Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive151

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Winston786 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Sardarji jokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winston786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] where I added quotation from article that related to the disputed word and discussion here

Comments:

The user has returned from a one week ban for similar behavior and is also the subject of a WP:AN/I and see 1 week block log here where he was blocked for warring with an editor.

I must point out that first two are not "reverts" but just edits on the basis of the source already mentioned. Winston786 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

18:04, 13:19, 12:18, and 06:53 are clear reverts. I'm sorry you're still confused about what a revert is. Kuru (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history reported by User:Winston786 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Sardarji jokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ranbir Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sikh-history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Sikh-history is engagin in an unnecessary edit war to add the word "Hindu" on the page, there is no mention of it on the source. Winston786 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC), to do this he reverted my edits

This is one more case of the same user engaging in another edit war with me, adding info without any source, it must be noted the user is stalking my edits, his edit follows my edit in many cases hence I don't think its a co-incidence, user is showing a personal animosity towards me. Winston786 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

More examples of stalking my edits and engaging in an edit war.

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]
  6. [16]

It must be noted that the user started editing these only after I edited them, clearly reflecting his obsession with me. Winston786 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has previously been banned multiple times for edit war, his/her block log. Winston786 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a clear 3RR here; just two reverts at that. The interaction between you two is problematic and will likely lead to problems if you can't learn to interact. Kuru (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Babasalichai reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: This edit warring actually has been going on since before the current 3RR violation; I am not familiar enough with either the subject or the article to know what to go back to.


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not actually involved in editing this article; I saw it based on stalking a third editor's talk page. Neither side has thus far seriously attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page.

Comments: I warned both users involved in the edit war. The other user is User:Beobjectiveplease. This user is clearly edit warring as well, but did stop short of breaking 3RR (at least after being warned). The second user does appear to be new, and has only edited this article, so I understand where the frustration may be coming from for Babasalichai, but Babasalichai appears to be assuming ownership over this article. My feeling is that the other editor should not currently be blocked, as they did stop reverting after being warned, but I leave that to the discretion of admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but the edit warring appears to be ongoing; it may be necessary to block the other user as well.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Babasalichai has a history of adding unsourced and poorly sourced negative information to this BLP; it is almost exclusively his only activity on this wiki. I am monitoring but would like an uninvolved admin to assess the situation please. Qwyrxian has also filed a page protection request. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I wrote above, I am now involved in editing the article. I am attempting to get both editors to start talking on the talk page, but both editors continue to make changes, essentially just repeating the same things in edit summaries back and forth. I've issued User:Beobjectiveplease a final warning for edit warring; I haven't issued Babasalichai any more because I've been waiting for this one to be resolved. I am now at 3 reverts (although one was an attempt to enforce WP:BLP regarding a contentious, poorly sourced statement) in 24 hours on the article; no more from me, as I'm not going to break 3RR trying to get other editors to stop edit warring... Qwyrxian (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadnt seen the warnings and now have and will make all comments on talk page prior to edits. I had attempted to contact other user and continue to attempt to he simply doesnt respond. I apologize for not responding earlier hadnt seen the edits but have been complying last few hours as am sure you have both noticed and wont edit again w/o consensus, but need the other person as well to follow rules. Babasalichai (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 1 week by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kopimama reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: indef)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Kopimama

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of Wkiwoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:98.247.58.102 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Miracle Mineral Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.247.58.102 (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: [link]

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

Comments:

I can see little point in discussing with an editor who seems to think that selling a highly-toxic chemical solution (basically bleach) as a cure for "HIV, malaria, hepatitis viruses, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, against cancer" etc isn't fraudulent - they have threatened to report me, so it seemed better to come here rather than reverting again. They are presumably aware of the 3RR rule, from their last edit summary.

