Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive147

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Itsmejudith reported by User:Catherine Huebscher (Result: redundant with AN/I)[edit]

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


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

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


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

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

Comments:

Hello to an administrator, we are currently dealing with the volatile subject of Paul Robeson's history. A subject who has a history riddled with misconceptions and lies put forth by the mass media/US power structure in-combination with an erasure from history due to cold war blacklisting as well as white washing of his Communist affiliations by Leftists. I'm in a Scylla and Charybdis situation as the majority of other editors currently trying to help have not done indepth research required to clear up the aforementioned misconceptions Robeson. Many want to paint in povs to "explain" his very controversial views. I now am being targeted by Itsmejudith who has already sided with two users with a history of behavioral problems on wikipedia (radh and str1977) and who have used/rationalized the usage of racist terms such as "nigger" and "Uncle Tom." Itsmejudith felt calling Robeson an "Uncle Tom" was fine because "Paul Robeson is dead." Str1977 "reworked" the article with a clear anti-Communist bias riddled with factual errors ("Carnegie Hall in the UK", "Robeson's Soviet sympathies", and other povs) then tagged the article and now has vanished. I am willing to go through sentence by sentence to clear up povs and any mistakes including my own. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC

Should we move this to ANI? This noticeboard is about revert warring. Minimac (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's already on ANI, which is where it belongs, as there is no current 3RR violation, just a dispute over content and general editor-vs.-editor stuff. The posting made by the complainant here is the same text that was posted at ANI ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia reported by User:MikeNicho231 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Asperger syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SandyGeorgia (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: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:


  • Uninvolved observer here: This appears to be a dispute about non-free images. Also, I don't think the OP here has notified Sandy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The first diff is from December 3, the second from December 6. Clearly no violation here. Grsz 11 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation You're on thin ice, MikeNicho231. Your edits are clearly controversial, and it's multiple editors who reflect that opinion. Form consensus on the talk page first. If you continue edit warring on the page, you will be blocked. Andy Walsh (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.96.245.221 reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Talk:Race and intelligence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.96.245.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]

This is probably a sock or proxy for contributions, contributions and contributions. Longterm and perpetual disputes in the article were addressed in ([12] arbitration). IP related disruptions in another involved article, Race (classification of humans), were noticed hours ago to AN/I (semi-protection implemented on main-page there). Since the arb comm decision, we've seen proxy editing coming from at least three sanctioned users now--two of them adopting new accounts or IPs with high frequency. Can we extend the article's semi-protection to talk-page?

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (mega-discussion mid-way here also on user's talk page here, here and warning linked above.


Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked --slakrtalk / 09:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SyberGod reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result:24 hours )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [14]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] and [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[Talk:Sachin_Tendulkar#Twitter]

Comments:
Given that four different editors have removed this content and two have commented on the talk page and this one user keeps adding it back refusing to listen, I'm bringing it here. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It is true that nothing has happened on the article for quite a few hours. But that doesn't mean this report is stale. One can assume the edit war has stopped because Sybergod's version currently subsists in the article and it's sleep time in India. Given the unambiguous 3RR (5RR?) breach after warnings, a block is appropriate. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: user warned )[edit]

Page: Maclean's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The most recent, stable version: [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: npov1, npov2, 3rr

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article, user

Comments:

User:Kidman Wheeler has made almost over seventy sequential edits to the article over the past twelve hours, including four reverts reinserting controversial content, making it impossible to show a "single" version being reverted to each time. While the fact that this editor may be utilizing a single-purpose account to create a coatrack out of the Maclean's article is a tad concerning, I think the bigger issuer is their unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works. The end result is still disruption, and I haven't been able to get through to them in a meaningful enough way that shifts their attention to the talk page. Given the content they're repeatedly reinserting fails numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I hope you may have better luck. jæs (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment  This editor’s first reverted edit to this article was in keeping with his subsequent edits, and thus very telling. It sought to question the place of Maclean’s in Canadian society (“Maclean's claims itself as a significant source of Canadian news and information”), and added material meant to characterize one of the magazine’s columnists and her spouse (“…Barbara Amiel, wife of imprisoned Conrad Black, an ultraconservative who renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001”). This edit was reverted by me with the following edit summary: Reverting material with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. Also, failing to provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). Possible WP:BLP issues. (HG). He was templated with {{Huggle/warn-npov-1}}. This first edit indicated, at the threshold (quite literally since it was his very first edit upon arriving at Wikipedia), the nature of his edits to come. Moreover, a review of his contribs shows that he has only made edits to Maclean’s and Conrad Black.

