14:16, 9 September 2010 (edit summary: "Life descending over time is still a theory, it was theorized not established.")
  9. 03:32, 10 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 383839621 by Snowded (talk) yes really.")
  10. 17:45, 14 September 2010 (edit summary: "Discussion is irrelevant, there is too much bias there. It is still a theory, no matter how widely accepted it is.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Slow moving edit war. Appears to be only current interest in editing since June. He's been repeatedly asked to take his objections to the talk page in edit summaries on user talk discussions, which he's clearly seen but never done.

Jesstalk|edits 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Between, "You people please stop changing my editing back. Thanks."[46] and his last edit summary, he doesn't seem interested in working with community consensus: and it sure looks like a slow edit war to me. Sanctions appear to already be in the works[47]. I've warned him of this report (maybe he'll respond)... Doc9871 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Blocked one month. Since he only edits a few days each month, a shorter block might not get his attention. His major interest on Wikipedia seems to be changing evolution from a fact to a theory. Appeals to consensus make no impression on him. If he agrees to change his approach, any admin may lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cinéma_C reported by User:lontech (Result: 72h)

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

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

  1. (cur | prev) 19:49, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,250 bytes) (where was the sentence about the Albanian national awakening attributed? reverting + adding ref) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 11:04, 13 September 2010 Dejvid (talk | contribs) (112,928 bytes) (revert -a claim like "Kosovo became the crux of Serbia's historical culture, religion and national identity" needs to be attributed) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 02:28, 13 September 2010 Cinéma C (talk | contribs) (113,090 bytes) (If you're mentioning the Albanian national awakening, it's extremely biased not to mention what Kosovo means to Serbs.) (undo)


  1. [48]
  2. [49]

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation

Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH  Talk  23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:2tuntony reported by User:Therefore (Result: 24h)

Page: Dana Perino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2tuntony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] (removed by user, calling it "nonsense")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] User removed his initial concern about the statement in question was violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.


This is all about this statement (the current version):

The reporter said this was evidence that an earlier remark by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, that the timing of the explosion implied it was blown up intentionally, was "gaining traction".

This is a quotation from the USA Today source [57]. 2tuntony (talk · contribs) first said it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and reverted. I countered that this was taken from the source and hence didn't violate either policy. He then said it was a problem with paraphrasing and reverted. I explained that that is generally what we do but rewrote it to be more verbatim. He reverted again saying the problem was NPOV (again, no argument, just declaration). I countered that NPOV allows for attributable statements such as this and asked that he please continue to discuss without further edit warring. He reverted a fourth time. I'm more than open to discuss this -- there may in fact be a good argument for not including it. But I'm at an impasse with the edit warring. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Too bad the discussion had to be derailed by violating 3RR. Next time, please stop edit warring while discussion is ongoing. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Factocop reported by User:O Fenian (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and three others, see below)
User being reported: Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]


As can be seen on User talk:Factocop the editor has already been told by an administrator to discuss not edit war, but the edit warring continues. O Fenian (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

May as well add first, second, third and fourth reverts to previous version on Shane Duffy (soccer player) too, to save me making a new report. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Similarly first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version on Republic of Ireland national football team. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And first, second, third, fourth and fifth reverts to previous version (without the Irish name, I'm sure there's a more recent version too, but that's now academic since he's managed a fifth revert anyway) of City of Derry Airport. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did raise a discussion in all of the pages that I edited but no one joined the conversation. I have learned my lesson an I will just report users upon any revert or edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talkcontribs) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Thevazhathu reported by User:sreejithk2000 (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments: I feel that the IP is the same as User:Thevazhathu and is constantly engaged in marking movies by Mohanlal as hit and movies by Mammootty as flop. Please see his edit history.

--Sreejith K (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Shuki reported by Nableezy(Result: Both parties restricted to 1RR until the end of the year)

Page: Ariel (city) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:16, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Ariel is an Israeli city")
  2. 19:24, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv settlement type = Israeli settlement, duh. It is a city, that is the settlement type. Israeli settlement is a label, not a settlement type.")
  3. 19:29, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385030419 by Nableezy (talk), it is in fact a city, something you can deny?")

