Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive146

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:RolandR reported by User:Ntbiabt (Result: reporter blocked)[edit]

Page: Bolshevik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RolandR (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]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I can't edit his Talk Page - why?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I can't edit his Talk Page - why?

Comments: Clear violation of 3RR. Tried to bully me, a new user, by pretending to be admin and threatening me on my Talk Page. Also, why can't I use this editor's Talk Page? Ntbiabt (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I presume this is a complaint against me by User:Ntbiabt. This user has been edit-warring in order to replace English with US variant spellings, including of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In so doing, s/he is not only ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, but is also creating a Wikilink to a redirect, rather than to the article itself. Further, I strongly suspect that this is not a new user, but a sockpuppet of User:RT101798, blocked for the same behaviour yesterday. Nor did I pretend to be an admin; I posted a template warning, which I followed up with a polite personal note. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when the title of the article uses the British English spelling of Labour, repeatedly insisting on replacing it with the American English spelling, Labor, in the body of the article, using the argument that the British English spelling is an unnecessary anglicisation, looks pretty disruptive. I see that the edit war that Ntbiabt is reporting is over the same spelling change in the Bolshevik article, Ntbiabt there rationalising his change on the grounds that, since Wikipedia is international it should use the American spelling. Ntbiabt seems to be unaware on the rules and guidelines which govern which spelling system is selected in particular articles.     ←   ZScarpia   13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
None of which changes the fact RolandR made 3 reverts in less than 25 minutes, and another less than 24 hours before that. Considering the amount of reports he has filed here, he certainly should know better.
Obvious violation is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
So Roland can simply self revert and let the disruption and sockpuppetry prevail to avoid breaking 3RR. Brilliant. Everyone a winner. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point. Whether the article says "labor" or "labour" is such an important issue that we should put aside the 3RR and deal with it immediately. I mean, what's a bright line compared to an extra "u"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you thought the first sentence was sarcastic. Unfortunately not. The last one was though. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it's suspicious that a new user immediately has detailed knowledge of Wikipedia procedures like the 3RR and how to report someone for edit warring. This tends to be a sign of sockpuppetry. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have self-reverted and restored the incorrect disruptive spelling, in order to avoid 3RR. I suspect that both this editor and the similar edit-warrior yesterday are sockpuppets, and I find it very hard to assume that any of these edits was made in good faith. RolandR (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Roland, you are free to make a report at WP:SPI. If this editor is a sock of User:RT101798, these reverts at Bolshevik show him to be avoiding an AE block, so the checkusers might be willing to look at it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No need, I'm going to make the report myself. I'm 99% sure RT is someone's bad cop sock, and I don't feel like dealing with this bullshit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at this as well, and a report isn't even necessary. Please see here. nableezy - 17:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's just incompetence. Both indef blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Reporter blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:John KB reported by User:117Avenue (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John KB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [6]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
I have tried to initiate conversation on the talk page, and directed the user to it twice, but he has ignored it. 117Avenue (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This is not a formal 3RR violation since the reverts were spread out over many days, and I can't see my way to blocking in a 1-vs-1 dispute. Since the article appears to have a number of active editors, I advise asking for others to discuss the issue on the talk page. If others agree with you and John KB continues to revert nonetheless, the case for a block will be much clearer. Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by two anonymous IPs reported by User:Crusio (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Michael Kühntopf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Two anonymous IPs are edit warring over Michael Kühntopf.

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected for one week, as the simplest solution. Looie496 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mrdubbing reported by User:mooncow (Result: warned)[edit]

Pages: Dave Clark (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and The Dave Clark Five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrdubbing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous versions reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: created

Comments:

This is not a 3RR or similar violation, as the edit warring is slooow and has taken place over several months (about twelve), but there seems to be a problem with these two pages and the quoting of a birth date for Dave Clark, and it has resulted in a ping-pong of edits which doesn't seem to be helping anyone. User:Mrdubbing, in particular, repeatedly "corrects" 1939 to 1942 without comment and without contributing to the discussion page. A warning was put on his talk page, but the repeated identical edits continue without comment or discussion up to the present (latest: 17 November 2010 on both articles).

I have placed a discussion item on the talk page Talk:The_Dave_Clark_Five#Dave_Clark_date_of_birth. I haven't discussed it directly with User:Mrdubbing or any of the other editors involved, as I have no domain knowledge to contribute and only limited editorial expertise myself. I don't know whether this is best treated as an edit war, or needs some sort of mediation, or just a friendly admin to keep an eye on it and see if the discussion resolves to a concensus or not. Mooncow (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:92.238.185.104 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Page: Austrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.238.185.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:
If you look back at the history of the article you will also see constant edit warring from this editor.