My concern with this editor, therefore, is that not only does it appear to be a single-purpose account, but it appears to be that variety of SPA known as an agenda account, possibly also engaging in civil POV pushing. Remember: The edit reverted by me, was this editor’s first edit at Wikipedia. At the very least, he should be cautioned about Wikipedia’s rules regarding editors with agendas.

Finally, since User:jæs filed this report, and the editor has had his scores of edits to Maclean’s reverted, he has “retaliated” by adding a slew of {{Citation needed}} templates to the article (see here). Perhaps it is an attempt to make the previously stable version seem unreliable. Thanks!SpikeToronto 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note  With this edit, I added a welcome message with links to the various wikipolicies and guidelines that he may find useful and might encourage and guide him to becoming a productive wikieditor. In the 9+ hours that he spent editing the article last night, his efforts certainly show promise, once he can be brought into line with our policies, guidelines, etc. One can only hope that he will read them. However, he has not engaged in any interactions that have been sought with him by User:jæs on either his own talkpage or the article talkpage. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Kidman Wheeler has just posted a series of messages on my user talk that may be relevant: Let me explain., a variety of sources and writers is good!, and Wikipedia not for the masses, each within a few minutes of one another. Each contains numerous assumptions of bad faith, although they acknowledge their style of editing was because they were "experimenting". The three sections become increasingly negative, so I don't know if maybe they wrote them earlier and just posted them in succession? Honestly, I don't even know where to start. "Put down the ax and read WP:5P," in slightly gentler terms, hasn't seemed to work. jæs (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned about violating WP:NPOV. This isn't technically a 3RR violation, but it is a SPA and he's been warned accordingly. KrakatoaKatie 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:75.75.146.148 reported by User:Binksternet (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Page: Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.75.146.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28] 04:20, December 22, 2010

  • 1st revert: [29] 00:47, December 23, 2010
  • 2nd revert: [30] 00:57, December 23, 2010
  • 3rd revert: [31] 01:08, December 23, 2010
  • 4th revert: [32] 21:55, December 23, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP editor did not take part in talk page thread at Talk:Charlie Crist#Which infobox photo?, where solutions to the edit war were presented.

Comments:
The edit war is over which image is shown in the biography infobox. One image shows the Florida governor sitting on his desk with the state flag and seal in the background, and the other shows a closeup taken from the same source, cropped to give a better impression of the man's face using the same image size. Two article editors have given their opinion on the talk page that the closeup is preferred, and two other editors have concurred by reverting the IP editor's insistent changes.

As User:AndyTheGrump put it in one of his edit summaries, "isn't this one of the lamest edit wars ever?" Yes, it is. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours A short block at this stage despite quite disruptive activity. The blocks will escalate rapidly if the activity continues after the block expires. Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Planuu (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [34]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has already had many 3rr blocks in the past so a warning wasn't necessary. Also, an administrator had given the user a warning 3 days ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#You_need_reliable_secondary_sources_for_criticism (I'm the IP)

Comments:

This must be a joke! The accusing User:Planuu, who has just come out of a ban/block for edit warring, hadn't been unblocked for even 24 hours before edit warring again on Criticism of Muhammad!!! (Much more here). In fact, my 1st edit above has nothing to do with the other 3 edits. My 4th edit was addition of new sources, not a revert, and this was done upon request from the exact same user who is now accusing me of edit warring!!! Moreover, it was I who had warned User:Planuu not to break the 3RR rule on his/her talk page. I certainly trust the judgement of the admins on this. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The recent content disputes seem to span multiple editors over multiple things. Please use the talk page. --slakrtalk / 04:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.224.206.14 reported by User:Mathsci (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Cryptozoology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [36]

