Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive141

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request for support[edit]

Page: Feminine essence concept of transsexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 128.255.251.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 70.57.222.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (same person)

This isn't exactly a 3RR problem, but it's the beginning of the American school year, so (as usual) we've got some problems at transsexuality-related articles like Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, and I think we need some help.

This anon seems to be engaged in a campaign of gutting articles about concepts of transsexuality that s/he disagrees with. The current tactic is to "merge" articles into oblivion, so that Wikipedia's contents, taken as a whole, provide only the "right" information. This article has been "merged" to Etiology of transsexualism -- except without actually putting the name, any information about the idea, or any of the 25 reliable sources into the target article. Effectively, it's a unilateral deletion of properly sourced material.

I think this group of articles is at risk of edit warring, and I'd really appreciate having several completely uninvolved editors, ideally with strong skills at cooling down disputes, keep an eye on them for a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:


User:Mickeysam reported by User:Talimama (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Lee Mead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mickeysam (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]

User Mickeysam only edits to vandalize the pages for Lee Mead and Denise van Outen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talimama (talkcontribs) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GUNNERGRZ reported by btphelps (Result: No Violation)[edit]

Article: 2nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GUNNERGRZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

  • 1st revert: [7]
  • 2nd revert: [8]
  • 3rd revert: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:

GUNNERGRZ violation of edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership.

I invited GUNNERGRZ on his talk page to discuss these edits on this article's talk page, which he has ignored. Instead, he sent me the following email which could be construed as threatening, quoted below:

<email content removed, please do not post private emails on Wikipedia, it is a copyright violation>

The information I added which he removed was factual and supported by reliable sources. Virtually all of GUNNERGRZ contributions are to this single article. His devotion to this single article and his email to me, which overtly discourages me from making additional contributions to this article, give me the impression that he thinks he owns the article.

Comments on talk pages and even email should be courteous and always assume good faith, which I have tried to do. I did not remove his edit about the time during which Daniel Burke accepted the commission (a seemingly minor factual point), but added a {{fact}} template. After the three reverts on his part I added a warning template to his talk page. I was going to wait for a response, but because he has ignored by requests for discussion and then sent the email, felt this warranted an administrator's attention. Thanks for your time. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The rule is more than 3 reverts. Also it looks like the editors involved both are discussing changes on the talk page. Blocking someone at this point would be counterproductive. -Selket Talk 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: League tables of British universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 11:49, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Minor edits to improve text")
  2. 12:12, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515082 - please discuss this on the talk page")
  3. 12:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515982 - Please discuss these edits on the talk page")
    12:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516051 - Please discuss on talk page. Thanks.") - edit without intervening edit.
  4. 12:21, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516977 - Once again, please discuss on talk page.")
  5. 12:24, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517320 - there is no such things as a 'dominant editor' of an article and that is in any event irrelevant. Discuss these changes on the talk page, they are POV and original research")
  • Diff of warning: here

Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:188.223.81.158 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: League tables of British universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.223.81.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:39, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "added a well-sourced part which shows the reasons for disparity with international rankings")
  2. 12:08, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "there is no need to repeat in the top, article is about league tables")
  3. 12:14, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "criticism of the concept has nothing to do with international rankings, this topic is essential and should have separate subheading")
    12:14, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387515773 by Rangoon11 (talk)")(no intervening edit)
  4. 12:20, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387516200 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
  5. 12:22, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517151 by Rangoon11 (talk) Rangoon became the dominant editor of the article and has no right to edit further")
  6. 12:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387517568 by Rangoon11 (talk) check first rules of Wikipedia before editing, my position is stated in Discussion")
    12:32, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reasons to remove the top headline are stated in the Discussion page") (no intervening edit)
  • Diff of warning: here

Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Neither editor has reverted since being warned of the 3RR. -Selket Talk 13:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:41.210.55.157 reported by User:Oncamera (Result: Proxy block)[edit]