Their edits have been reverted many times by Catgut, Eraserhead, Andrej N. B. and Glorfindel Goldscheitel, and any requests to discuss changes on the talk page have been ignored. O Fenian (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 5 days)[edit]

Page: International law and Israeli settlements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am filing this report as a violation of the 1rr (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) present at all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:[23]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[24]

  • 1st revert: [25]. User Dailycare ads "The consensus view of the international community..." as the first sentence of the article, and removes "At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions..." [26] Chesdovi removes that first sentence and re ads the other part:[27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]. I re added "The consensus view of the international community..." as the first sentence of the article and removed the parts about "Arguments by legal experts have been offered for and against the permissibility of the settlements established by Israel in the territories it captured during the 1967 war." and "At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions..." [29]. Chesdovi reverts this: [30] he replaces my first sentence, and re adds both "Arguments by legal experts have been offered for and against the permissibility of the settlements established by Israel in the territories it captured during the 1967 war." and "At present, the predominant view of the international community..."

These two reverts happened within 24 hours, he has therefor violated the topic ban.


Chesdovi is aware of the 1rr as he has been notified of it with a link to the rule when he violated it at another time:[31], there is also a warning message at the talkpage where he participated:[32], he has also been notified of ARBPIA [33] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MbdSeattle reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MbdSeattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [34]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] (ongoing discussion)

Comments:
User also asked for assistance here [45], but has never stopped reverting. User is also probably IP 174.24.251.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who jumped in and reverted following the user blanking warnings on his talk page. User also left this tidbit [46] on the article page. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.113.49.10 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 31 hours )[edit]

Page: Wichita Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.113.49.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] (ongoing)

Comments:
IP claims consensus, even though there is obviously none. Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - KrakatoaKatie 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.113.49.10 reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: already blocked )[edit]

Page: Wichita Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.113.49.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [55]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments: After I gave this editor a 3RR notice, xe responded with this message at my talk page[62], and then added the material back for the 5th time[63]

--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked See the above report of the same IP by another editor. KrakatoaKatie 05:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Flobot222 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Jemima Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flobot222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring and POV pushing. No bright-line 3RR yet.

I noticed this through this edit to Jemima Khan. It's a "correct" edit from one viewpoint (it removes information from a lead that is still in the body), however I would see it as unhelpful. Jemima Khan (née Goldsmith) is the daughter of a rich UK family who married a Pakistani cricketer and converted to Islam. This is quite exceptional, and worthy of mention in a lead.

So far that's a difference of opinion, not anything to complain about. I reverted it because my personal opinion is that it's warranted, and also that it had been stably in the lead for a long time. However when I looked at the editor's history, I saw a new editor (September) with an edit history that's narrowly focussed on race issues and has had pretty much every edit challenged for POV. Their talk history is here, because they blank warnings as soon as received.

On this ground, I don't see their removal as a stylistic difference of opinion (if they'd reverted it sincerely, I'd probably have left it), but as part of a broader POV agenda. They've removed it 4 times now, but not within the 24 hour window. As such, I see their overall edit history as problematic.