Shuki has made 3 quick reverts on the article on the Israeli settlement of Ariel. An RFC had been conducted on what to use as the primary description of Israeli settlements which resulted in no consensus but a loose consensus that we will retain the original primary description in current articles. The description in Ariel is "Israeli settlement". The infobox in this article had been an Israel specific infobox and had no "settlement type" parameter. This has recently been changed to the standard settlement infobox. I added "Israeli settlement" as the "settlement type" to the infobox. Shuki removed that and changed it to just city. I re-added settlement but kept city, Shuki reverted again. I then attempted to mirror how the original infobox looked which included neither "city" nor "settlement" and Shuki reverted that as well. I opened a talk page discussion, Shuki responds with the accusation that I am on a "monthly witch-hunt to dehumanize all Jewish populated places" by calling Israeli settlements "Israeli settlements". I realize that Shuki has "only" made 3 reverts, but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war. nableezy - 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mbz1.

To edit war at least 2 editors are required. user:Nableezy made 4 reverts himself

  1. [73];
  2. [74]
  3. [75];
  4. [76];--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That simply is not true. The first edit is not a revert, it is just an edit. The same is true for the second edit, which is also contiguous with the first edit. No prior version of the article had that formulation, it is by definition not a revert. The third edit is likewise not a revert, it was an attempt at compromise by including both what Shuki argued for and what I argued for (which Shuki could not accept). The last edit is also not a revert, no version of the article had that formulation. What version of the article was I reverting to Mbz1? I tried multiple different formulations without making reverts, Shuki just insisted on his or her favored formulation. nableezy - 20:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
no matter what if it's a revert or not (i didn't understand your explanations of why it's not, but maybe i just don't know exact specific rules about revert)... it is still edit warring from you too. maybe it would be smartest for you to withdraw this complaint because probably you will just get punished from it LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I simply read what you yourself wrote in this very thread just above. You wrote: "but as I do not wish to exceed 1 revert and be blocked as well I have come here instead of continue the edit-war". For the last 2 days you made 5 edits on Ariel (city). I brought up 4 of them, and you're saying they were not reverts. So on the one hand you admitting that you were edit-warring and were afraid to get blocked for that, on the other hand you're claiming that none of your 4 out of 5 edits I referred to were reverts. Strange.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Me attempting different possible formulations is not edit-warring and if Shuki had attempted something other than just repeatedly going back to the same version that he or she supported we would not be here. Instead, for any edit I attempted to make Shuki just reverted. I was not reverting so I was not edit-warring. None of the edits you referenced are reverts, they were all edits. Even when I kept what Shuki wanted to include in one of the edits you list, Shuki still performed a straight revert. And really, why are you here? What does this have to do with you? nableezy - 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
But since you seem confused, let me break this down for you:
  1. 19:16, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit.
  2. 19:24, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
  3. 19:29, 15 September 2010 is a revert of this edit
In each of the reverts Shuki reverses another edit and restores the line to a prior version. In none of the edits that you list do I restore the line to a prior version. Each version is new, they are edits, not reverts. nableezy - 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Shuki

I suppose that this is another one of Nableezy's Pot calling the kettle black reports. I've put together a table about Nableezy implicating himself here User talk:Shuki#Frivolous topic ban vio report. Nableezy has been warned many times for bringing up these frivolous accusations, especially when he is an active part in them. This one in particular seems to be a rehash of his failed settlement RfC. This non-collaborative editor is interested only in inserting his negative POV into articles and shows little sign of improving WP with adding real information and expanding articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So Nableezy set up an RfC, which didn't establish a consensus that everyone could accept, but nonetheless he did at least try dispute resolution. In my book thats better than not trying. What is needed is another attempt to establish a consensus, not yet more name calling and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, he has one little star to his recognition and many black stains like this one in which he ignores the DR and tries to push his POV as if we forgot the past. See his edits at Susya as well. He has nothing better to do, no information to add and expand, and merely hangs around WP in order to change labels and articles lead paragraphs. He is warned many times from admins, and the warnings never add up to anything from the admins. I am not interested in committing WP suicide like he is and taking others with him. The vast majority of POV editors, give up their battleground mentality, loosen up, and learn to collaborate meaning allowing opposing POV into articles and accepting others, some even become admins years later. Nableezy has not changed his attitude since he started editing on WP. This 'primary descriptor' claim is so lame, there was a loose consensus to just leave the articles alone. What does handling infoboxes add to making WP a better place? --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone noticed the first bullet at the top of this page requesting that disputes not be continued here? Cut the meta-discussion please. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure we know this, but it'd be best to reply that to Nableezy and then warn him again for dragging this to the noticeboards, again. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was directing that to both of you. I've asked Stifle to comment here and possibly take action, since he seems to have familiarity with your problems. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've restricted Nableezy and Shuki to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Good call. Does that close out this report, then? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:Taivo reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: Protected)

Version reverted to: 23:01 14 September (please note that this is itself the product of reversion by Taivo) Taivo:

Warned Taivo


Warned Kwami

For discussion of the differences, see the entire talk page. These two have consistently refused to consider or tolerate modification of this article; it was protected, on 31 August, because of their activities. Disagreements with their version by Radagast, Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus (user name Amphiontryoniades) Cynwolfe and others will also be found there - but nobody except me is willing to actually challenge their abuse and revert-warring.

