Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive150

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:89.164.7.154 reported by User:Stephen G. Brown (Result: already protected)[edit]

Page: Pavao Skalić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.164.7.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Version immediately before 89.164.7.154's first revert: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]
  • 6th revert: [7]

User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: State recognized tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 01:45, 29 January 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:33, 31 January 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started after report filed

Comments:

Here's a link to the discussion on this matter: Talk:State_recognized_tribes#Southern_Cherokee_Nation_of_Kentucky At issue is whether alleged proclamations by two governors and a statement by a counselor from Kentucky's Family and Childrens Servies constitute state recognition. Given that state Rep. Reginald Meeks currently has a bill in the state house (in two previous attempts, the bill passed there but never made it out of committee in the senate) to establish a vehicle for official state recognition of Indian tribes.[1][2] An article in the State-Journal of Frankfort, Kentucky states explicitly that Kentucky has no state-recognized tribes.[3] In a previous discussion dealing with another such group, the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, the group in question had proclamations from three different governors but was never recognized by the state. The end was that the NCNOLT was removed from the State recognized tribes and placed in the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. I made changes in the article in question in accordance with that example for the sake of both accuracy and consistency. SarekOfVulcan reverted my edits without discussion. I reverted them back, and so on. If I am sanctioned, then so should he be. With regards to the latest reversion, a third party intervened without discussion on the articles Talk page. I have been around issues like this particular one for nearly twenty years, and a group is only considered state-recognized if it either passes a recognition process established by law or is voted recognition by a state's legislature. PR proclamations by a head of state do not count. To say they do is equivalent to saying the President of the United States can recognize Indian tribes, and that power the Constitution gives to Congress. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose a solution: merge the two articles State recognized tribes and List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. Their legal status is the same, pretty much nonexistent. However, in the merged article what little difference there is could be dealt with in either of two ways: either have different sections in the article, such as one section for state-recognized groups, one section for groups unrecognized by anyone, and maybe another for groups receiving gubernatorial proclamations. Perhaps the umbrella article could be called Non-federally recognized tribes. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Unimpressed, Chuck. Please stop reverting and start communicating on article talk pages. Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

This user has been blocked twice in the last month for edit warring, and three times total, all on Somalia related articles. Many of the reverts are hidden within larger edits. Search for "Its sailors and merchants" or "number of one-year-olds fully immunized" as an example. The use has implied that he he intends to continue edit warring over the issue: "I can see that discussion is getting nowhere, but that's okay because these things always work out in the long-run one way or another." [16]

  • It should be noted that this is not a content dispute, and stems from an obvious conflict of interest or personal bias on Midday's part, rather than actual errors in the article. To briefly highlight the background: a strikingly clear consensus was generated on the talk page that the previous lead was clearly and blatantly biased, with only Middayexpress dissenting. It was rewritten, but Middayexpress has since resorted to accusing other editors of bias and edit warring over their preferred modifications of the lead. Swarm X 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Those posts above are very disingenuous. I did not pass three reverts as the account above claims. I only reverted twice: [17], [18]. This post was most certainly not a revert. It was me re-adding some material with new references since one of the users complained on the artcle's talk page that one particular reference was linked to a libertarian author, which he believed therefore automatically made it "POV". He then specifically asked for alternative references that only point to the UN, which is what I provided in that edit and explained in my edit summary: "restore health & media info w/o Leeson ref; fmtting, c/e". Likewise, my comment quoted out-of-context above to the effect that: "As for what's wrong with the intro, that's already clearly described (and visible) above. It doesn't really matter at this point anyway. I can see that discussion is getting nowhere, but that's okay because these things always work out in the long-run one way or another", was an allusion to the fact that I was going to seek administrative advice on the matter since discussion was going nowhere. The account above -- who is involved in the present dispute and has himself reverted twice in an actual edit war with another editor over this same issue ([19], [20]) -- was clearly worried about this. Hence, this pre-emptive attempt at reporting me first and under some flimsy, opportunistic pretext rather than discussing the matter on the talk page (he showed up once to produce a link back to this case, and only moments ago finally began discussing the issue -- well after I had already posted the previous sentence [21]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The two reverts vs. three is duly noted. However, I wish to remind all parties that "the [3RR] rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Swarm is quite wrong to claim Midday is the only person to object to the current biased intro, I certainly am against the clear systematic bias that has been imposed on the Somalia article in recent weeks. The talk page highlights several times how Swarm and other editors found the previous intro to positive or to POV, instead of balancing this out, the editors went ahead and made the entire intro a chesspool of negativity that you won't find on any single country article on wikipedia. Middayexpress was sidelined through "strength in numbers" which erroneously is being called a "concensus". I oppose this current character assassination where the editors have continuesly attacked Middayexpress for his Somali background through the accusation that he has a conflict of interest, however a good look at the article's history will show you Midday has never shied away from adding the negative sides of Somalia to the article, as like the positives they are noteworthy; from the civil war, to the anarchy, to the weak state apparatus, to the piracy etc, it was suggested, it was discussed and in most cases it was him specifically who added it, this reality of his contribs should not be misrepresented.--Scoobycentric (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how your above comment has anything to do with the edit warring complaint whatsoever, and you're not exactly innocent of edit warring on the article in question either. Please reread my above comment; you will see that I am not wrong about anything. You did not even partake in the discussion I referred to, and didn't appear on the talk page until the lead was rewritten. To avoid dragging the ongoing "dispute" to AN3, I won't respond to further to your comments on Midday's character, though I will say that you're obviously not a neutral party coming into this discussion. I ask that you amend your above comment to rectify the mistake. Swarm X 12:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I fail to see how describing somone's sincere concerns about the article here as "ramblings" contribute to working to a resolution of this issue. Just because one group of people come into agreement about an article does not prevent someone else from coming to it later & challenging that agreement. She/he may even be able to successfully persuade everyone to reverse it. And if Middayexpress (as Scoobycentric opines) believes she/he is being "strongarmed", then it increases the possibility that an established contributor (in a topic which needs more of them, not less) will either respond in an increasingly disruptive way & get banned, or just leave. Either way, Wikipedia will lose unless we treat each other with respect. -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for using "ramblings." Swarm X 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. I only saw three reverts by Middayexpress, and the editors are discussing things on the talk page. Sanctions are possible if people continue to make large reverts before consensus is reached. Opening an WP:RFC could be a way to figure out who stands where, and to assess what is actually in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:109.157.7.95 reported by Sikh-History (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Damdami Taksal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 109.157.7.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. [22](edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  2. 20:57, 31 January 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  3. 21:08, 31 January 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  4. 22:28, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  5. 22:31, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  6. 09:53, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: deletion of refernce and copy edit)
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for continuing to edit war after warning.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:76.16.88.31 reported by User:Doniago (Result: blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page: Scrubs (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.16.88.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [23]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]