If anyone can explain the Indiana Jones plotline rant on their talkpage (Hitler and Aryans and Persians, Oh my!), I'd be grateful. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
Hi Andy, I would keep the phrasing in question out of the lead. This is well detailled on in the section about her marriage to Khan. What do you feel is so special about going from one belief to another that it would have to be mentioned in the lead? I will look into his other edits and let you know if I perceive bias. I DID like that Flot22 gives comments reasoning his deletion. Chartinael (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As an analogy for the US, imagine if a Kennedy had married a Muslim and converted to Islam. That's the importance of this, for its unusual nature and also (perhaps not quite so much) for the prominence of the family.
If you'd made this edit, I'd probably look at your other contributions and see an editor with a broad range of edits and some interest in copyediting. I'd still disagree, but I'd see it as a legit difference of opinion and let it stand. When it's from such a single-focus editor though, I get concerned. I also doubt if you'd have removed it from the infobox. Infoboxes, and especially leads, should really only re-state content that's already discussed further in the main article and if we take an absolutist view that "nothing in the body should be repeated in the lead" it would be empty!
Many of the edits here are strictly "correct", in that they delete sections that aren't well sourced. However that's an editing pattern that is correct as a one-off, but when it's repeated across so many edits, and the pieces removed are always to further a particular POV, I see this as problematic. There are also edits like Auroville, where a well-sourced but highly critical sentence was removed (this sentence has been attacked before).
Looking at Aryan, we see a pattern of multiple reversions like this with a refusal to engage with other editors or to put the stick down. In particular, qualifying [[Deva (Hinduism)|Devas]] as [[Hindu]] [[Deva (Hinduism)|Devas]] (an edit I'd personally agree with, as it's clearer to the layman, even if slightly tautological) three times in a day:
  • [64]
  • [65] (trampling an intervening edit in the process)
  • [66]
This just doesn't look like an editor who has time for other opinions, or for collegiate policies. For futher concerns and pointer to more diffs, I suggest looking at their talk: history and seeing the warnings from a broad range of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I certainly agree, there seems to be an underlying issue there. Aboutt he Auroville issue, I cannot say much. I didn't read the lemma, only noted on the diff that the idealism of founders is not referenced. This edit is indeed bad [67]. Bad [68] and I see more bad edits. My feeling is that he is trying to be indo-centric? Is that yours as well? His talk pages is also extremely bad. But hey, so is mine. I basically checked only his reverts especially when they were about etymology. His reverts were mostly correct. Seems like the ongoing dispute between the east and the west as in iran/afghanistan about the historic right to the term aryan. So his reverts were fine but probably based on the totally wrong motivation. Chartinael (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what his POV is, I don't want to know what his POV is, I certainly don't have time to know what his POV is. I certainly can't make head nor tail of that epistle on his talk page. Whatever it is though, I'm sure he's pushing something, and not in a helpful manner. I'm just the dog-catcher here, not a vet. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing some edits:

  • Edit taking out unsourced section describing a people (Kaul) through physcial attributions. [69]
  • This edit is bad, but it appears he may not know what a cognate is. [70]
  • This edit is good [71] as is this [72] another good one [73]

What bias do you think to have recognized? Chartinael (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Flobot222 is also (different editor, overlapping but slightly earlier edit) up at ANI too. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I've soft blocked the user (autoblock disabled) for another unrelated reason - the name ending in bot. Please also note that the user is allowed to register a new name and start editing again. Therefore, you would have to connect the edits from hereon to a new username, whichever the blocked editor should choose in the future. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Please review my inquiry about such block on your Talk page. Chartinael (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Behavior issues of reportee aside, I see zero discussion on the issue before coming here, and the reporter's edit summaries are awfully WP:BITEy. I may have misread the situation, but I don't believe so. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I came to this contribution history late, just on this recent edit. Normally I would have tried to engage them in more discussion, but looking at the talk: history and their immediate wiping without engagement, I didn't see that it would be a fruitful route. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Result -- No action, since the user is currently blocked indef for having a user name which sounds like a bot. If he returns with a new account (which he's entitled to do) anyone who still sees a problem can file a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Silver seren (Result: No action)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diff of what user changed article to.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
I was in the process of sourcing the items on the list in this article, as can be seen from the history. However, at 07:36, December 10, 2010, during the very same minute that I was working with another ref, User:Ohconfucius started removing huge sections of the list on the page. I reverted him and directed him to go discuss this change on the talk page, wherein I made a section. However, he ignored me and reverted me back. He then went on to remove even more of the article, such as the Overview section, the removal shown here. I reverted him back yet again and once more directed him to the talk page. This time, he reverted me without an edit summary. I reverted for a third time, warning in my edit summary that I would take him to this noticeboard if he reverted again without discussion. He did so and here I am.