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

User being reported: 41.210.55.157 ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:38, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
  2. 22:52, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "no reason to undo it as the Hangul name is already displayed in Infobox Korean name")
  3. 23:35, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "please take it to you talk page. As I said the title is already in the Korean Name box")
  4. 23:50, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "stop and talk about it first please there is no rule for what you are doing Yume")
  5. 00:10, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "currently under discussion at Yume's talk page thanks")

oncamera(t) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why was I reported when I am trying to resolve the issue. User:YumeChaser says that it is a common practice to have Hangul names in the Infobox, but there is already a Hangul name in the Korean Name Infobox. Am I an idot here?? 41.210.55.157 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The discussion between the IP user and I didn't go anywhere, not sure what that means here but I thought it would be good to note. I was warned by an admin and stop reverting. IP reverted again, despite having prior knowledge of 3RR/edit war. 追人YumeChaser 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another revert. 追人YumeChaser 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted because someone else reverted my edit. 41.210.55.157 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who reverts your edit. 3 is the limit. 追人YumeChaser 01:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
To 41.210.55.157: YumeChaser is correct. It doesn't matter who else is reverting, your limit is 3 and you have exceeded that. I recommend you undo your own last edit and state your case on the article's talk page. Request a WP:third opinion if you cannot reach an agreement. The alternative is a block (which you still might receive). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Result -- IP blocked five years as a confirmed open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Harout72 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Eminem discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harout72 (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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Harout72#"Discussion"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eminem discography#Japanese positions

Comments:
I am reporting this user for deliberately edit warring against consensus, not 3RR. This user replaced the US R&B charts at Eminem discography with the Japanese ones, against consensus, so I reverted in good faith and asked them to discuss. They reverted my edit, saying consensus was not necessary. The fact that I reverted them in the first place showed that they made a controversial edit, which does require consensus, so I again reverted, and again asked them to discuss. They revert yet again and say that they did discuss. (They began this discussion but did not wait for consensus to form before reverting back.) I explained at their talk page that I would revert back to the original version (where the R&B charts were included over the Japanese ones) and asked them not to revert back until there was a consensus backing their edits. Surely enough, they reverted a third time.

This user was editing against consensus, but I acknowledge that since I edit warred as well, and since neither of us crossed 3RR, I accept and fully understand if I were to be blocked as a result of this report. My main issue with this user is that they are deliberately ignoring the consensus and edit warring to suit their desires, without any regard as to other editors' opinions and previous consensus. –Chase (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Chasewc91 is not a regular editor to Eminem discography and he, so far, has failed to bring the so called consensus to my attention which he/she keeps referring to. From my long time observation, I've noticed that Chasewc91 happens to be an editor who's against using Japan within discography pages for some inexplicable reason, although, in this very case I have pointed out that Eminem has charted well in Japan with his materials, not to mention that Japan represents the second largest market in the world after US; therefore, it is important to highlight Eminem's Japanese chart performance. I also pointed out that Japanese positions for Eminem are based on sales, whereas the R&B positions are not based on sales, they are only to show how R&B/Hip-hop artists perform amongst themselves.--Harout72 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Without continuing the dispute, I would like to note that I explained the idea of silence and consensus at Harout72's talk page. –Chase (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Fully protected three days. When both parties make speeches about consensus in their edit summaries while they continue to revert it is kind of ridiculous. A true regard for consensus should make you slow down and wait for the discussion to be finished. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment/Support Harout's proposal Well I for one, support Harout. R&B is simply a chart, a smaller branch of the Hot 100. While Eminem may not be very popular in Asia, he certainly has certifications in Japan. I find adding Japanese peaks and certifications more important, than adding a lesser and secondary US chart.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 05:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Drfragment reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [11]


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

Comments:

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: a week and a half, warned)[edit]

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: [19] (This is Nyisnotbad's Sept 15th version, to which he reverts wholesale, and for which he was previously blocked as edit warring.


Most recent identical reversions:


Absolutely identical reversions, prior to his latest block:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] (This is the most recent of many warnings)

Comments:

User Nyisnotbad is conducting what is now a slow motion edit war. He has repeatedly reverted the article wholesale to the identical edit which earned him a one week block. After that he has again made the exact same wholesale reversion listed three times above, deleting improvements that have been made to the article in the meantime. His actions and responding to them have become quite burdensome.

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 linguist now holds the view that Armenian is a dialect of Iranian.