Comments:

User has made same edit multiple times despite reverts from multiple editors. No edit summary, no discussion on Talk page. Doniago (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for continuing edit war after warning. I'm willing to reduce to 24 hours if the IP engages in discussion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Fæ reported by User:Wangond (Result: not blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Technically not a violation. Please check the discussion on my talkpage and the talkpage of the article provided here. I've warned him at the talkpage too and wanted him to open the dispute resolution process, but that didn't occur. Instead he reverted to his version again without showing any interest of the real matter. Alongside this he now aims to "beat" me with his own editwar warning. --Wangond (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


I have made several attempts to explain standard policy with regard to verification and reliable sources as can be seen on Wangond's talk page and the discussion thread on the Enthiran talk page. After Wangond's third deletion of an improvement notice at the top of the Enthiran article which pointed to the same ongoing discussion thread, I raised a standard user warning in accordance with the 3RR guidelines so that s/he would be aware of the standard policy (one might expect a user with two weeks editing experience to not be aware of the policy details). Wangond's response has been to raise this 3RR notice when there is no evidence of a fourth reversion and whilst dialogue was continuing on the article talk page before and after this 3RR (diff). I was not informed by Wangond of this 3RR notice being raised. (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

diff Fæ was informed by me. And I'm pretty sure, that he read it :D --Wangond (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Yes, Fæ is at three reverts, but he makes legitimate arguments for his position on the talk page and at the very least demonstrates that the revenue figures require further discussion on the talk page. Denying that there is a problem and labeling Fae's good-faith attempts "vandalism" escalates the situation, and will not resolve the dispute. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:3family6 reported by User:147.136.249.101 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Crunkcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3family6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected. It's quite inappropriate to remove cited text, and more inappropriate to edit war over it, and most inappropriate to report the other user for doing the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Jfaia reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [43]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:
The editor involved is apparently a SPA pushing a POV. See AN/I report and SPI report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue is now moot. Jfaia has been sock-blocked by FisherQueen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked indef by FisherQueen, per the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanetama reported by User:Jyusin (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanetama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyusin (talkcontribs)

  • Result: Stale. Last revert was 24 hours ago. If reverting of the template starts up again, blocks may be issued. There has been no discussion about the template on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Oreo Priest reported by User:DerekvG (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oreo Priest (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:

I made an edit of page Belgium which was reverted by OP (based on "legalese, not wikified") I reverted to my edit ( reference to talk page )and explained my reasons in the talk page OP reverted again and stated he "rm junk" ( remove junk) without going into discussion --DerekvG (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not true. The 'rm junk' was this edit, because DerekvG had accidentally re-incorporated the orphan, unreferenced and out of context sentence "Also they are famous for nakamura" elsewhere in the article. I removed that before making the comment on the talk page. I did subsequently go back to the earlier version again, the rationale for which is best seen on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. -Oreo Priest talk 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Both parties warned. Do not continue to add or remove this material until a proper discussion has been held on the talk page. If you reach a deadlock, use WP:Third opinion or other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Since this is a major article which is watched by over 500 people, you should be able to find other editors to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:67.165.222.19 reported by User:Melicans (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Bono (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.165.222.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [60]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

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

Comments: The IP does not seem inclined to discuss despite numerous messages and warnings on the talk page, and their having read the edit summaries of the reversions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tcla75 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: User blocked)[edit]

Page: List of serial killers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tcla75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussed by several others on corresponding talk page (Talk:List_of_serial_killers_by_country#Ireland).

notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours PeterSymonds (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pbpa2011 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result: Indef block.)[edit]

Page: Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pbpa2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:59, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411538247 by Snappy (talk)")
  2. 21:35, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411629132 by Snappy (talk) Liablous material by biased user")
  3. 23:39, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411670049 by Snappy (talk) removing references without context")
  4. 19:19, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411786789 by Viticulturist99 (talk)")
  5. 22:28, 3 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 411832413 by Discospinster (talk) (Use of libelous material)")

Comments: Editor has repeatedly removed what appears to be contentious but properly sourced and cited material from article. One edit summary claimed the material being removed was libelous, but there is nothing on either the article Discussion page nor the user's Talk page that expands on that claim. Reversions appear to be tendentious in nature.

Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on a BLP. Dreadstar 01:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Criminal black man stereotype (Result: blocked)[edit]

I enjoy eggs (talk · contribs) has a hard time understanding that challenged unsourced material can not be reinserted repeatedly into an article without engaging with the arguments of the editors opposing it.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a malformed report, but in any case the editor has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I'm not sure why you couldn't do it yourself, seeing as you're an admin and all. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I have been reverting him - didn't want to appear as using the tools in a content dispute.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mastiffkennel reported by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights (Result: Article protected due to content dispute)[edit]

Page: St. Bernard (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mastiffkennel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75], then [76] (Sorry, I don't know how to do this with intermediate revisions)

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

See the revision history of St. Bernard (dog) from November onward.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] and [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the thread at Talk:St. Bernard (dog)#Heaviest dog?!?; consensus was twice reached to remove the claim in question (see below), and this editor has continually restored it.

Comments:
This is my first AN3 report, so I apologize if this is somewhat malformed. This is a slow-burning issue over several months; there's no 3RR violation, but very slow-motion edit warring. Mastiffkennel has continually reinserted a claim about a St. Bernard claiming to be the largest dog in history, and the name has gradually changed from "Benedictine" to "Benedictine Daily Double" (the dog, by the way, is Swiss). The sourcing was extremely dubious, so I took the sources to RSN (link is in the section on the talkpage) and they were rejected. I removed the claim on that basis, and Mastiffkennel restored it. After reverting once, I opened a thread at the content noticeboard. Both of us were warned about slow-motion edit warring; however, by that time I had started a thread at the content noticeboard and a second thread at RSN, and had no intention of reverting again until a second, firm consensus was reached (and said as much here to the user who warned us). I then asked for a third opinion on the talkpage, and the person who checked it stated they felt the claim should be removed and that if it was restored, I should report it to the edit warring noticeboard, making it the second time that consensus has been to remove this claim. I removed it once, and now I have now been reverted, so I'm taking it here. Instead of edit warring, I went out and twice gained consensus for removing this claim from the article. During the entire time, Mastiffkennel has not engaged in any discussion whatsoever, despite my repeated requests, and has continued to restore this claim even after being pointed to the consensus that was reached twice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this report with no action against any user. Instead, I have Fully protected the article for 3 months. I chose this period due to (a) the slow nature of the edit war, and (b) the fact that the article had been previously protected for 1 month. Editors may use the {{editprotected}} tag to request consensus-based or non-controversial changes, or, if editors feel it necessary, can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a procedural note; it was actually semiprotected (not full protected) for a month by Ohnoitsjamie. Anyways, thank you for your time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Esoglou and User:LoveMonkey reported by User:Taiwan boi (Result: Restriction agreed to)[edit]

Pages:

Users being reported:

Time reported: 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Both editors have a lengthy history of over a year of edit warring on many articles, always related to differences of opinion over Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic views (LoveMonkey is Eastern Orthodox, Esoglou is a Roman Catholic). As one editor has pointed out:

As another has said:

LoveMonkey has repeatedly reported Esoglou for edit warring, with mixed results (here, here, here). In turn, LoveMonkey has been charged with uncivil conduct by a number of editors. My own experiences with Esoglou's edit warring and editing behaviour can be found here (draft only).

Various editors have been involved in their disputes, either as advisers or observers. The most commonly involved have been myself, User:Richwales, User:Phatius McBluff, and User:Pseudo-Richard, and I have invited their comment here. The following is just a sample of over a year of edit warring involving thousands of edits, hundreds of hours of arguing on Talk pages, and numerous attempts by other editors to resolve the differences between the two warring editors. A mere glance at the history of these pages shows the extent of edit warring between LoveMonkey and Esoglou.

East-West Schism (history):

Hell in Christian beliefs (history):

Theoria (history):

The disputes most typically result from objections to how one editor is representing the other editor's faith community. The edit warring would be reduced dramatically (if not entirely quenched), if the two editors agreed to edit only information concerning their own faith community since they don't trust each other to be accurate in this regard and this is where the edit warring starts. LoveMonkey has agreed to this proposal, Esoglou has not. This does not surprise me since LoveMonkey confines himself almost entirely to what his faith community believes anyway, whereas Esoglou consistently targets LoveMonkey's edits for alteration and repeatedly attempts to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in ways which LoveMonkey claims are inaccurate.

This long term dispute has done the rounds of various noticeboards several times without any resolution. It would be good to bring an end to it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