  • 1st revert: [37]
  • 2nd revert: [38]
  • 3rd revert: [39]
  • 4th revert:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] (level 1, 2 and 3 warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not applicable given the nature of the edit

Comments:
The user first attempted to add contentious content to the article.[41] After the material was reverted, in the diffs above, he added a note four times to the top of the article which was completely against policy (WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, etc) and essentially vandalized the article. The note read, "Attention wikipedia readers: Wikipedia and it's editors are biased in favor of the so called "skeptics" and professional debunkers and cannot be relied upon to provide fair and accurate information about cryptozoology and it's related scientific disciplines. Please look elsewhere for accurate cryptozoological information. Any accurate cryptozoological information you may post will be swiftly deleted by the facsist wikipedia editors, which is what happened when I tried to post truthful information about the subject of cryptozoology on this facsist and biased website." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsci (talkcontribs) 08:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Not blocked - but this was blatant vandalism. Report in the future to AIV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:24.118.189.156 reported by [[User:— User:Kwamikagami (Result: no violation )

Page: Igbo language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.118.189.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Original version: [42]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:24.118.189.156#warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:24.118.189.156#warning

Comments:
Did not break 3RR, but is repeatedly falsifying a reference. Ref says Igbo pop is 18-25M; anon. changes to over 30M while keeping the ref. Some edits on other articles may be constructive (I can't tell), but some are also troubling, such as changing articles that name Ijaw tribes to claim they are really Igbo. Has been warned by other editors against making unreferenced changes to articles. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation If it's not a violation, why did you waste our time reporting it here? - KrakatoaKatie 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Because I can't predict your decisions, or that it would be you who made it. That's kind of obvious, isn't it? If you aren't going to act on violations, then I'll do it myself. I was trying to avoid acting on a dispute I was involved in. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless you mean that this is a 3RR noticeboard, and not actually ANI/Edit warring. If so, please move it to a descriptive title so your decisions do not appear arbitrary. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Zubair71 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hrs )[edit]

Page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zubair71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KrakatoaKatie 22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:67.85.102.114User:173.3.3.253User:71.3.20.40User:67.85.102.114 (All socks/proxies of one another) reported by User:Hokeman (Result: no violation page protected )[edit]

Page: Marty Lyons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multiple socks/proxies see above (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: yes, on the talk page of 173.3.3.253[56]

Yes, the talk page of 173.3.3.253 and the last entry on Hokeman's talk page

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

Comments: General allegations: This IP user is tearing apart apart multiple articles with perfectly good content and references and replacing it with frivilous nonsense, mostly on old New York Jets players pages. He strictly edits under IP addresses, never signs his posts, and changes IP addresses every few edits. I have changed Marty Lyons back to an earlier version, but he has violated the 3rr by reverting three times in 24 hours. Marty Lyons is not the only article he has torn apart. Specific examples: (1) He keeps placing the birthplace in the introduction with the date even though the MOS states that it should be in the main body. (2) He has included a paragraph about an auto accident involving Lyon's ex-wife and has described a bone sticking through her shoulder for no reason other than to introduce blood and gore into the article. It has no relevance whatsoever to Lyon's career. (3) He keeps changing the headings in violation of MOS-Biographies guidelines (4) He has removed perfectly good references in multiple articles. (5) He repeatedly blanked the talk page for 71.3.20.40.


*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. It would be better to discuss each individual source rather than full reversion of each other's edits. That article's talk page hasn't been edited, even by a bot, in 18 months! Get to talking, people! :-) At any rate, there's no 3RR violation. If you suspect sockpuppetry, raise it at WP:SPI, but those IPs are not open proxies. KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Upon reconsideration and more information from User:Hokeman, I semi-protected the page. KrakatoaKatie 02:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8 reported by User:86.159.95.24 (Result: page protected )[edit]

Page: English Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexandre8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [57]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Reversion of multiple editors to remove of the "what it sees as the" clarifier which has been discussed by other editors on the article's talk page at Talk:English_Defence_League#Lead where the editor has failed to take part. 86.159.95.24 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:95.148.158.141 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: page semi-protected )[edit]