I would like to note that this article is extremely new, having been started two days ago. The release of the list in a Wikileaks document occurred just five days ago and new secondary sources are being published every hour. I have been working on incorporating these all day, slowly working through the list so everything will be referenced eventually. There was already a discussion on the talk page here in progress about what should be done with the unsourced sections of the list. Ohconfucius could have easily joined in on that discussion instead of starting this edit war. Since he has yet to discuss anything, i'm not sure what else there is to say. I will go notify him of this section. SilverserenC 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User has now responded on the talk page, a full ten minutes later. SilverserenC 08:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a huge discussion on this already at ANI. The consensus there is that this content does not belong, failing WP:RS, except three editors vehemently disagree. One of them, Silver seren, has made blanket reverts of my sequential edits, now the second dissenter, Meco, has also joined in tag teaming against my efforts. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion that is being referred to can be found here. However, Ohconfucius is wrong in terms of the concensus in the discussion. If the admin wishes to take the time to read through, I am sure they will see that, in the beginning of the discussion, notability of the article was conflicted, but the later addition of numerous reliable sources by myself and other users clearly dealt with issues of notability. Regardless, that discussion has little to do with Ohconfucius's edit warring and lack of discussion on the talk page of the article until after the fact (and after s/he made sure to revert once again before doing so). User Meco has since reverted him back however, yes. This is not tag teaming, as is stated by Ohconfucius, since I have had no contact in terms of the reversions before Meco did so and I certainly did not tell him to do so. SilverserenC 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to further note that after making his comment above, Ohconfucius went and made this comment in the discussion, again citing some concensus that is not shown in the discussion. SilverserenC 11:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, speak of the devil... just as I was wondering if #3 was lurking in the wings. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The set of all editors working constructively on an article does not constitute a "tag team", as you've suggested elsewhere. Meco and I came to this article independently, and Silverseren was in fact recruited to this cause by an attempt to censor the article at ANI/Incidents. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, there was no tag teaming. ;-) There's this incitement to counter my work to remove inappropriately sourced material... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that this edit of mine[80] restored material that was unsourced or poorly sourced? I don't know that anyone actually meant to delete this material - if so, why?? I responded to the talk page comment, yes, but following an edit war like this I would have compared the versions from before and after anyway. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I should add that I just now spotted a comment by User:Elonka fomenting this behavior by OhConfucius at the end of a previous talk page section, saying that "Any primary sources (for example,[81]) should be removed immediately."[82] I feel strongly that this was an ill-considered suggestion, but it does provide OhConfucius with something of an excuse; the responsibility goes largely to Elonka. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ho, ho ho! Gosh, all these personal attacks against me here and elsewhere, least of all this comment and this edit summary insinuating I vandalised the article... The problem as discussed at ANI, was the consensus that the heavy reliance on primary sources is totally unacceptable. Re this, when saying 'unsourced' in my edit summary, I always linked to WP:RS. I'm done here. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I used the neutral term "damage", since I did not track down exactly how this section got deleted in the edit war. Since the section is based on secondary discussions and is not part of the list material you were setting out to delete, I presume the damage was some inadvertent collateral damage of the dispute. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talkcontribs) 14:55, December 10, 2010
Hmmm, looks like I was wrong.[83] But why would you remove this saying there aren't reliable sources when I'm citing the government's own National Infrastructure Protection Plan (not via Wikileaks) and two other reliable-looking sources? Wnt (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator who has been monitoring the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, I do see that Ohconfucius was reverting, but he doesn't appear to have gone over 3RR. It is also worth noting that he was acting to remove unsourced and poorly sourced information from the article. The other editors who were reverting to restore that information have been cautioned, and since Ohconfucius has stopped reverting on the article for now, I do not think any further administrator action is required. --Elonka 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Elonka. Marking as no action taken. NW (Talk) 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:90.221.144.212 reported by User:Cresix (Result: already blocked)[edit]

Page: Jayne Mansfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.221.144.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diffof what user changed article to.

  • 1st revert: [84]
  • 2nd revert: [85]
  • 3rd revert: [86]
  • 4th revert: [87] (note category change is same as previous reverts)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jayne Mansfield#Cornish descent

Comments:
Note also vandalism on same article, removing large portions of the article: [89] [90]

Also has made several personal attacks.

Same editor, another page (Christian democracy):
Previous version reverted to: Diff of what article was before user was involved, Diffof what user changed article to.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]


Cresix (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Although I'm not sure I agree, I don't see the IP editing much more disruptively than anyone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:209.36.57.10 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result:48 hours)[edit]

Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: History of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.36.57.10 (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: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

I draw attention to the edit summary of the final revert.