I will of course notify them of this complaint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I encourage the administrator to evaluate AndyTheGrump's three prior revisions to mine along with his comments that he is NOT willing to discuss the edit, as evidence that his insistence upon the inclusion of a negative connotative and legal term such as "fraudulent" to describe this heavily debated subject, and to do so without valid citation, is clear evidence of opinion pushing. I claim nothing and represent nothing. I merely request fellow editors and admins to honor Wiki policy. An encyclopedia is not a place to advance opinion. If AndyTheGrump wants to use the word "fraudulent" to describe MMS, he must cite a legal determination for this legal term. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.58.102 (talk)
"An encyclopedia is not a place to advance opinion". Well, in the opinion of the quacks pushing this substance (or at least in their stated opinion - whether they believe it I've no idea), MMS cures AIDS etc. On the other hand, that MMS is a toxic substance is fact, not opinion. To describe it as 'alternative medicine' without adding the clear proviso that it is fraudulent would be grossly negligent - and possibly an illegal promotion of an unlicensed medicine. So cut out the bogus lawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You cannot use an accusational legal term without citation. Period. Quit removing my comments so administrators do not readily see them. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of removing any comment of yours - can you provide a diff? And can you explain why Wikipedia should be including the opinion that a toxic substance is an 'alternative medicine'. And yes I can use the term 'fraudulent' because (a) I didn't say it was a 'legal term' - that is your opinion, and (b) it is true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The word fraudulent is an adjective used to describe "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". For you to use this word to describe the subject of this article without a citation is improper and merely opinion. Strong opinion based upon your off-topic comments regarding the subject itself. This article is about MMS. You may start a sub section regarding the ongoing debate of MMS being fraudulent, this cannot be argued, but you must not state that is is defacto fraudulent without an authoritative citation. The FDA does not state it is fraudulent, that is merely your opinion. This isn't about what people think about MMS, which is obviously heavily debated. Content of Wiki does not require citation so long as is is not debated. The use of the term fraudulent is, in fact, debated so you must find a proper citation for it, or drop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY -"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I can provide a "reliable, published source" that MMS is toxic. Can you provide a "reliable, published source" that it cures anything? That it is a "medicine", alternative or otherwise? AS for MMS being 'heavily debated', I'd like to see evidence that anyone other than the snake-oil salesmen selling it, and the suckers they've taken in, are debating anything. And by the way, can you confirm one way or another whether you are connected in any way with User:DataBishop, who has stated that he is 'Jim Humble' and thus has a clear conflict of interest in this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, let us not lose our objectivity. I am not claiming anything regarding the subject of this article. If I did, I would be subject to the same policies of neutrality and verifiability as yourself. In keeping with the topic, I have merely removed the word "fraudulent" from the first sentence of this Wiki entry because it is being used to describe the subject of this article without citation and remains challenged. The mere fact that you are arguing, is evidence that it is disputed. I will entertain your off-topic query as much to say, how would I have any clue who DataBishop is or if he is who he claims? If he is who he claims, I'm not so certain it is a conflict of interest since he's evidently spent more years researching this subject than you or I. Let's stay on topic here instead of trying to make this about anything else. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Now there's an interesting way not to answer a question. First you say you are "not claiming anything regarding the subject of this article", and then you say that DataBishop/'Jim Humble has "evidently spent more years researching this subject than you or I". Which is it? How do you know how long Humble has spent 'researching' anything? You don't (or you say you don't). And yet you take his claim that MMS is 'alternative therapy' that cures AIDS as somehow something other than a way to make a quick buck out of the gullible. Do you really think that a bogus pseudo-neutrality (based on nothing more than amateur lawyering) is more important than protecting people from the unverified and dangerous claims of snake-oil salesmen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, from the US FDA: "Health fraud is the deceptive sale or advertising of products that claim to be effective against medical conditions or otherwise beneficial to health, but which have not been proven safe and effective for those purposes" [31]. I'd say that was a clear enough description of the situation. Making a medical claim without proving it is safe or effective (as in the MMS case) is fraud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite the master at twisting words. No, I'm not making claims. Yes, I have done more research on the topic than you, evidently. The Wiki itself says Jim Humble published his book in 2006. Were you guarding your WIKI opinion edits for that long? Did you even know what MMS was in 2006? I rest my case. I can clearly say Mr Humble has researched this longer than you or I and not be in conflict with any other statement. Your final statement regarding the FDA is derivative it is not a citation. This is my last communication with you in this matter so you can have the last work you so relish. To argue with a fool is foolishness itself. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • {{AN3|I'll leave it to another Admin to sort out any blocks, but I've protected the page for a month. I note that DataBishop (talk · contribs) and the IP are making the same edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll gladly admit to having broken the 3RR rule, but consider under the circumstances it was necessary. The idea that Wikipedia should somehow be 'neutral' about unverified and dangerous claims regarding 'cures' for fatal diseases seems so utterly detached from the core principles of this project that it seemed best to get the point across - and frankly, I'd rather be blocked than let this sort of nonsense go unnoticed. Wikipedia is big enough now to make arguments about abstract 'policy' issues less important than the effect we can have on the outside world. If we aren't prepared to accept this responsibility, we should abandon the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Dougweller, there is no relation whatsoever between my edit and the edit(s) of DataBishop (talk · contribs). An honest look at the edit page will reveal this to be so. To be clear, the issue at hand is AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) wants to make a legal determination about the subject without proper citation. Turning back the edit and locking the article is not congruent with Wiki policy (see Wikipedia:CHALLENGE and WP:BOP) of which administrators are tasked to uphold. AndyTheGrump, your reply outright says Wiki should not be neutral, making your agenda to opinion push clear. This isn't about health claims, its about the inclusion of your opinion without citation. That is all its about. Dougweller, I implore you to see this for what it is and unlock the article. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
...Which is another way of saying that Wikilawyering is more important than the effects that articles can have on the outside world. Implore all you like, and let us see exactly why you are so concerned about promoting this quackery. If you actually think that 'policy' is so important that flogging toxins to the gullible should be permitted in order to maintain it (and you claim to have no opinion either way about MMS, so you presumably don't deny that this could be a result of your edits), you have no business participating in this project, given that you consider 'rules' more important than the consequences they have for real people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36] (made after report filed)
  • Diff of warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
I have done but three reverts, the last one I was compelled to do due to the fact the The Four Dueces not only reinserted uncited content but also managed to mess up two merger discussion templates at the same time. [39] I am unsure as to why a person who inserts obviously false content intent into an article in violation of WP:RS and uncited content in violation of W:V is bringing me here for violation of 3R when it has nor been broken is in fact beyond me Tentontunic (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While you restored a merger template that I inadvertently removed, you also deleted material in your fourth revert. TFD (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst you are here, might you explain why you reinserted uncited content into an article in violation of WP:V? Tentontunic (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And now User:Paul Siebert has managed the same, three reverts (I assume TFD shall soon report him) and removed the merger discussion templates. I assume I am not allowed to restore them? Ans yes TFD uncited material.Tentontunic (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebet's three consecutive edits count as one revert for 3RR. TFD (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Consecutive must be different were you live. One Two (reverts a bot but was obviously meaning to revert me going on edit summary) Three restores the RAF uncited content which I had removed. Tentontunic (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
An edit following an edit by the same editor is considered to be a consecutive edit. Edit 3 by Paul Siebert is consecutive to his previous edit. TFD (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As are mine. Shall you ever explain why you reinserted uncited content I wonder? Tentontunic (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
They are not consecutive if there were intervening edits. While you have made 26 edits today, they are considered to be five reverts. TFD (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So you think the merger discussions ought to not have been restored? Tentontunic (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. That article may need to be protected in the near future anyway, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by 119.236.250.80 (talk) (Result: no vio/reporter range blocked)[edit]