Page: Socialist Workers' Party (Britain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.148.158.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:00, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv, per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. Undid revision 403983086 by Johnbod (talk)")
  2. 20:03, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV, non-notable journalist. Undid revision 404075867 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk)")
  3. 20:07, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "it's an op-ed by a non-notable journalist, it doesn't justify an entire section and sub-section either")
  4. 22:20, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "rv pov, the swp has had a lot of coverage after the student protests and was criticised by government minister Michael Gove, if you want to add that then go ahead")

Comments:

IP editor is edit-warring to remove an article section, despite having been asked to discuss it on the Talk page. First removal was by IP 95.148.160.43 using POV judgment that the writer of the source material was "non-notable", so we have a dynamic IP editor here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected semi-protected, as it's a dynamic IP POV-pusher. KrakatoaKatie 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Aram-van reported by 82.52.180.115 (talk) (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Kingdom of Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:05, 21 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 12:32, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 15:57, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 17:15, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 17:46, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  6. 18:05, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "")

Comments:
There were repeated questions about the added contents in the Talk Page and the user was already warned on his page (User talk:Aram-van) and invited to discuss and to edit the correct pages instead of this one, but apparently he is not interested in discussions (User talk:82.52.180.115). (I'm registered as Ghepeu but I don't have access to my password on this machine and I can't login. You'll see that I violated the rule too before remembering that it existed.)

82.52.180.115 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours While technically you violated 3RR as well, I note that a) his editions were a format mess, and b) his only response to a request to talk was a succinct "no." That counts as disruptive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:74.198.164.139 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.198.164.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [63]


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:[64]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[65]

  • 1st revert: [66] removes the infobox
  • 2nd revert: [67] removes the infobox


The IP has been warned about the 1rr [68]

Comments:

This IP has been following me and two other users around reverting our edits in a destructive manner:[69][70]. I would also appreciate it if you could lock all articles this IP has edited so that only accounts can edit them. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours First off, thank you for the in-depth report; it makes deciding much easier (my only recommendation is to give the templated Israel/Arab warning to violating users, rather than just a text warning). I'm not protected other articles; there are just too many between the two IP editors you mentioned. If the editor returns and continues to be disruptive, feel free to report at AN3 again, linking to this thread. Also a reminder: the Israel/Arab sanction doesn't apply to reverting IP edits; you, as an established editor, are free to revert IPs more than once per day. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ActuallyRationalThinker‎ reported by Jayjg (talk) (Result: indef)[edit]

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

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

Time reported: 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:07, 23 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Netherlands */ Replaced paraphrasing with quotes, added information, and improved formatting")
  2. 22:36, 23 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 403855514 by Jakew (talk) (rv change based baseless undue weight assertion)")
  3. 10:11, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404006416 by Jakew (talk) (rv changed based on baseless assertion of undue weight; also, rv other changes unnecessarily included.")
  4. 19:02, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404022243 by Jakew (talk) rv changed based on baseless assertion of undue weight; also, rv other changes unnecessarily included.")
  5. 18:21, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Netherlands */ After a series of unpersuasive and self-serving arguments against, I am reintroducing the material regarding the stance of medical organizations in the Netherlands.")
  6. 18:41, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404194302 by Jakew (talk) (rv, please reach a consensus before changing)")
  7. 00:25, 26 December 2010 (edit summary: "Wow. A third Jew, Brewcrewer--who has NEVER edited the circumcision article even once before--appears out of nowhere to join the cabal.")

Comments:
ActuallyRationalThinker has just returned from a lengthy wikibreak (since May), and has immediately begun edit-warring, restoring WP:UNDUE material to the article that had been removed by consensus in mid-June. When asked to discuss instead of reverting, his responses have all been extremely hostile: for example, he

  • warned me for edit-warring, even though I haven't edited the article at all;
  • made mocking responses duplicating my own comments to him immediately above, and, inter alia, describing Judaism as a "tiny cult";
  • insulted other editors, for which he has received a civility warning.
  • refers to another editor as "A third Jew", part of "the cabal".