I have been - partly because I have the sources available to me - responsible for these edits. I believe every edit - with perhaps two exceptions - has been a novel text; but I am prepared to stop editing and go elsewhere if asked. I would be prepared to experiment with a topic ban - it is possible that they will abide by it. If they are gone, this may possibly become an article which is based on sources, not preconceived theories, and is comprehensible to common usage. As I have already said, if they are warned away from the article, I will stay away anyway to see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is frivolous. PManderson has done everything in his power to escalate this conflict rather than to resolve it. It is evident from the diffs provided by Pmanderson that he has in fact introduced 8 different edits to the article that he knew were unacceptable to his coeditors each of which have been reverted (some of them blanking of sections or remobval of sources). There is as such no breaking of the 3rr as each revert is of different content. This looks like a completely deliberate and calculated strategy from Pmanderson to provoke each of the other editors into reverting 4 times (each time reverting different content) and then accusing. He was at no risk himself since each edit he introduced was different and so he did not revert to his own version, but instead introduce new content or blank a section. A blatant example fo gaming the system and wikilayering. I have protected a version of the page from a month ago before the dispute began and I would advise strongly against unprotecting untill the participants begin to work collaboratively towards solving the problem instead of simply causing eachother mutual grievances.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have made every effort to make any change in a widely disliked, inaccurate article, which misrepresents its sources. Wareh, Akhilleus, McZeus, Radagast, Cynwolfe, and others have objected to the article; I have tried to change it - and have met with days of revert war. Others have met with insult and lies - as the talk page will show. Taivo and Kwami are incapable of editing cooperatively with anyone but each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)First, PMAnderson is lying about why the article was protected. It was protected because of his actions reported here, here, and here. Second, this revert was to restore vandalism on PMAnderson's part (blanking of a section without consensus). Third, none of my reverts are the same thing; WP:3RR only applies to reverting the same thing three times in 24 hours. Fourth, just yesterday, I warned PMAnderson about 3RR here, but didn't report him at that time. There is an open AN/I case against PMAnderson's incivility here. Fifth, PMAnderson massively overstates the support he has for his POV. Sixth, read the edit history and you will find that I have made many positive contributions to both the discussion and the text and PMAnderson's claims are grossly overstated. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The protection request does not show any sign that it was because of my actions; indeed I asked for it.
WP:3RR covers all reverts on the same article - precisely to make this sort of refusal of all changes impractical.
First I've heard of the ANI case; it is traditional to notify the subject.
The extent and the vehemence of the objections to Taivo and Kwami's version vary, but support for it is limited to Kwami and Taivo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I was about to post on your Talk Page about the AN/I case when I saw this and responded here first. You are completely wrong about your characterization of support. Most of the editors on your list of "supporters" have been neutral. None of the others except Radagast has ever offered unqualified support for your position. You conveniently ignore other editors, such as Erutuon and MarkNutley who have more fully supported Kwami and myself. As you consistently exaggerate to overstate your case on the Talk Page, you consistently minimize in order to understate the evidence that Kwami and I have mustered. --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to rehash things here. Any other admin looking at the page history can see Maunus's point. I mean, Sep's edit warring and disruptive edits over 24 hrs denying the aorist is an aspect or asserting that it's a tense are [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]. That doesn't count multiple pointy or dickish taggings or multiple reverts of other changes to the article, which would double the number. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The page has been protected by Maunus and hopefully that will stop the edit warring. I'm loathe to block potential participants in the ensuing discussion, and I think it would be unfair to block these two now when I declined to block PMAnderson previously. This extended content dispute simply has to stop rearing its head here. This board isn't the place to discuss topic bans and whatnot. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

The same edit was made four times on the twelfth, when he was warned after the third edit, and twice so far today.

prior reversions Sep 12

current reversions

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93] Several suggestions have been made, see

The page is semi-protected because it is subject to (usually Armenian) nationalist POV editting. In this case the editor, with a history of Iranian nationalist POV disputes, is adding a long outdated and now fringe POV, that Armenian is a branch of Iranian. Due to a lack of Western familiarity with the language, this theory was held for a few decades, from the beginning of serious Indo-European studies circa 1827, until study by experts conclusively proved Armenian to be its own independent language family in the 1870's. No mainstream linguis