This IP address is a sock of User:Alex79818 of that I'm certain, I will be filing a sock puppet report as well. This editor has previously disrupted Falklands articles with WP:TE. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No 3RR breach but the IP has made it abundantly clear that he or she will continue reverting, so a block has been enacted to prevent an immediate continuation of the edit war. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Editor is now evading his block. [102] [103] as 209.36.57.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Suggest semi-protection. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Both IPs now blocked for 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:209.36.57.248 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: History of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.36.57.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [104]
  • 2nd revert: [105]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:


See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎#User:209.36.57.10 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result:24 hours) and [108] and [109] Block evasion, may need an IP range block. Past experience would indicate this guy is unlikely to give up. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - see above. I'm reluctant to impose semi-protection on such prominent articles but if it continues we might not have a choice. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: both blocked)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (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: [116], promptly deleted by user [117]


Lengthy discussion at talk page: [118]

Comments:

Pmanderson is also bordering on 3RR, and I probably should have resisted the temptation to do my one revert as well. However, as a former admin he really should know better, and there's a sequence of previous RFAs and RFCs over very similar behavior.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked (meaning Ryulong and Pmanderson). Ryulong for a four days for like a gajillion reverts without even an attempt at compromise. However, I've also blocked Pmanderson for 12 hours for some WP:POINTy edits and officially for breaking 3RR (there were more than three reverts).
  • I've also asked Dragonflysixtyseven to consider unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • With both users blocked, perhaps the guideline article should be unprotected. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This seems fairly straightforward. Both Ryulong and Pmanderson broke the 3RR rule in their edit warring with each other. It seems like an open and shut case to me. SilverserenC 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yup, that's a broken 3RR rule. Both editors (Ryulong and Pmanderson) should know better. Good block. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Note the blocking admin has sought community review of the blocks here. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bb5757 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Arora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bb5757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


This user's sole purpose for visiting Wikipedia seems to be to remove sourced content on the Arora article, and replace it with other unsourced content. They were blocked for this activity on December 7 and resumed immediately upon being unblocked. I am involved as I did extensive copy edits on the article a while ago. Here are the user's edits since their last block:

December 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401245968&oldid=401203013
December 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=401636749&oldid=401270304
December 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arora&diff=prev&oldid=401739827



Comments:
The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 07:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him/her about not using any edit summaries here. It is quite common for some newcomers to miss out on edit summaries. Minimac (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I am going to post this on the WP:AIV board since my post here did not get an admin response. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Result -- Blocked 48 hours by User:Edgar181. A much longer block of Bb5757 should be considered if this behavior continues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

User:76.67.16.43 reported by User:Minnecologies (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.67.16.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Americas#Landmass_vs._Continent

Comments:
The content which this particular IP is so intent on editing has been a very contentious issue in the past. Essentially, the lead of the article has been a result of multiple discussions (the most specific to this particular issue are here and here) and a mediation. Other editors and myself have reverted the IP's edits multiple times with a short reasoning in the edit summary, until I started the discussion linked above. I know that after the first revert it should have been handled differently by starting a discussion immediately in the talkpage, but in reality it seems like at least once a week an editor (majority of which are anonymous IPs) comes by to change this very same wording in the lead. Most of the time the revert stays and the IP ceases editing, but not in this case. No success (so far) at reasoning. Minnecologiest,c 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Result -- Article semiprotected. The IP has broken 3RR today. I believe this is an example of sockpuppetry but the semi should be enough of a response for now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Delinquent1904 reported by User:BrendanFrye (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Jake Shields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Delinquent1904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [124]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

User continues to revert on this page as well as on the [131] GSP page. He's continuosly inserting the same material which goes against how mma articles are formatted and without proper sourcing. I warned him after his second set of edits to both pages and he has hit the fourth edit on jake shields and third edit (since reverted by another editor)[132] on the GSP page. He has been reverted on both pages by editors other than myself. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours- KrakatoaKatie 09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:MbdSeattle (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Version after admin EdJohnston semi-protected page


[137]


[138]

Comments:

  • Result -- Both parties warned. The listed reverts span a period of more than 24 hours, so they don't violate WP:3RR. Both MbdSeattle and Illegal Operation are in trouble if they continue to revert contested material (that has previously been the subject of warring) without getting consensus first. I have already warned Illegal Operation about continuing to remove the 'Sales and market share' section unless he has obtained a consensus for doing so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, EdJohnston, look at the big picture here. This is a group warring campaign by CaptainStack, Intelati, Illegal Operation, and others.

Recently, CaptainStack did a bunch of edits and reverts, just shy of 3RR. Then, Illegal Operation stepped in and did a number of reverts, just shy of 3RR, and now CaptainStack has sent the call out to Intelati to step in. Below is the diff of that call.