His edits have been opposed by 5 different editors. I didn't report him when he initially violated 3RR, but he's reverted 3 times since then, and it's clear he will not stop edit-warring regardless of what is said on the Talk: page or how many editors oppose his edits. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of indefinite. We don't need editors like that. No apparently intention other than to push a single point of view. On a separate note, don't I remember hearing about a blocked sock with an agenda to push regarding circumcision? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Olyus reported by User:NorthernCounties (result: malformed report)[edit]

Page: Tampere-Pirkkala Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olyus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]


I'm filing this report due to the editor reverting edits four times even after receiving a warning here, responded in the same manner as always here, and reverted again. Edits are non-constructive and contested by three separate editors.

  • 1st revert: [72] reverts constructive edit.
  • 2nd revert: [73] reverts constructive edit again.
  • 3rd revert: [74] reverts yet again.
  • 4th revert: [75] reverts yet again.
  • 5th revert: And again... [76]


Editor was warned here.

Comments:

This editor is not helping other editors being constructive. And fails to listen to any argument that contests him. He argues a route is not seasonal and removes the destination completely from the page. When the route is bookable. Not helpful at all. I appreciate your time looking into this matter. --NorthernCounties (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. KrakatoaKatie 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:74.198.164.200 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: /24 range blocked for 48 hours)[edit]

Page: List of Israeli airports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.198.164.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [77]


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:[78]

Arbitration request for clarification shows that violators of this can be reported to this noticeboard:[79]

  • 1st revert: [80] removes the disclaimer that some of them are located in the occupied territories and replaces East Jerusalem with just "Jerusalem".
  • 2nd revert: [81] removes the disclaimer that some of them are located in the occupied territories and replaces East Jerusalem with just "Jerusalem".


The IP has been warned about the 1rr [82]

I filed a report yesterday for another 1rr violation the IP was blocked [83]

The IP evaded his block with another similar IP: [84]

And now the IP continues to violate his block and continues to violate the 1rr. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Range blocked, /24, anon only. I'm trying to keep the damage, so our mischievous character may return at any point; FYI, no need to fill out a full report in the future if this continues; just put a quick notice here or at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Basket of Puppies reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: No action )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:55 December 26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:57 Dec 27 and previous 3RR block on another account, so he knows 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First, second, third, and fourth.

Comments:
Basket of Puppies submitted Schizophrenia to FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3) and although multiple editors are working to retain the article's FA status, and he has been told that his edits are not supported by sources, BoP is edit warring and editing against consensus and jeopardizing the chance that the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His edits are supported by sources. Have patience. DS (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS and article talk; his edits are not supported by high quality sources as required for a featured article, and even if they were, that does not excuse edit warring against talk page consensus, where no one has agreed with his changes, and others are attempting to salvage the article's featured status; his edits are disruptive and tendentious, and have been occurring for mutliple days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Further, this is an FA that gets 15,000 hits per day, and rather than gain consensus on talk or work in sandbox, BoP has left it in this shape, compared to a perfectly readable and acceptable article before he began reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
SG, 15k people a day deserve to see accurate information, not an article that is wrong and vastly out of date. I am working on that at this very moment. Regarding the state of the mechanism section, this. Basket of Puppies 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Work in sandbox, learn reliable medical sources, gain consensus for your edits, and don't insult fellow editors; regardless of what you think may be correct text, edit warring and leaving articles in a damaged state is not how we work on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. "Work in sandbox, learn reliable medical sources, gain consensus for your edits, and don't insult fellow editors; regardless of what you think may be correct text, edit warring and leaving articles in a damaged state is not how we work on Wiki." applies to both of you. Prodego talk 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good, I guess you studied the article history and talk.[87] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by User:Xanthoxyl (Result: 72 hours )[edit]

Page: Non-voluntary euthanasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [88]