At least part of the problem here is that there is a dearth of editors working on these pages. When there are only two editors, resolving a disagreement by forming a consensus is pretty much impossible. And if each editor is representing a different faith community, each editor is basically stuck in the role of being the only person evaluating and criticizing the other's contributions. If Esoglou believes LoveMonkey is misrepresenting sources regarding Orthodoxy — or, vice versa, if LoveMonkey believes Esolgou is misrepresenting sources regarding Catholicism — the kinds of disputes being complained about are inevitable because there aren't any other editors around to discuss or deal with the issues. At one point, I tried to engage some other Eastern Orthodox editors to help work on the various pages, but my efforts had only limited success. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Between them the two are enough to put any other editor from getting his head in between, plus we have very few active editors with sufficiently technical knowledge of these arcane areas. I've seen more of Love Monkey in the past (now long ago), & he can be pretty POV on areas where I did have good knowledge, but as you say mostly sticks to EO matters, though when he veers into contrasting them with RC views he is unreliable. I'm not sure what to suggest I'm afraid; really we need a stronger expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talkcontribs)
Even when there is a two-person dispute on an article, we expect people to behave correctly. If two editors show repeatedly that they can't work together, a restriction may be needed. Esoglou could be banned from editing material concerning Orthodoxy and LoveMonkey from Catholic material. I've invited Esoglou to say if he would agree to a voluntary deal. If he did so, admin action would not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. Previously the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article blew out to a ridiculous size as a result of the two of them using the article as a theological warring ground. As a stop gap solution I started pulling out the various issues on which edit warring was taking place, leaving a brief paragraph summary, and removing the rest of the content into the main articles discussing the subject. Diffusing the article content in this way helped stop the edit war, but this isn't possible all the time. In any case, other editors should not have to keep sweeping up after these two.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with Taiwan boi and Ed, I have (if you look at the articles in question) tried to either out right not edit on RCC sections or limit edits and not fight over them. Esoglou has an agenda that causes him to try and not allow the Eastern Orthodox side to express what, where or how it might disagree with Roman Catholic positions. Esoglou wars specifically against almost anything I post that contrasts and shows a difference between the two communions. This is because Esoglou has stated that of his own opinion he does not believe that there really are any issues of disagreement. And that the two communions are as they stand compatible. I am not posting my opinion I am posting Eastern Orthodox Theologians whom hold Official positions to represent the Eastern Orthodox Church in this matter (John Romanides, Vladimir Lossky, Thomas Hopko). Esoglou and Richard both in their own ways refuse to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light. Wikipedia is not the place to resolve this, Wikipedia is here simply to present what is already out there. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you LM, I knew you would agree to this. I'd rather that details of the various sides of the dispute not be debated here; that has happened often enough. However, it's worth pointing out that User:Pseudo-Richard also told me that Esolgou edits with the specific agenda of trying to show that Eastern Orthodox and Catholic views are not in conflict ("Esoglou is attempting to show that the two beliefs are in fact compatible"). The fact that he is editing with that explicit agenda as his aim is sufficient cause for concern let alone all his other behaviour. He should not be editing with an agenda, he should be editing according to what WP:RS say. This is the problem when strongly religious people come here wanting to set right various perceived wrongs, and want to push their theological barrows. Wikipedia is not the place for this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: In contrast to what Taiwan boi says, LoveMonkey has not agreed to avoid making assertions about Roman Catholic teaching. He repeatedly does so, generally on the basis of a few selected Orthodox writers. "The Eastern Orthodox teaching", he says, "is this, in contrast to the Roman Catholic ("Frankish" etc.) teaching, which is that." I think it is right in response to indicate on the basis of official Roman Catholic Church documents what really is the Roman Catholic Church teaching on the matter. The fundamental NPOV policy actually requires that those assertions be balanced by a sourced exposition, within those articles, of what the Roman Catholic teaching really is.

LoveMonkey does not shy away from citing also Roman Catholic sources. He presents as proof of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church opinions expressed by writers over a century ago in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, even when the writers themselves commented that the Church had made no decision on the matter.

LoveMonkey is selective in his choice of Eastern Orthodox theologians to cite. An on-going discussion between us concerns his deletion of a series of declarations by Eastern Orthodox theologians and his original-research declaration that the statements by several such theologians "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church documents", a declaration that he does not even permit to be tagged as needing a citation (see Talk:Hell in Christian beliefs#Removal of unanswered tag).

For what reason was the suggestion made that I should never use a Roman Catholic source for information on Eastern Orthodox teaching? When in fact have I ever used a Roman Catholic source as the basis for saying what is Eastern Orthodox teaching? It is LoveMonkey who constantly uses his favourite Eastern Orthodox writers to say what Roman Catholic teaching is.