Page: List of national supreme courts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Comments:

Overall revert with whatever edits performed by User:SchmuckyTheCat, with the excuse of reverting POV edits. 119.236.250.80 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a well-known banned sockpuppeteer who stalks my edits. WP:RBI, please don't feed the troll. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
A rangeblock would be feasible on the most recent few IP addresses that I found, but WhoIS says they are editing from a /15, which would give us too much collateral damage. Nothing looks to me worth semi-protecting at the moment, but I am leaving this open in case anyone else has a viable solution. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Also, 119.236.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 1 week; sometimes despite the WHOIS the ISP does not actually assign all possible IP addresses to a user. Besides, a /15 is but 2 /16s.... T. Canens (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:71.84.3.109 reported by User:Wolftengu (Result: semi'd and warned)[edit]

Page: Yamaha DX1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Globalstatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
71.84.3.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
71.95.140.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The editing/reversion has been going on since the June 2009.

Article talk page: Talk:Yamaha_DX1

Comments:
The three sources of the edits (who could possibly be the same person, not sure) are both copying content directly from an external site here, which reads like a review and is full of peacock terms. Globalstatus seems to be the author of the article on the external site. Master Bigode and I have tried discussing the content posted on the article on the talk page, pointing to the various article/image guidelines, but the editors hotly disagree with anything we say and continue to re-load the text into the article. They've also tried numerous times to load external images and Youtube videos into the article body. The reversions listed above are just the major changes, it doesn't include all of the small incremental additions and reversions done on the page over the last 8 months. I reverted the article one final time on Feb. 11th, to have it re-reverted. I'll refrain from editing the article until this is resolved. Sorry the report is disorganized, but it's a long and messy situation. Wolftengu (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page semi-protected for a period of 6 months by 2over0 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Further notes:

  • the two IPs are on different large blocks of the same provider, so a range block would not be feasible.
  • the last one was stable for several months, so I warned this one
  • the IPs and the account are almost certainly the same person, and I have warned Globalstatus regarding edit warring and avoiding scrutiny
  • the website in question is not covered by the Wayback Machine, but the history of the material in the article strongly suggests that this is not a case of reverse-copyvio
  • I chose 6 months to reflect the long period over which the copyvio material has been re-inserted
  • Wolftengu, please remember to notify all users when making a report such as this. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mythbuster2010 reported by User:Lachrie (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Special Relationship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mythbuster2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

Began by vandalising the page [59] and moved on to heavy POV pushing, poorly sourced and argumentative alterations, and picking out tendentious material from newspapers in order to denigrate the UK. When I warned him about edit-warring he responded in a copycat manner on my talk page [60] and reverted yet again. [61] Lachrie (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 1 week by Nev1 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:98.227.173.227 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Radley Balko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.227.173.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]


3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:
The IP has been reverted by me and by another editor. He has been warned on his Talk page. I started a new discussion on the article Talk page and put a TB template on the IP's Talk page, but he didn't contribute to the discussion. There was a much earlier discussion about similar material being added to the article. Although the IP has partly sourced the material, he has still not fully sourced it, but, more important, the material is simply not relevant or notable and doesn't warrant inclusion in the article.

The IP has made no other edits of any Wikipedia articles.

Please note I have reached my max of reverts (my change adding a reference tag to the article as a whole does not count as a revert as I read the rules).

This is my first 3RR report. I hope I did it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:R3ap3R.inc reported by User:C.Fred (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: CAPTCHA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R3ap3R.inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [70] (specifically, the addition of the Inglip section)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User acknowledges 3RR both by leaving a message about it in the edit summary of his third revert [75] and in warning me about 3RR before he committed his fourth revert! [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the Talk:CAPTCHA#Inglip section.