  • 1st revert: 04:37, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "each edit was clearly explained")
  • 2nd revert: 14:28, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revisión")
  • 3rd revert:
    • 15:36, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "It id a legal no medical statement as it goes on the LEGAL DEBATE")
    • 15:40, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "Nothing to do with wp:own. Just deleting a reptares argument , why to put it twice? The referente was kept")
  • 4th revert: 16:37, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "This version was discussed months ago with other users and we got a consensus. Instead editing warring, deleting sourced contents just go to discuss page.")
  • 5th revert: 20:20, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "instead of revertion, just discuss the thing in the discuss page as I'm already doing")
  • 6th revert: 21:14, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "I already told you: let discuss the thing in the discussion page as I'm doing. You are deleting contets which was edited by consensus months ago. You are editing warring. Read WP:3RR")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:
Spanish-speaking SPA. Edits this article and Action T4, and stubbornly reverts until he gets his way. Likely to be the same user as the IP-hopper 190.x.x.x whose edit warring (see the talk page) resulted in this page being protected in November 2009. There is a possibility that it is the same person as User:PepitoPerez2007 but I'm not sure. Xanthoxyl < 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister was deleting sourced and contents made by consensus. SO I was reverting. Any way I invited him to discuss the thing in the discussion page. But he wouldn't. Then he enocuraged Eddylandzaat to do the same[91]. Xanthoxyl also joined them, all together deleting exactly the same editions which were made months ago by consensus and are well sourced.
Just see the history here:[92]
Reversions of TickleMeister: [93] [94] [95]
reversions of Xanthoxyl: [96][97]
reversions of Eddylandzaat: [98][99]
I've invited them to discuss the thing in the discuss page, for example: [100]. Actually I opened a section in the discuss page to discuss the thing:[101] but instead of arguments or discusion, I've got revertions from 3 persons and personal attacks like this one:[102], answered by me here[103] warning that non-encyclopedic attitude from TickleMeister against me. In Aktion T4 finally I've accepted[104] the deletion made by Xanthoxyl so who are acting disruptive and not looking for consensus??

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Persistent reverts are not acceptable, regardless of what the consensus might previously have been. All editors are reminded to avoid edit warring and discuss unresolved issues on the talk page. Trebor (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kidman Wheeler reported by User:Jæs (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Maclean's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kidman Wheeler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

past 24 hours:

  • eighth revert: [112] (following expiry of block)
  • ninth revert: [113]
  • tenth revert: [114]
  • eleventh revert: [115]

Diff of edit warring warning: [116], [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

User:Kidman Wheeler, a single-purpose account, was warned against edit warring on December 24, continued, and was blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie on December 25. They evaded their block and edit warred throughout it and, since its expiry, have proceeded to continue their campaign at the Maclean's article. They've refused to discuss their concerns on the talk page — and have instead solely used my user talk page to go on a tirade against Wikipedia. They apparently have no interest in familiarizing themselves with any of the relevant policies, despite repeated pleas (wp:undue, wp:rs, and wp:primary come to mind as having been recommended reading). Given their past block evasion, I suspect semiprotection may be necessary in addition to any further block. jæs (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan reported by User:Kookoo Star (Result:No violation )[edit]