I have repeatedly offered to abstain from editing any article on which LoveMonkey also agrees to abstain from editing. There should be no favouritism: no excluding one editor for the sole purpose of giving another a free hand. Esoglou (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. What I said was that when I put to LoveMonkey and you the suggestion which I have made here, he agreed to it (this is one of the times he expressed his willingness to submit to such a solution). You have not agreed to it. The rest of what you wrote is just an attempt to drag your edit war with LM onto this noticeboard, where it does not belong. You are helpfully demonstrating exactly the behaviour which led to this alert. The purpose of this alert is to help administrators decide what to do with the two edit warriors involved; LM and you. This proposal which would permit you to continue to edit articles, but only to edit content related directly to your own faith community; that means you don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices. This is a proposal which LM has told me by email he is willing to accept. Your role here is to say 'yes' or 'no' to this proposal. Please do so.---Taiwan boi (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The link Taiwan boi has given here is to a proposal by Richwales for a topic ban. As I have said above, I have repeatedly proposed that LoveMonkey and I freely adopt such a policy, even without it being imposed on us. So you can depend on it that I would not object to the ban being imposed on us from outside.
I think I have a right to respond to the accusations above and elsewhere. Since Taiwan boi has chosen to give a link above to a series of accusations by him against me, I have thought it best to provide responses to the accusations. You will find my replies on my user page. Esoglou (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The link I gave is to LM's direct response to my proposal, not Richard's mention of a topic ban. Look at the indent. Richard did not propose a topic ban, he asked Pseudo-Richard how my proposal was any different in principle to a topic ban. Thanks for your "responses" to my RfC. They'll be very useful to me. Are we to understand that you agree to the proposal I have made here? I have not seen you consent to such a proposal previously, and you didn't bother replying any of the previous times I made this proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
An edit conflict prevented me from getting this correction in first. The first of my two paragraphs should be corrected to read:
The link Taiwan boi has given here gives an idea mentioned by Richwales: a topic ban. As I have said above, I have repeatedly proposed that LoveMonkey and I freely adopt such a policy, even without it being imposed on us. So you can depend on it that I would not object to the ban being imposed on us from outside. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The question put to you is whether or not you would accept the proposal made here by me, and put to you by Johnbod. A topic ban on the articles referred to here would not address the fundamental issue which the proposal here seeks to address, namely you and LM arguing over who is misrepresenting the other's faith community. You are not actually answering the question. Do you agree to the proposal I have made here, and put to you by Johnbod? We have already seen clear evidence that previous offers by you and LM to "freely adopt" a policy of non-editing were very promptly broken by both of you, so you have no record of trustworthiness in that regard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I see above that LoveMonkey has indicated his intention not to stop writing negatively about Roman Catholic teaching: "Esoglou and Richard both in their own ways refuse to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light." And I see that Taiwan boi considers it compatible with his proposal (the one to which indirectly he pointed with this link) for LoveMonkey to continue with that agenda, while, it seems, not allowing me to respond in any way to LoveMonkey's showing the Roman Catholic Church in a negative light: "Thank you LM, I knew you would agree to this. ... He (Esoglou) should not be editing with an agenda". Would LoveMonkey now agree to stop portraying the Roman Catholic Church negatively? That would be a solution.
In any case Taiwan boi's proposal, "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", is in one way much too severe, restricting two Wikipedia editors to extremely narrow fields. Would LoveMonkey be expected never to touch articles on Gnosticism, philosophy, Taoism, Empirica Capital ...? But, more important in this case, Taiwan boi's proposal, "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", would on the other hand actually allow each of us to continue to edit precisely those articles that are the focus of discussion between us. It would allow each of us to edit Filioque! And East-West Schism!! And Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences!!! These are examples of articles that undeniably concern Eastern Orthodoxy. They just as undeniably concern the Roman Catholic Church. I see no solution other than an imposed ban on editing certain articles (a clearly defined list), or else an arrangement whereby, after allowing, say, three days for each side to present its case on Talk, some outsider is authorized to make a binding decision on whatever point is in dispute. Esoglou (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong on several counts. LM has explicitly agreed ("I completely agree with Taiwan boi and Ed"). You are also misrepresenting the proposal. It does not confine you to articles on your own faith community. It means, as I said explicitly, "you don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices"; it does not confine you to editing articles which only concern your faith community. This has already been explained to you more than once. I have made it clear that I don't believe either of you should be editing with an agenda, so you misrepresent me by claiming I implicitly support LM doing so. The rest of what you wrote is yet another attempt to drag the theological argument onto this noticeboard, instead of simply indicating whether or not you agree with the proposal which has been put to you. Do you agree with the proposal put to you, yes or no? LM has already agreed, so we are waiting on you. As Johnbod has already told you, if you don't agree then the admins will have to consider taking their own steps. The fact is that both of you have an extensive record of repeated edit warring over multiple articles, which is a very bad record to have here. The purpose of this proposal is to end that edit war since you've both demonstrated that you're completely incapable of doing so without external intervention. So the question again, do you agree with the proposal or not?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The deal proposed to me on my talk page was: "There is a deal proposed in that report, in which you and LoveMonkey would confine yourself to editing material about your respective religious traditions." The proposal to which you directed me with the link that at first I thought referred to a topic ban proposal proved to be a proposal by you "for participants to confine themselves to edits concerning their own faith community", surely the same proposal as was put to me. Now you tell me that the proposal you are making is instead: "You don't edit any part of an article which represents what the Eastern Orthodox believes or practices, and LM doesn't edit any part of an article which represents what the Catholic Church believes or practices". This one makes more sense. But does LoveMonkey agree? He explicitly objects above to two editors for "refusing to allow any points that show incompatibility and or show the Roman Catholic church from an Orthodox perspective in a negative light". His latest transgression, I think, is his insertion of the claim: "One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell, poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce, are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition. This is another of the reasons why the so-called humanism of some East Romans (those who united with the Frankish papacy) was a serious regression and not an advance in culture." If LoveMonkey agrees to eliminate such claims, that would solve everything. It would make those articles of much less interest to me, and refraining from editing the articles or parts of articles in which LoveMonkey at present makes such claims would be a negligible price to pay for the cessation of such attacks. But I fear that LoveMonkey will insist in having his presentations of Eastern Orthodox views accompanied by negative comments on alleged contrasting Western views, instead of simply presenting the Eastern Orthodox views on their own merits. If only LoveMonkey did agree to remove those attacks, I would gladly accept your proposal. Esoglou (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)\
You took my statement out of its context, "The disputes most typically result from objections to how one editor is representing the other editor's faith community". You know what I meant because I explained it several times previously when I first made the suggestion earlier. The rest of what you wrote was yet another attempt to continue your theological war on this noticeboard. Please don't.--Taiwan boi (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou in his denial of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy and is now dodging the question. Also how can what Esoglou suggests be reconciled with WP:IKNOW and Wikipedia:Advocacy since Esoglou is saying that not only what my sources say should remain off of Wikipedia but that he is justified in having me blocked from making contributions to articles I have knowledge about because he does not like what those sources I use have to say. How is this neutral? I again state I have not posted my opinion I have posted what actual Eastern Orthodox theologians have said (again not my opinion), why is Esoglou allowed to say because he does not like what those sources say that he can edit war and force them to not be included here at Wikipedia? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come here in response to Taiwan boi's request. I really don't know what should be "done" with LM and Esoglou. There are actually a number of issues being debated here, but I will confine myself to the central issue, the edit-warring problem. The best solution may be something like Taiwan boi's proposal that LM and Esoglou refrain from editing certain topics.