Nyisnotbad has repeatedly made the same edit to present this fringe theory as fact. He cites Franz Bopp, who died in 1867. He falsely cites the recently deceased Winfred Lehmann, author of a reader of 19th century of historical linguistics, who holds Armenian to be a separate branch between Iranian and Slavic [31] as supporting the theory. He quotes Lehmann as saying that the Iranian theory had not yet been disproven, yet willfully ignores the fact that Lehmann then spends the remainder of the article providing that very disproof, concluding the exact opposite of Nyisnotbad's contention. He has been made aware of the fact that he is misrepresenting Lehmann by different editors on several prior and recent occasions.

The editor has a history of nationalist POV disputes for which he has been repeatedly both warned sanctioned.

He has been advised of the outdated and false nature of his evidence and takes no notice.

He has been advised repeated from the beginning that he provide the theory as a minority view, if he attributes it a modern notable scholar who holds it.

His sole communication has been to insist that he is being censored.

Other than this repeated time-wasting and disruptive act, has made absolutely no other contribution to this article.μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of a week and a half Formally warned of probation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:KerAvelt reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Sholom Rubashkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

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

  1. 17:09, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Consensus in the talk page that this does not belong here, in addition to the editors refusal to provide a source that shows it importance to the topic, Sholom Rubashkin) that it belongs in the lead.")
  2. 20:49, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "SEE TALK PAGE. And do not revert until responding on Talk page")
  3. 21:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Please do not engage in edit warring. Lacking consensus is a poor, poor excuse. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't CEO, you not consenting means nothing.")
  4. 03:09, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387656632 by Mosmof (talk) EXPLAIN YOURSELF before making radical changes")
  • Diff of warning: here (subsequently removed by editor)
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: extensive activity at talk page, here

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity—you have been unreasonable. A cogent argument has been made for the position (CEO/Vice president) yet you've persisted not seeing it. A well-reasoned case has been presented that legal charges that were dismissed do not warrant mention in the lead. Yet you've insisted on not seeing that. Even in the absence of BLP concerns your conduct in these matters would be unreasonable. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
None of it is cogent -- but this is not the place for content discussion of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have reason to believe FederalInvestigator (talk · contribs) is the same editor as Keravelt and that edit count is higher. Mosmof (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Article protected 3 days. It is hard to sympathize with KerAvelt's reverts, and the concern about socking appears well-taken. Nonetheless this is a BLP article and a longer discussion might be needed to be precise about the relationship of Sholom Rubashkin to the troubled company. Since 5W Public Relations is a firm that represented Agriprocessors in the past, and 5W's article was a festival of sockpuppetry, it could be useful in KerAvelt's SPI case to link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • KerAvelt ‎blocked for 96 hours and FederalInvestigator blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:75.61.99.138 reported by User:WDavis1911 (Result: sprotted both)[edit]

Page: Progressive tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.61.99.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]


  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [37]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [38]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

Not sure if this is the place for this, but it seemed to be the most reasonable. A user is violating Wikipedia:Original research, which is not by itself surprising. I respond with a templated message about this on the user's talk page. The original research is reproduced just minutes later. I revert it, and respond by writing a personal note on the user's talk page, encouraging the user to read our policy pages and continue contributing in a more constructive manner. The user then re-adds the information. I once again revert, with yet another templated warning. At this point, it seems to me that the user is just being stubborn about including the original research. It seems more about agenda pushing than anything else-- especially since these same edits were included on the Flat tax article. They were so deeply embedded in the Flat tax article that I just added a refimprove tag and figured I'd clean it out when I had more time (there were a few reasonably decent edits included, soI didn't want to just do a full revert). Thanks a lot for looking into this matter, and I hope I haven't taken up anyone's time unnecessarily. WDavis1911 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Both pages semi-protected. Kudos to WDavis1911 for their handling of this matter. Hopefully the IP will be back to discuss on the talk pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help :) Thank you for your time, and take care! WDavis1911 (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:24.120.110.224 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Special forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.120.110.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:30, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 05:03, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 05:11, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism. ALR is editing against majority consensus that Ninjas are special forces which has been on the article a long time. Undeniable")
  4. 05:15, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by CharlieEchoTango identified as pov pushing vandalism against majority consensus. Please discuss and use the sandbox for experimentation.")
  5. 05:19, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "For many years this article has stated that Ninjas are Special Forces operators, if you dispute this show us any reputable source that can prove Ninjas are NOT Special Forces operators.")
  6. 18:13, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv to previous version by Jim Sweeney.")
  7. 19:38, 28 September 2010 (edit summary: "revert to previous accurate version by Jim Sweeney")
  8. 00:15, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Ask any SWAT operator at your local Police station, Police SWAT, FBI HRT and CIA Special Activities Division are all considered "Special Forces". You three are trying to push military POV!")
  • Diff of warning: here