Page: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Betty Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [119]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124] (was removed by user being reported)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments: User:Betty Logan has been reverting various adequately sourced details on this article in favour of her own preferred version of the page (which tends to be more favourable towards the film). Despite discussion on the article's talk page and a 3RR warning on her talk page from another user, she has continued to revert other people's edits and has now reverted accurate details 4 times in less than 24 hours without gaining consensus.
Kookoo Star (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The editor is misrepresenting the circumstances, and furthermore has not informedme of this report so I can present a defence. The first revert followed this edit [126] which removed verifiably sourced information. The IP removed it on the pretext that it was "wrong", but in truth the figure was only slightly out. The editor must have checked the source to know it was "wrong" but chose to obliterate the information instead of correcting it. That is just one step up from vandalism in my book. The second two edits are not separate edits, they were made one after the other after the IP removed sourced information form te article and placed production information in the marketing section. The rules state that successive edits only count as one revert. The fourth revert—or third if we play by the rules—was made after my comments in the discussion on the talk page: [127]. I moved the production information from the Marketing section and placed it in the Production section since this is where the production budget should be covered. Marketing and Production are two separate entities on a film, and sometimes even carried out by different companies. Marketing costs go in Marketing, production costs go in Production. The other part of that edit was explained on the talk page. I replaced the figure in the infobox with the official figure (as given by the producer in the Wall Street Journal) and moved the unclarified figure to the prose section of the article. This was based on the precedent of the Avatar (2009 film) article, where the official released budget goes in the infobox and all other estimates in the prose. Clearlly my first edit was clearly justified; my second (edits 2 & 3 here) edit could have been better though out; my third was a concerted effort to incorporate the IP's content into the article based on the precedent of other articles, so while still a revert (I partially undid another editor's actions) it was clearly a constructive edit based on discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you have managed to respond to the report before anybody has, you can hardly claim you didn't know about it. Each of the four reverts you have made on the page in the past 24 hours is removing sourced information where another editor has either corrected or added to the article page. The first edit you reverted was after an exaggerated box office gross was added to the page which was not stated in the source given for it (the claim said $232m but at the time the source given only said $192m - a huge discrepancy). Wikipedia policies states that any unsourced material can be removed, and since the figure quoted was not what the source said, it was therefore not sourced. The edit summary for this was quite clear, though you chose to revert and restore the incorrect figure (if you were so bothered about the other editor correcting it, why didn't you correct yourself?) Edits 2 & 3 above are two separate reverts you made to two separate parts of the article, and yes - they both count. You reverted sourced information on both counts here (both pertaining to the film's budget) no doubt in order to put the film in a more favourable light. The fourth edit listed above is where you once again reverted the film's budget to your preferred amount in the infobox - despite the figure you reverted being adequately sourced (in fact, better sourced than your version). Trying to argue that you edit warred because you believe you are right is not a defence, the fact is you have still been edit warring. Given that you have already been blocked before for disruptive editing, it's clear to see that you are merely resuming your activities. 88.110.248.232 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I advise the admin dealing this case to cross-check the reporting editor and the IP, I strongly suspect they are the same editor since the file reporte appeared out of nowhere in the dispute. I have only performed three reverts. Thr first was clearly justified—out of date or incorrectly updated information is clearly not a valid reason for completely removing sourced content; box office information changes daily so is frequently incorrect. Just because it is wrong does not make it unsourced. Therefore, there are only two reverts (hardly edit-warring, and certainly not 3RR) that can be called into question. The last one only moved the content from the infobox to the prose, and was clearly a constructive edit which I gave the reasons for on the discussion page. These editors are clearly trying to game the system. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Betty Logan has not yet violated 3RR as consecutive edits only count as one edit for this purpose. However, none of the statements in her defense are exemptions and a 4th revert would be a violation. I suggest everyone try to work this out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I note the reported editor's comments, but even if they were the same editor, they have not both edit the page. And Betty Logan, you are at 3RR, this is not a BLP article. I suggest you reread WP:3RR as if you revert again during the 24 hours you will be blocked, and you can be blocked if you do it just outside the 24 hours, although I'd probably block you only if you revert again during the 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've requested a third opinion at the Film project anyway so if I make any further edits it will only be to enact a consensus if one emerges. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

various IPs (probably User:Grace Saunders reported by User:Boleyn (Result: Semi protected)[edit]

Page:Grace Saunders

IP has added a link to a userpage on this dab about 8 times, has been reverted by several editors but won't stop. Perhaps page could be protected from IPs for a while?Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pkmishra264 reported by Dmol (talk) (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Bird Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pkmishra264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:19, 21 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 07:38, 22 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 06:07, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 06:27, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 09:15, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]
Comments:User has a conflict of interest and is adding reams of promotional material to the article. After trying to trim article to an acceptable size and tone, user has repeatedly added cruft again. Article is now listed on AFD as spam. User has stated on the AFD page that they will "remove all kinds of promotional messages", however the reverts are almost identical. Reason for my edits (and those of user EEng who is also trying to fix article) have all stated the reason for our edits is the removal of spam and uncited promotional info.
--Dmol (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Page is deleted anyway. Apologies for long waiting period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 72 hrs )[edit]

Page: Mercedes-Benz C-Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Luph25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:04, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:20, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404760992 by CZmarlin (talk)")
  3. 04:55, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404764432 by Falcadore (talk)")
  4. 05:17, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404767167 by CZmarlin (talk)")
  5. 05:18, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Motorsport */")
  • Diff of warning: here

CZmarlin (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing! Yet another revert! Current revision as of 06:13, December 29, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: already blocked )[edit]

Page: Audi A4 (edit | talk |