However, we must be clear about what we mean here, because there is ample room for confusion. Does LM get to edit content that discusses Eastern Orthodox views of Roman Catholicism? (After all, such content discusses Eastern Orthodox, rather than Roman Catholic, viewpoints.) Does Esoglou get to raise concerns about, and tag, LM's editing on Eastern Orthodox topics, as long as Esoglou does not actually intervene in the editing?

Also, guys, please stop accusing each other of "misrepresenting" and "dodging the question". There's obviously some honest confusion over what Taiwan boi's proposal was, etc. Please assume good faith with each other. Here's an idea: why don't you start all over at the beginning? Taiwan boi, please repeat your precise proposal for limiting LM's and Esoglou's editing. It doesn't matter if you think you've said it a thousand times before. Just say it again. Esoglou and LM, please say whether you agree to it. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that we set a time limit (say, 12 hours) for how long the discussion should continue here. If Esoglou won't agree to what has been proposed, I will consider imposing an editing restriction here and then asking for review at WP:ANI. At this point, our patience should be limited. It looks to me that LoveMonkey would accept a reasonable deal. I am willing to impose a one-sided restriction if Esoglou looks like he will continue debating this till next month. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I must have been unclear. So I repeat - or if you are convinced that I have not done so already,, I hereby declare - that I do accept the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice. Does LoveMonkey accept this proposal? Was I wrong in thinking that, when it came down to practical undertakings, this seemed perhaps to be in doubt?
It may be more than 12 hours before I return to Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll wait a couple more hours to see if there are other comments, and then try to close this (unless another admin does so first). EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"I do accept the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice"
To avoid ambiguity, I would like to request that Esoglou and LM agree to the following specifics:
  1. Esoglou will not even make talk page comments about edits regarding the EOC.
  2. LM will not even make talk page comments about edits regarding the RCC.
  3. Neither Esoglou nor LM will edit, or make comments about, RC theologians' statements about the EOC and EO theologians' statements about the RCC. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: I would like to emphasize that I am not pleased with the fact that things have gotten to this point, and if it were up to me, then I would probably not limit Esoglou or LM in this way. But both have now agreed to the above-mentioned proposal. If they're going to agree to it, then we had better be specific about what it means. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
In the hope that this will remove all further matter for disagreement between LoveMonkey and me, I happily accept, with all the specifics indicated by Phatius McBluff, the proposal that I make no comment on EOC teaching or practice and that LoveMonkey make no comment on RCC teaching or practice.
I understand that this includes the unresolved discussion about the allegedly original-research character of LoveMonkey's claim that certain statements by several Eastern Orthodox theologians "appear to run counter to (unspecified) official church documents" (Talk:Hell in Christian beliefs#Removal of unanswered tag). Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Restriction agreed to. My reading of the above discussion is that Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, and LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice. This does not prevent them from sometimes working on the same article so long as they respect this limitation. This deal should be entered at WP:Editing restrictions so that the agreement is kept on record somewhere. I will wait a bit to allow a chance for any last-minute objections. Though the restriction is voluntarily entered into, it may be enforced by blocks, as usual. To get the restriction undone, make a request at WP:AN, and a consensus of editors may lift it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Please continue this elsewhere. AN3 can do no more. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Ed. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance Ed. I look forward to seeing this kept by the respective parties. Let's be clear on the wording to be entered at WP:Editing restrictions, and let's be clear on the fact that if the relevant parties breach this agreement there will be consequences. How about this for wording: Neither is to make any comment (on the Talk pages of any article), concerning the other's faith community, nor are they to make any edits containing representations of, or comments on, the beliefs and practices of the other's faith community (in any article), regardless of any source they may be using.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree this is different than simply not editing in each other respective article sections. Now I am not able to post comments by Orthodox sources because those sources might contrast with the Roman Catholic church? Thats not what I agreed too. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You're certainly allowed to post comments by Orthodox sources, on Orthdox beliefs and practices, regardless of whether or not they contrast with the Roman Catholic Church. Have a look at Phatius' suggested wording above.--Taiwan boi (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I fear that what LoveMonkey wants to post is not Orthodox sources' comments on Orthodox beliefs and practices (nobody denies that in many cases they do differ from Catholic ones), but their comments on actually or at least allegedly contrasting Catholic beliefs and practices. I think this would contravene Phatius's specific 3 and Ed's "not make edits or talk page comments about Roman Catholic teaching or practice". LoveMonkey's remark about "simply not editing in each other respective article sections" even makes me wonder whether what he has in mind is to have an absolutely free hand in articles or sections of articles that have "Eastern Orthodox" in the heading. I hope that clarification will prove these fears to be unfounded. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou stop being inflammatory. Your repeated efforts to re-ignite the argument on this noticeboard are inexcusable. You've already said your piece, there's nothing more for you to say.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
LM: "Now I am not able to post comments by Orthodox sources because those sources might contrast with the Roman Catholic church?"
I assume that Taiwan boi's suggestion was meant as an endorsement of my proposal regarding specifics. If so, then you will certainly be able to post comments by Orthodox sources that contrast with the RCC, but you will not be able to post comments by Orthodox sources that discuss the RCC. In other words, you will be able to add Orthodox sources that say, "We believe X" (where X is contrary to RC teaching), but you will not be able to add Orthodox sources that say, "The RCC believes Y" or "The RCC is wrong to believe Y". If you do not agree to this proposal, please let us know. However, I don't see how the agreement between you and Esoglou will do any good unless we are specific about what it means. If you don't agree to my proposed specifics, then please suggest some of your own. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I explained it to LM by email after he made that comment.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please take this elsewhere if you want to continue the discussion. If you think the wording of the restriction still needs to be changed, request that on my talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the wording now needs to be discussed elsewhere, and recorded at WP:Editing restrictions. Esoglou and LM, please indicate whether or not you agree with both Phatius' and my proposal.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:76.65.240.91 reported by CapnPrep (talk) (Result: 3 month block)[edit]

Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.65.240.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [79]

  1. 14:11, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "vandalism; see Belgian language for further infos")
  2. 21:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412000139 by CapnPrep (talk)")
  3. 15:57, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412046018 by Nortmannus (talk)")
  4. 18:35, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412184109 by CapnPrep (talk)")
  5. 19:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412197219 by Nortmannus (talk)")
  6. 20:27, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412210917 by Cagwinn (talk)")
  7. 20:49, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "nothing else to do?")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

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

Comments:
IP with long history of edit warring over disputed, unsourced, ungrammatical material. Discussion has not proven remotely useful in the past. The same user appears under the IP 70.82.96.170, currently blocked. CapnPrep (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blondonien/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months Courcelles 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:24.162.240.209 reported by Mkativerata (talk) (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Deaths in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.162.240.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:07, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "You have got to be kidding me. A dog gets a listing here? Let's draw the line somewhere...")
  2. 03:10, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "I disagree. Humans only.")
  3. 03:48, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "NO DOGS ALLOWED")
  4. 21:31, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "dogs not allowed")
  • Diff of warning: here

Fourth revert is within 24 hours and comes after warning for edit-warring.—Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by TFD (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:17, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "which seems fully gratuitous and of no actual use in describing the article at hand. We coiuld add "left wing parties may be racist" just as easily")
  2. 20:52, 4 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412033084 by Rick Norwood (talk)sentence implies that all racist and fascist parties are right wing as worded")
  3. 12:41, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "unless you intend to imply "all"?")
  4. 16:27, 5 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "exact wording of cite which does not say "avowedly" at all hoping this settles the issue, providing what he says about "right wing" as well")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

  • All edits were made in seeking to avoid any misconception by any reader, and were all sought to be compromises, whilst TFD has (for example) insisted that the word "avowedly" is in the source etc. As the word is not in the source, it is proper to make sure that WP readers are not misled. It can hardly be edit war to add a precise quote from a source, after all, as the material at issue was not removed from the article at all. All edits were discussed at length on the proper talk pages, and this should be quite sufficient if you ook at the tenor of the attempt toavoid confrontations. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    There must not have been any consensus as to what you wanted because they were reverted by other users once again, and you, again reverted them. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Um -- nope. The last edit which was specifically to seek compromise by using the exact words of the cite has not been reverted. Nor, by the way, do I think seeking compromise is something which ought to be penalized in any way whatsoever. The goal of WP is not to be a place for "wikilawyering", but a place where we produce the best articles possible. Collect (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD hasn't come here with clean hands, both he and Rick Norwood appear to have been tag teaming, (note the sequence of dates):

Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. 13:08, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv "Wikipedia")
  2. 17:56, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "Try to clear up the issue of racism and fascism.")
  3. 20:12, 4 February 2011 (edit summary: "rv The reference does not say that right-wing parties are racist, it says that standard usage applies the term "right-wing" to avowedly racist parties.")

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. 18:54, 1 February 2011 (edit summary: "RV previous edits - no censensus to move or remove description from the lead")
  2. 04:51, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412039820 by Collect (talk) Restore sourced text")
  3. 15:24, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 412143576 by Collect (talk) Text should refect text")

I suggest page protection to cool things off. --Martin (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus". This is a serious accusation. May I suggest that you refactor your comments, and if you wish to pursue the matter further to bring it to ANI. Also you may wish to notify other editors when you make accusations against them. TFD (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Precisely - but I seem to recall [82] Here Jprw restores the comments of the banned editor, which is meatpuppetry. TFD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) which means TFD is far from averse to making the charge when he wishes to. Nor did I find TFD appropriately following up on such a charge. Sauce - goose. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#The_Four_Deuces may also be of interest to show TFD's use of "fascist" in referring to editors, and the warning issued to him. Lastly, TFD's calling absolutely edit a "revert" was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive117#User:SuaveArt_reported_by_User:The_Four_Deuces_.28Result:No_block_.29 Collect (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: There were technically four reverts by Collect in 24 hours. I would not be inclined to issue a block. There were two 'pure reverts'. His third and fourth edits make allowance for the other side's position and seem intended to produce a compromise. His last version incorporates the claim of racism and fascism but one that more closely aligns with the language of the source used. I will wait to see if another admin has a comment. It would be logical to place this article under a 1RR/day restriction, and I suggest that somebody propose at WP:AN that 1RR be imposed. The Fascism article has been under a 1RR restriction since 2009, and it's been working there. The dispute here is almost the same as the perennial one at Fascism. That is, the degree to which right-wing politics and fascism are aligned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I note that admin SlimVirgin is currently conducting a RFC with regard to lede of that article and seems to have noticed the reverting as she has already warned the participants to stop[83] and the participants have since complied. Perhaps with that warning the matter here is moot? --Martin (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. If reverting on the issue of racism and fascism continues, editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and should consider asking for full protection at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Hgilbert reported by User:Masteryorlando (Result:No violation )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Steiner&oldid=412118924