Comments:
The tone of R3ap3R.inc's edit summaries, such as "Take it ARBCOM", suggest that he has no intent of trying to compromise on the issue. I would rather discuss the matter and try to find middle ground or consensus on the talk page. The warning to me for 3RR just before he committed a fourth revert, as well as his request for page protection right after his first addition of the text,[77] call into question whether he's editing in good faith or trying to game the system into getting the text about the Inglip meme added to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Immortale reported by User:2over0 (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: This is a perennially controversial article; the latest flare-up started about a week and a half ago. If some poor soul can put a rein on the talk page violations (from several users, as well as an overly combative atmosphere in general) while you are investigating this anyway, that would also be appreciated.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is fully aware of WP:EW; anyway, mentions this board in link the third, above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is, obviously, a controversial article. It is also covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions should anyone want to get involved more deeply. I do not think that this is worth AE at the moment, but it is a factor that might be considered in closing this report. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Splinterr reported by User:Gruen (Result: Article semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Jean-François Larios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Splinterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: User is apparently determined to remove the part of the article which refers to Larios being excluded from the 1982 Football World Cup squad. He has removed sourced content multiple times since February 8th and replacing it with some French content, using multiple IPs besides the username Splinterr. Myself and others kept reverting his edits for a while and warned him in the edit summaries not to remove sourced content from the page but he seems to be very enduring. Might need administration intervention.

Due to multiple IP disruption, the article is Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio reported by User:Ronz (Result: blocked 55h)[edit]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:28, 13 February 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:31, 13 February 2011 23:32, 13 February 2011 at External Links Noticeboard

Comments:
Soetermans (talk · contribs) is the primary editor involved in the edit-warring against Reisio. He was warned Feb 10th for edit-warring and WP:POINT violations, and had stopped edit-warring two days earlier. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I also left Snoop God (talk · contribs) a note [78] on his portion of the edit-warring. He had stopped 14:49, 29 January 2011. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reisio is currently failing to win friends and influence people by claiming that WP:ELBURDEN is "ridiculous", that the (apparently) uniform opposition to the blogspot link are only due to editors "applying guidelines blindly", that the guideline is "self-contradictory", and that he is obliged to ignore the consensus because he personally does not believe any of the (six?) editors opposing it have put forward a good enough reason to justify its removal.
This situation concerns me. ELN commonly sees problems—indeed, its whole purpose is to deal with problems—but we rarely see such poorly disguised contempt for other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 55 hours. Considering the editor's block log, 24 hours seems inadequate. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:MFIreland reported by User:Lloydelliot10 (Result: Article protected)[edit]

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


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

             [83]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:British Army#User:MFIreland keeps adding bogus "Citation Needed" tags to recruitment

and

[86]

Comments:


Because nearly everyone in the recent page history seems to have violated 3RR, the article is Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:76.66.133.76 reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

User being reported: 76.66.133.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:10, 10 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412921994 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
  2. 05:22, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412925515 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
  3. 13:50, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
  4. 14:29, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413061062 by 76.66.133.76 (talk)")
  5. 14:31, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
  6. 06:43, 12 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • If they come back without sources, please re-open this report. The IP appears to have been stable for the last few days, but it is probably dynamic and may change without notice. It may be worth considering requesting semi-protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Reopened; he's now deleting sourced information about the new album (!) in order to restore his little theory about something he saw on the website last week. He's reverted it twice more since. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Closing it again; given that other editors were reverting him (this is about an album that's out today, and he was blanking that information to make his own point), I ended up just warning him up to level four and going through other vandalism channels. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:JackhammerSwirl reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

  • 1st revert:[88] @ 11:13, 14 February 2011
  • 2nd revert:[89] @ 16:52, 14 February 2011
  • Comment: The Gaza War is currently under a 1r restriction

User warned [90]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked by Timotheus Canens. Minimac (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus reported by User:Lost Josephine Minor (Result:no violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [91]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