CaptainStack describes MbdSeattle as Stirring Up Trouble to rally Intelati — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talkcontribs) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:John KB reported by User:117Avenue (Result: no violation )[edit]

Page: Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John KB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [139]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140][141][142]

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

Comments:
I have tried to initiate conversation on the talk page, and directed the user to it three times, but he has ignored it. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 13 December 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. - KrakatoaKatie 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to initiate an edit war to get attention here? 117Avenue (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:98.122.103.183 reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: 55h, semi)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.122.103.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [143]


Page 2: Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [148]

  • 1st revert: [149] - 98.122.69.172
  • 2nd revert: [150] - 98.122.69.172
  • 3rd revert: [151] - 98.122.103.183
  • 4th revert: [152] - 98.122.103.183

The two IPs are listed in case a range block is needed, as they are clearly the same person.— dαlus+ Contribs 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Comments:

User:AussieLegend reported by User:Danjel (Result: 24 hours for both)[edit]

Page: Newcastle High School (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AussieLegend (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend&diff=402139925&oldid=402139310

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AussieLegend#Newcastle_High_School


Comments:

I have suggested that AussieLegend put the question in discussion over at WP:EiA, which he has seemed reluctant to do (repeated requests visible in page history [[153]]. I had to start the discussion for him at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#A_second_opinion.3F because he simply wouldn't come over (he only joined in after the 3RR warning).

He's also removed my warning [[154]], which, of course, he's entitled to do. But it seems that he hasn't taken the point that he was edit warring by putting forward his controversial additions without discussing.