  1. 12:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411512461 by Masteryorlando; detailed discussion inappropriate here; police report sufficient. (TW)")
  2. 22:50, 2 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411640061 by AnomieBOT; Too bulky and awkward for intro; already covered in body. (TW)")
  3. 02:53, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 411784735 by Hgilbert; incoherent lead. (TW)")
  4. 12:28, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 28 edits by Masteryorlando (talk); Conflicts with arbitration; incoherent presentation. (TW)")
  5. 17:45, 5 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Masteryorlando (talk) to last version by Hgilbert")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hgilbert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rudolf_Steiner Comments:

See Rudolf Steiner Talk Page. Also I note this pages is already on probation and this issue appears to have a history of inappropriate edits by Hgilbert see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education See probation removal at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rudolf+Steiner "18:05, 17 October 2006 Centrx (talk | contribs) unprotected Rudolf Steiner ‎ (Any user who engages in edit warring of any kind will be blocked from editing.) (hist)"

Masteryorlando (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Hgilbert has abused the use of the rollback button, using it to revert several good faith edits as shown here. I think he has been notified about what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't, and I gave him a message here. I request at least the rollback flag from his account will be dropped. Minimac (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize; I didn't realize that rollback was reserved for vandalism. My error completely. (And it shall not happen again.)
Vis a vis the 3RR rule: it is clear from the diffs above that I did not go beyond the 3 revert limit. Incidentally, several editors, not just myself, have been trying to ensure that User:Masteryorlando's edits stay within the arbitration guidelines for this article that limit sources for potentially contentious material to third-party reviewed material. hgilbert (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't believe that Hgilbert violated 3RR here. I have tried to advise Masteryorlando here and here of some of the ways to work on WP that would make the process less contentious. Masteryorlando has a wealth of knowledge about the subject but not so much about how to work in WP, so perhaps a mentor could work with him/her. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (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. I also endorse the comments made by EPadmirateur and advise Masteryorlando to ask for mentorship and note Hgilbert's agreement not to use rollback except for vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks but please consider that although Hgilbert "only" reverted 3 times in 24 hours, he's been reverting in this material over a much longer period - 28 times in the previous ten days. Objections to the balance of this article which Hgilbert is th most active editor of have been raised on the article's Talk: page, as to "Lack of balance / sounds like an advert for the subject", similarly on the Waldorf School page see "major balance issue" which Hgilbert is also the most active editor on. But Hgibert has likewise failed to meaningfully respond or has responded with consistently quite inaccurate statements. Although previously denying any financial connection, Hgilbert in fact was found to be an employee of the Anthroposophical Waldorf School movement and an author for its related Anthroposophical publishing company (see arbitration.) EPadmirateur who clearly likewise has Anthroposophical connections appears to be acting in cahoots with Hgilbert to block my edits (a further two edits blocked withou cause today by Epadmiratuer,) and is therefore equally not neutral in this matter. Also Epadmirateur has failed to respond meaningfully on discussion page and made spuruious arguments. EPadmirateur asserts these are "BOLD" edits but the truth is that they are not. The German language wikipedia entry for Rudolf Steiner contains all of this material. The wikipedia entry on Anthroposophy likewise contains this in its Section on the 'History of Anthroposophy'. In this regard I would request review of Hgilbert and EPadmirateur's edits over a longer period on the Rudolf Steiner Article for precisely the "inappropriate and disruptive edit" warring described as requiring review in the arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Editwarring_and_conflict

I do acknowledge my relative newness to editing Expedia but I find the behaviour I have encountered from Hgilbert to be extraordinarily lacking in respect for freedom of speech or unbiased scholarship. I would be happy for an entorely independent mediator to step in. Or perhaps the Arbitration review should be re-opened? ThanksMasteryorlando (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Viticulturist99 reported by User:Demiurge1000 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viticulturist99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [84] (this is the version as edited by him, that he was attempting to revert "back to")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sorry if this is excessive detail, I think it's worth mentioning:

previously cautioned about NPOV, on his talk page (there was already a level 1 general notice in place) [89]

he replies to that by accusing me of disruptive editing [90]

advised about the BLP/N discussion and advised to seek concensus, on his talk page (not by me) [91]

he replies to the BLP/N advice by indicating his ownership of the article and it "shall remain" at his version [92]

formal warning about 3RR, on his talk page [93]

provided with additional explanations of what constitutes a revert, on his talk page [94]

he responds to advice by giving me a final warning and accusing me of censorship [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] Also much more at Talk:Richard Boyd Barrett and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett where I've tried to reassure and assist a novice editor (who may well have a COI) who was concerned by the problematic BLP material that was being added and re-added. Comments:
At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Boyd Barrett, User:Viticulturist99 makes accusations of lying, bias, etc.

Note: I myself am at, but not beyond, 3RR on the article; this is specifically because I felt it necessary to remove (1) a misleading quote that attributed to the BLP subject controversial words that he did not say, and (2) controversial and contested material that was not supported by a reliable independent secondary source (the source in question was a simple text webpage of one of the political parties involved, http://irishantiwar.org/archives/news/101307.html ). Reverting such serious BLP violations does not fall under 3RR, and I discussed the related issues in detail on the talk page, as well as asking for help at the BLP noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Protected three days. I did not see four reverts by Viticulturist, but some of his changes raise eyebrows regarding WP:BLP. I encourage editors to carefully work out the sourcing issues for any controversial things that may have been said by Mr. Boyd Barrett. Viticulturist should be careful to avoid personal attacks, since this is getting close to the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ontomoto reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: Resolved)[edit]

Page: Red Bull