—-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Edit 1 looks like the original addition of unsourced material, followed by 7 reversions of its removal within the past 24 hours - it has been removed by a number of different editors. I issued a 3RR warning yesterday, but the editor blanked it and carried on warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Has now blanked the 3RR warning again and has continued reverting...

  • 09:55, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "reverted 1 edit by ALR identified as vandalism and repeated POV pushing saying that Police SWAT, Ninja, FBI HRT, CIA are not Special Forces when they are by majority consensus.")

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Dazs reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: List of The Event episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: The Dazs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: oldid

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

  1. 05:52, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Episode summaries should be BRIEF, explaining only the general events. They should not summarize an entire episode. Reverted ep.1 to 20:19, Sep 27 by Grsz11.")
  2. 06:15, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) as my previous revert fully complies with wikipedia's spoiler guidelines.")
  3. 10:27, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Removed episode 2 summary. Go here to find out why.")
  4. 12:07, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted as I do believe the removal of spoilers within this page is acceptable under the spoiler guidelines. Join the discussion")
  5. 12:26, 29 September 2010 (edit summary: "Removing content (but still following the spoiler guidelines)! Join the discussion")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: previous discussion on article talk page, current discussion at WP:SPOILER

Comments: With under 30 edits under his belt, this user claims to be not edit warring because he believes BRD is a process that takes place after every reply in the discussion. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This is a valid and well-formed request, but Dazs has now agreed to stop edit warring while consensus is built. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rjanag (Result: closed)[edit]

User:70.144.72.216/User:70.144.97.243/User:Apollo1975 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.144.72.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
70.144.97.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Apollo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52] [53]

Comments:
Anonymous editor was using multiple IPs (two are listed in this report) to make unconstructive POV edits to this article, then registered an account after one of the IPs was issued a 3RR warning. No attempt has been made on article talk page to seek consensus for these edits which are basically just vandalism. A CheckUser should be run to determine if sock-puppetry is at work here, but I'd imagine WP:DUCK applies. Also suggest semi-protection for this article until this person gets bored and finds other shenanigans to engage in. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not the result I was hoping for, but if Apollo1975 (or one of the IP socks) begins edit warring in this article as soon as the protection ends, I will file another report here after the first such edit, and I expect this history to be taken into account. Thanks again. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Skywriter reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Samuel Eliot Morison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [54]

  • 1st revert: [55] (23 September)
  • 2nd revert: [56] (23 September)
  • 3rd revert: [57] (29 September)
  • See also the edit war over the same topic involving Skywriter at Henry Steele Commager (recent example Skywriter diffs: [58] (23 September), [59] (23 September), [60] (24 September), (27 September), [61] (28 September) - this seems to have been going on for quite a while, with Longsun (talk · contribs) reverting Skywriter's changes


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62] (on 23 September) and [63] (also 23 September)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison. Diffs from the most recent discussions include: [64] (Skywriter), [65] (me - note that this is a series of edits all on the same talk page post), [66] (comment from non-involved editor AustralianRupert), [67] (me again agreeing with AustralianRupert) See also the discussion at Talk:Henry Steele Commager

Comments:

Skywriter (talk · contribs) is engaging in a long-running edit war over the Samuel Eliot Morison article. He or she wishes to include multiple quotes from authors criticising one of Morison's books. I prefer to include a summary of this material. Instead of discussing this on the talk page, he or she is instead accusing other editors of attempting to 'censor scholars' and is edit warring (note in particular the 29 September reversion when there was no support for their position on the article talk page). It appears that Skywriter is engaging in a similar edit war in the Henry Steele Commager over wanting to include lots of material concerning the same book. Please note that similar material advocated by Skywriter was trimmed to a summary in the Samuel Eliot Morison article back in 2007 following a discussion on the article talk page, yet Skywriter reinstated much of this material in January 2010 ([68]) - I removed it and there was a discussion on the talk page which didn't really go anywhere (beyond Skywriter accusing me of wanting to censor the article) and all was quiet until Skywriter restarted the edit war on 23 September. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 30 September 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. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears that someone blocked Skywriter at the same time as I was declining this. Striking decline, since obviously that's not true. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Sorry for the pseudo-edit conflict. I concur that this is not a technical 3RR violation, but reading the history and the talkpages I do think that this pattern of edits is covered by WP:Edit warring. I am also warning Longsun (talk · contribs) for the related edit war at Commager. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Apollo1975 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: indef)[edit]

Page: Clemson Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Apollo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [69]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72][73]

Comments:
To be clear, this report is for edit warring, not 3RR violation, as the editor being reported is careful not to cross that bright line, and indeed seems to have recently created this username in an obvious effort to avoid having an anonymous IP[74] blocked during earlier violations in another article[75]. This editor has been made well aware of Wikipedia policy regarding 3RR/edit warring through multiple warnings on their talk page (some of which the user has removed and replaced with retaliatory templates[76]). User continues to make edits to the article in question which remove well-sourced and notable content, making absolutely no attempt to seek consensus. Indeed, this editor has yet to make a single post on the article's talk page discussing changes which remove content that was merged into this article through the efforts and consensus of numerous editors[77][78]. User appears to ignore all advice given by more than one experienced editor, and instead returns to making unilateral decisions. Assistance in dealing with this disruptive and tendentious editor would be greatly appreciated. At the bare minimum, semi-protection of the article would seem to be in order. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Apollo1975 has been recently confirmed by CheckUser to be using sockpuppets to make disruptive edits.[79]
Already indeffed for socking. T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:67.70.128.37 reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: TRIZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.70.128.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]

  • 1st revert: [81] (revert over two consecutive edits)
  • 2nd revert: [82]
  • 3rd revert: [83]
  • 4th revert: [84]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt made before this IP started, but just after a previous IP also from Ottawa had been doing the same thing: [86] While trying to reply to IP's message on talkboard, fourth revert happened (i.e. no opportunity given for discussion): [87]

Comments:

The reverts are reinsertions of POV unsourced and poorly sourced material. This IP appears to be a POV warrior, and entirely uninterested in following wikipedia policies - note comments on the talkpage [88]. I believe it may be the same person as 65.93.172.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who followed the same edit pattern eg diff:[89]. (My attempt to talk to this user:[90]). Both IPs are from Ottawa.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP continues to edit-war, here is the 5-th revert[91]. An immediate block is appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned User had not been notified of the three revert rule. Prior warning was about unsourced statements. If he reverts again, repost here or let me know. -Selket Talk 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been another, 6th, revert[92], subsequent to your warning. A block is required now. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've blocked 67.70.128.37 for 24 hours, for violating 3RR (or 6RR, or whatever...) TFOWR 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Se8du4ia420 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Stargate SG-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Se8du4ia420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

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

  1. 03:17, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "Smallville is not a Science-Fiction series")
  2. 21:23, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 387877052 by Xeworlebi (talk)")
  3. 22:15, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "The definition of Science Fiction is Material to this discussion. Yes I agree with you in that Smallville will exceed Stargate-SG1 in seasons, but Stargate-SG1 still holds the title because it SciFi")
  4. 22:19, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 00:11, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "The definition of Science Fiction is Material to this discussion. Yes I agree with you in that Smallville will exceed Stargate-SG1 in seasons, but Stargate-SG1 still holds the title because it SciFi")
  6. 00:51, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Look up the definition for Science Fiction...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments: First two edits by IP, account created after second time being reverted, made 4 reverts as account. Removing sourced (4 references) and the statement they back up. User does not believe Smallville is science fiction, although 4 different references state so. Xeworlebi (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Welsh family reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