I am new to writing on Wikipedia, so if my formatting is incorrect, please bear with me. The editor gives no reason for his reverts, has been unwilling to negotiate. On my first article I have very carefully sourced all of the information that I included. However, very relevant information has been continually deleted by a couple of editors. Initial concerns by those editors have been addressed, yet Eusebeus continues to revert. I have attempted to engage Eusebeus in constructive dialog, have attempted to adjust the wording of the article to make it more comfortable to others, however, he continues to make reverts to remove information which is quite clearly correct. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • One editor versus a number of other editors (myself included) who are asking for WP:RS to substantiate claims. I can ask other editors to revert to avoid 3RR, but this is, in essence, a source dispute and the page should be protected against LJM's edit-warring in the face of multiple editor requests for substantiation. Eusebeus (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As Eusebus points out, this is a content dispute; Lost Josephine Minor attempts to introduce material which is not supported by reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No 3RR violation, as these are spread out over a few days, but it is clearly edit warring between Eusebeus and Lost Josephine Minor, and any more reverts from either is likely to result in blocks. Also, Eusebeus needs to stop using rollback on non-vandal edits or his rollback permissions are likely to be revoked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This shouldn't be characterized as edit warring between two editors. As Michael Bednarek has pointed out the SPA Lost Josephine Minor has repeatedly introduced questionable content. About six or seven different editors have been involved in one way or another (see Talk:Alex_Gregory). --Kleinzach 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Regardless, Eusebeus had been doing way too much reverting for me to ignore in my closing comments. I mention those two not an exclusive list but as the ones doing enough reverting to be worth mentioning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Heimstern Läufer: Leaving aside the details of this particular case, the implication of your view is that any repeated reversions of content, even spaced out over time, are more egregious than including poor content in the encyclopedia. . . . I've recently been involved in a more significant problem elsewhere. Another editor (not involved here) reverted my contributions to two articles. (This involved the other editor removing/changing references to the main reliable source.) I completely abandoned my work on those articles (and on related articles). Judging by the approach here, I must have done the right thing. Social harmony is the most important thing, right? If I had insisted on article accuracy and slowly and judiciously reverted bad content, I would have been reported here and got the usual 'you are equally to blame' treatment, just like Eusebeus. Hmm. --Kleinzach 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Please stop twisting my words. I did not say they were equally to blame. I said both were edit warring. I'm quite willing to say that the one doing the most reverting, which is to say Lost Josephine Minor, is more to blame, but that doesn't mean the other side was guiltless. As for content issues, I am required to maintain neutrality or else I can't be considered an uninvolved editor, so I won't comment on them. Yes, absolutely, content is most important, social harmony is a distant second. If you don't think I know that, ask Future Perfect at Sunrise or Horologium how I railed at ArbCom over their misprioritizing social harmony in ARBMAC2. And I haven't blocked anyone, just given a warning that future activity is likely to result in blocks, though I don't really plan to dish any out. Taking away rollback permissions, that I might do. There's really no excuse for using rollback on non-vandal edits. That's all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. --Kleinzach 06:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:208.233.32.44, User:65.175.251.7 and User:Gabrielkat reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: protected 10 days)[edit]

Page: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.233.32.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 65.175.251.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Last known good version, before this started ...

208.233.32.44 reverting ...

65.175.251.7 reverting ...

Gabrielkat reverting ...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for 208.233.32.44, for 65.175.251.7 and for Gabrielkat

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starts here, but then there's this and then this and this and finally this. Not much talking apparently.

Comments:

Most likely a battle between two users, with one apparently using two IPs (although I don't believe this is intended as sockpuppetry and may simply be the same person editing from two different locations). Edits appear to be focused on a single date, a release date for a particular movie. These two/three editors have been just about the only source of activity in this article recently, and it's getting ugly. I haven't made any changes simply because I'm not sure who's right and who's wrong, but disruptive is disruptive, and this has got to stop. I'm going to request page protection as well until this gets resolved. --McDoobAU93 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 10 days Honestly I would have just blocked both of them, but neither editor has reverted since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [105]