I've stopped, and am waiting for input from other participants at WP:EiA -Danjel (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Also [[155]], not on the same article, but related to the above. I worry that he's being deliberately problematic here. -Danjel (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • [156] - This was actually a good faith restoration of content deleted by an editor who has been changing infoboxes without any real consensus to do so. It was followed by this removal of incorrect information that the same editor had inexplicably included in the article and this fix of an incorrect link that had also been included.
  • [157] - This was a valid reversion of vandalism and is excepted from 3RR. Danjel claimed the translation of the motto was an "interpretation" so I provided a citation, which he deleted without valid reason for removal.[158]
  • [159] - This was again a valid reversion of the same vandalism.
The 3RR warning was made over an hour after I reverted the vandalism at Newcastle High School (Australia) and I have raised this matter at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback. It was only after that conversation was started that I discovered this one, which confirms to me that Danjel is being disruptive to make a point. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This conversation is time-stamped eight minutes before your WP:AN/I report. I'm willing to assume good faith that each of you were seeking help from administrators and went to different venues. AussieLegend, I would strongly suggest assuming that Danjel is acting in good faith in his edits; as was stated at AN/I, "even misguided attempts to improve the wiki are not treated as vandalism," and Danjel stated in several venues (edit summary and your user talk) his basis for making the edits to improve the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit slow on the keyboard these days and it took me a while to get the diffs that I've included at the ANI discussion. I wasn't aware of this report until after I'd finished there. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Would appreciate some feedback, a thread AussieLegend started [160] where he acknowledged "I've stupidly been dragged into an edit-war over something extremely trivial and thought I should probably explain myself here, after realising and stepping back." Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't think any action is necessary unless he commits any further violations of 3RR after that point. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
AussieLegend: I don't have time to review everything here, so I will leave it to others to discuss, but calling an edit vandalism does not automatically make it so.  Frank  |  talk  14:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Consensus has been reached on using Template:Infobox school, even if AussieLegend disagrees. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Issues_with_Infobox_school.
(1) There was some incorrect information in the article that I edited in. I've admitted culpability for this and thanked Aussielegend for his diligence [[161]].
(2) Good faith edits and requests asking an editor to discuss a potentially controversial issue are not vandalism.
(3) Aussielegend started the discussion at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback without notifying me. It wasn't until Frank informed me at User_talk:Danjel#December_2010 that I became aware of that discussion. Frank also pointed this out at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback. Also of note, I made my edit informing Aussielegend that I had taken the issue here at 13:48 at [[162]]. He made his post at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback at 14:00 a full 12 minutes after I informed him.
(4) The reason why I undid his revert after an hour was because I thought that discussion would resolve the situation and have Aussielegend take the issue to WP:EiA where it could be discussed. That didn't happen.
(5) I'm not being "disruptive to make a point". -Danjel (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
@Frank - My concern was that Danjel deliberately and without explanation twice removed a citation that had been added specifically to support a translation that he disputed, and which he kept calling an "interpretation" despite explanations and after I had pointed him to online references supporting the translation.[163] That sort of action seemed vandalistic and WP:POINTy to me.
@Danjel - Please show where this consensus has been agreed to. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't found the word "might" in that Latin phrase, have you? It's because it's not there. It's because you're interpreting the phrase. That's the source of the controversy that I repeatedly invited you to either explain in a new section or discuss out at WP:EiA
As for consensus, I agree, obviously.
Moondyne agrees [[164]].
Orderinchaos neutral with qualified support [[165]].
Even you (were) working with us on it until you got your hackles up. [[166]].
Noone, besides you, just now, has been shouting that it shouldn't be done. THAT seems pointy. -Danjel (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite a deal of discussion has gone on since those comments were made. Since Orderinchaos made his post, very early in the discussion, a lot has been said.[167] There certainly has been no consensus, just a very informal, tentative heading towards the change that you've taken to be consensus. You asked whether you could get bak on with changing articles on 11 December.[168] Moondyne suggested waiting 24 hours,[169] and my response was that we needed more discussion.[170] Moondyne has since said he thinks my blank is fine,[171] but that's not WP:CONSENSUS. in any case, you're changing artiucles without regard to my blank, doing it according to your own suggestions. This is why we are at this point. You are making assumptions, as you did when you assumed that the translation of Remis Velisque is only an interpretation and OR.[172] You're ignoring what you don't want to hear and when it's actually proven,[173] you try to bury it.[174][175] --AussieLegend (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Moondyne suggested waiting for 24 hours on Dec. 11, that was 3 days ago. I asked again today if we could move on, and he and I agreed to move on. You didn't, because you're unhappy that we're using my blank instead of your's (mine's more compact than your's, seriously, whats the big deal in the short term?)? We're not at the point where we're using the blank, yet. Is this why you're so upset?
Remis is OAR, Velis is SAIL. Adding anything else to that is interpreting the translation and is WP:OR. There is no word "might" in there. If it's a saying, fantastic, but NO OTHER AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL ADDS THIS LAYER OF INTERPRETATION. -Danjel (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Further comments about specific points of the complaint:
  • "'I have suggested that AussieLegend put the question in discussion over at [[WP:EiA]'" - What question? Whether or not commas should be included as is standard practice in Australia and as is supported by MOS:NUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits)?
  • "'repeated requests visible in page history'" - no questions exist in the page history.
  • "'putting forward his controversial additions without discussing'" - The commas and the translation existed before Danjel edited the article. He removed them.[176] I simply restored them, as they were deleted without explanation. He also removed the comma from Tomaree High School.[177] Again I simply restored it. I didn't actually add anything that wasn't in the articles before he removed them and inclusion of commas and a motto is certainly not controversial. --15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There were two questions that were being raised from our exchange of edits and discussion. (1) whether to use n,nnn (as you support) or nnnn (as I support); and (2) whether to add interpretation to mottos (which you support and I oppose).
The requests that you take the above two issues to WP:EIA, for example:
  • 13:08, 13 December 2010 Danjel (talk | contribs) (4,663 bytes) (Undid revision 402136792 by AussieLegend (talk) - Not Vandalism.As stated in last edit, GAIN CONSENSUS FIRST. Discussion at WP:EiA)
  • 12:55, 13 December 2010 Danjel (talk | contribs) (4,663 bytes) (Returning to old version - By all means disagree, but discuss and gain consensus (have started it for you at WP:EIA first.)
...and all through your talk page.
You restored something that was inconsistent with all of the rest of the articles on Australian schools. There is no article that adds a layer of interpretation. None at all (at least that I can find, and I've gone through a couple of hundred over the past week). Therefore, expecting you to justify in discussion why it's there is not unreasonable. This is discussion that should be happening at WP:EIA.
It's pretty hard to assume that you're going to contribute to reasonable discussion on this issue and accept the views of anyone else but yourself. If I make that edit again, until the discussion concludes one way or the other, will you go ahead and revert again or will you leave it be? -Danjel (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Here you've demonstrated the point that I made above. You simply removed a citation that supported the translation that you challenged, demanding not asking, that I get another opinion when one was not needed because it was cited. To your question, ie "If I make that edit again, until the discussion concludes one way or the other, will you go ahead and revert again", the content is cited and you should not remove the citation. It's as simple as that. You've already said above "I've stopped, and am waiting for input from other participants at WP:EiA". You should stand by that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:173.22.180.181 reported by