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

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

Time reported: 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:00, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
  2. 19:11, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Unwarranted")
  3. 19:26, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */")
  4. 19:35, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal action */ Removed libellous content")
  5. 19:38, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous reporting")
  6. 19:48, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
  7. 19:53, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Was unjustified at time of reporting and is certainly unjustified 16 years on! This will result in complete removal of wikipedia entry for Brian welsh")
  8. 19:57, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
  9. 20:03, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Libelous")
  10. 20:13, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted addition to content requested removal of wikipedia entry")
  11. 20:19, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */ Unwarranted")
  12. 20:22, 30 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Legal actions */")
  • Diff of warning: here

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This report is somewhat redundant and superfluous at this time. The page is already locked, and conversation is ongoing here. Legitimate questions have been raised about the quality of the source, the applicability of WP:BLP, and specifically WP:NPF. We'll see how progress resumes after the page is unlocked. Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it's redundant *and* superfluous? :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:85.250.159.127 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Rubicon (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.250.159.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Previous version reverted to: link

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

  1. 05:59, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Critical reception */")
  2. 06:14, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388052346 by This is nonsense. The section is clearly headed Critical Reception. There is no defined standard for an accepted source for a critical reception.")
  3. 06:36, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision Please explain how you can exclude a perfectly well defined critical reception from the section headed Critical Reception. You're being elitist and absurd.")
  4. 07:11, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision. You have not made a case why this critical reception is less relevant than Deseret News. You're being elitist. This comment adds to the page. It does not detract.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments: This is the Xth IP iteration of user that keeps adding some guys blog posts as reputable reception: 67.235.253.199 diff; 89.139.164.152 diff 1, diff 2; 85.250.142.178 diff) Xeworlebi (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.85.53.84 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Random Album Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.85.53.84 (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: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:


Comment Discussion about the ongoing edit war between Radiopathy and the IP across multiple articles is also taking place at User Talk:SarekOfVulcan here [99]. As per WP:RESTRICT, Radiopathy is under an indefinite 1RR restriction for continued edit warring, which he seems to be breaking here [100] [101], here [102] [103], and here [104] [105]. On both of those last two, his next revert was less than an hour away from violating it two straight days in a row. I brought this up to him on Sarek's talkpage and asked him to stop, his only response was to file this edit war complaint against the other party. Dayewalker (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I'll leave it to others to consider possible sanctions against Radiopathy. They appear to have violated their restriction on the 29th, but it would seem punitive to block for that now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Nyisnotbad reported by User:Medeis (Result: already handled)[edit]

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)

User being reported: 67.49.14.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The user Nyisnotbad has been blocked from editing for 10 days. He is using IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block. (Note that he cannot edit the article, it being semi-protected.) These are the IP edits made so far:


Notice of ten-day block: [110] Comments:


The user Nyinotbad has been blocked twice in the last month from editing Armenian language and is currently still under the second block. The page is semi-protected. He is using an IP address 67.49.14.143 to evade the block.

  • The arguments presented are identical to that of the block user.
  • Inspection of Nyisnotbad's contributions and those of the IP user show a list of identical articles edited.
  • The IP user appeared only once the editor was blocked.
  • He is making identical detailed false representations about a source which Nyisnotbad was making.

I request that the IP be blocked and the user be further sanctioned.μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Skatetown, U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1st, 2nd, 3rd in part 4th 5th

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, admin

Comments:

The other User:RollerBooger is probably guilty too but the diffs and revert-tos are not as clear. Full disclosure: I discovered this after being involved in an unrelated disagreement with this editor. It still appears that this is a violation in that arguing over inclusion of a cast member is not a free-revert case. JJB 22:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) User doesn't believe I'm serious. User has multiple prior edit-war blocks and an arbcom violation in 2007. JJB 23:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected This is a completely new user (which is a bit suspect), and it was a deletion of sourced material. That said, Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No dispute, not out of line, looked like vandalism to me, redlinked user, only contributions were blanking the same sourced content over and over. Meanwhile User:John J. Bulten is unhappy that I protected Gadsby: Champion of Youth, where he and another editor where edit warring over lipograms. I think it's safe to say, User:John J. Bulten templated my talk page and posted here only out of spite. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but the motives for a report do not make it invalid. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chrisrus reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 12h)[edit]

Page: Pig (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chrisrus (talk ·