  • 1st revert: [106] straight revert at 21:12
  • 2nd revert: [107] straight revert at 10:32
  • 3rd revert: [108] straight revert at 11:37
  • 4th revert: [109] at 13:25 is a revert of this edit 25 minutes earlier
  • 5th revert: [110] straight revert at 14:30
  • 6th revert: [111] was a straight revert at 19:09, a self revert was made at 19:11 but then WMO went ahead a made the exact same edit with a few of the words rearranged 45 minutes later at 19:57


WMO has been warned about edit warring many times by many editors over the last few days [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

These edits have been talked over on the talk page

Comments:
This is 6 reverts inside 23 hours. It is also worth noting that the user was reported for edit warring on the page Lila Rose 4 days ago. He was let off with a stern warning after declaring his retirement from that page. He has since resumed making reverts on that page.

This is amusing coming from someone who has been blocked for edit warring four times previously, complaining that I undid their edits. The first revert was a revert of actions disruptive to wikipedia, as was the fifth revert. As the notice on the talk page states "Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before." Those were edits made in an area that had substantial discussion over the course of weeks. I was justified in reverting their edits that went against clearly established consensus and therefore disruptive.
The fourth "revert" is not a revert at all, it reworded the whole thing and was not reverting to a previous version.
The sixth revert was a revert that I promtply self reverted, even though not counting reverting disruptive actions, that would have been my third revert against 3RR. As such, even if it wasn't self-reverted, it would have not been a fourth revert. Furthermore, it was not the same edit, I went back to the source and addressed the concerns made.
Is this the fourth or fifth report you've brought against me Haymaker? Last I checked, only one was successful and that one resulted in a block for you as well. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You have been made aware of the dispute resolution process, you have been warned ad nauseum not to edit war even if you think you are right. And since you asked, I have reported you twice in the past for disruptive editing. - Haymaker (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: how about both of you stop it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add, the two actual reverts I did not discuss above, were reverting unilateral changes to the lead which were, in fact, violations of this notice on the talk page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information." The changes were not discussed before being made and a different editor previously removed the editor's attempt to add this information to the lead. Instead of beginning a discussion on its inclusion on the talk page, the user chose to repeatedly insert it, leaving those involved with little choice but to revert it. I think my actions were all completely justifiable, and I'm tired of Haymaker making frivolous reports. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - Never mind both of them stop it - the reported user is continuing along the same lines and if he is again warring he has had plenty of warning and a three day restriction is required, and of course if the reporter is also in violation then the same goes for them - there is a lot of disruption presently in this topic area and violations require edit restrictions of some kind - a topic ban or a WP:1RR one revert restriction will also help reduce the disruption.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - the 3RR does have exclusions, they are listed here. There was no vandalism here, just a difference in opinion (any interested parties can read up on the definition at WP:VAND#NOT, and the essay I personally wrote: WP:Hitler). Haymaker's changes were generally not reversions, they were changes to the existing text. Neither were WikiManOne's changes in the spirit of WP:BRD, as Haymaker's changes were in fact an alteration of the text as WikiManOne wrote it (not a reversion). This does not excuse edit warring on anyone's behalf, and WikiManOne is still welcome to edit this article in the future as a valuable editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Niallo301 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: blocked 1 month)[edit]

Page: Slieve League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Croaghaun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niallo301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • There have been enough 3RRs on this problem. I am reporting it as an edit war.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117] [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes. The editor's talk page is full of warnings, blocks, etc. over his continued edit warring and refusal to provide sources. [119]

Comments: This editor has repeatedly vandalised Slieve League with non-cited materials, Youtube links, and misc other statements. The editor has now moved over into Croaghaun and is doing the same thing there. Already the editor has been blocked for this behavior and yet he/she continues to do it. I have encouraged the editor to learn Wikipedia rules and I have even offered to help put some reliable sources together for the article. Thus far the editor has ignored all attempts at communication and yet he continues to edit the article indiscriminately.

User:McGlockin reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: 24 hr block)[edit]

Page: Disinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McGlockin (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: [link]

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

Comments:Although the user has only three reverts he has been reinserting uncited content, and making personal attacks in calling me a vandal. He is now on four reverts.

He has also made personal attacks on my talk page [126] In again calling me a vandal and accusations of an agenda. Tentontunic (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He has attacked me as well. User seems to have a battleground mentality, a little mentoring might help rather than a block. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Moni3 reported by User:Zarcadia (Result: Protected)[edit]

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Everglades National Park#Linking "U.S. state" or another appropriate venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a perfectly valid edit reverted 3 times as well as 2 messages sent to my talk page. I contest my edits were valid and had no valid reasons for reversion.

The history can be seen here [[127]] Zarcadia (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hey. I was going to report Zarcadia for doing something very stupid in an FA. I was going to format my report properly too, but let's see where this goes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And how long before I change it back under protection if Zarcadia refuses to engage? Shall I just use my own judgment on that? --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Burn the witch Sorry, I mean ban the bitch. There's far too much of this looking after articles you've written going on here. All articles should only be edited by those who are completely ignorant of the subject but have an opinion nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Moni3 - Why is it so hard for you to understand that U. S. State is linked to on numerous articles, why are you so threatened by this encyclopaedic link?! Why do you insist that I don’t engage? Can you give me a reason why we shouldn’t link to U. S. State? Zarcadia (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm threatened by your virility, not the link. There, it just looks very stupid and is completely unnecessary. The number of articles a particular article is linked to--this makes no sense. The only factor in why an article is linked in another article is how relevant that topic is. There is nothing in U.S. state that has any bearing on Everglades National Park and vice versa. We don't link simply because an article is there. --Moni3 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
All this fuss about a wikilink. Lucky for you Vsmith protected the article, locking the entire world out from editing it. I would have blocked you both for edit warring, and let others edit. By the way, see WP:OVERLINKING, specifically the part that says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations...." ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
... and you would have been the typical heavy-handed administrator, with no idea at all about how to deal with even the slightest of content disputes, such as this one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I hardly think a block of a couple hours is heavy handed during an edit war. As a frequent contributor of Wikipedia:Third opinion, I'm disappointed that these two didn't take the dispute there rather than here. Simply making them aware of WP:OVERLINKING would have solved it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Then you're wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that Moni3 was unaware of WP:OVERLINKING? (Thanks for the link BTW, I'd never seen that before myself</sarcasm>). Seriously? The admin way is to find reasons to blame both sides, not to address the problem, which is that one side was unaware of the guidelines. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, your perception of "the admin way" is wrong, sorry. At least, that isn't my way. Protecting an article from disruption can be accomplished several ways: mediation (like 3rd opinion), article protection, blocking. The editors here elected to go down a path that led to protection, that's all. Moni3 seemed aware of WP:OVERLINKING, Zarcadia did not. It's that simple. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I can only assume that you haven't been keeping up, or perhaps you need to go and lie down. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Amatulic, you are wrong. The fuss is not about a wikilink. It's about a featured article. If you do not understand what it is about, write one. Write quite a few, then see how many times you are here. One of these days I'm going to get blocked for stewarding an article I wrote. So be it and amen. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit to add: Zarcadia was made aware of Overlinking by another editor on Zarcadia's talk page. He continued to revert. You didn't check that talk page, did you? --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you please link to that? You'll see I will happily concede if an editor puts forward a good case. You did not. Zarcadia (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, the fuss is about a wikilink in a featured article. I knew that already. You should know better than to engage in an edit war when other dispute resolutions methods are available. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You should know that any FA editor worth his salt will gladly take a block to protect the integrity of content in an article s/he spent weeks or months writing and two more years maintaining. You may think a wikilink is a small thing. If you do, write an FA and see how small it is. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I hold the record there. I was blocked twice within 24 hours for 3RR one TFA day, but I wouldn't do anything differently given my time again.