Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive152

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:213.6.17.166 reported by User:Zakhalesh (Result: blocked 24h)[edit]

Page: Palestinian Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.6.17.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

I tried to reason with the IP and request him/her to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, as I fear their edits are vastly against WP:NPOV. This hasn't been done by the IP, instead they reply with vandalism or other rule breaking accusations. There's a mediation request, courtesy of Soosim, about the dispute concerning the content. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours That fourth revert above isn't really a revert, but I see more than that in the article's history, so I agree this is edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:hauskalainen reported by User:intermittentgardener (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: Independent Payment Advisory Board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: hauskalainen (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: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

While it seems that Hauskalainen is not in technical violation of the 3RR he is definitely edit warring at IPAB. He has been blocked three times in the past for edit warring. Recently, he has been warned by many users to stop his behavior and he keeps on doing what he wants to do while ignoring what other people say. He needs a longer block this time. Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


It is very clear that Interittentgardener is a single purpose account, probably a sock of Jesanj. I have explained all my edits and have used the rules of Wikipedia very clearly. Intermittentgardener has been the subject of a complaint I raised at AN/I in recent times and this is clearly just a "revenge" attack on me. I have received mild threats from user Jesanj by email. Both Jesanj and Intermittentgardener are relatively new accounts focussing on a narrow subject area. I am a long established editor who is used to dealing with editors that attempt to use Wikipedia to insert POV texts relating to health care topics. I edit extensively on topics related to health care reform in the US, health care systems across the world, and more controversial topics such as socialized medicine, death panel and more recently the Independent Payments Advisory Board which is a new body which has yet even to be appointed, but is the subject of a political campaign by opponents of health care reform in the United States. It is clear to me that Intermittentgardener and Jesanj are part of this political campaign and wish to use Wikipedia to spread clearly false information about IPAB. The text I have deleted would be appropriate content for the article about Sarah Palin because it definitely tells us something about her. However, it does not belong at IPAB because it does not reflect WP policy about notability of content and opinion which has to be the opinion of experts and in the mainstream. I accept that Palin is a controversial figure but she is neither an expert in Health care Economics nor even a elected or appointed official of any government. As I have explained at the talk page, it is not enough just to be published in a reliable source to become content at Wikipedia. WP has a higher standard than that. Hauskalainen (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected 1 week. I see two editors in the edit history wanting the Palin material to appear in the article. I see Hauskalainan opposing, backed up by another editor SarekOfVulcan, on the talk page. This is clearly a content dispute with multiple people on each side, not just one editor warring against consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Zakhalesh reported by User:213.6.17.166 (Result: requester blocked, see reverse report above)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [14]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

I tried to reason with the user and request him/her to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and to improve wikipedia by adding more links if he/she thinks that one of them is not that reliable instead of just deleting 60+ sources and references, as I fear their deletion and edits are vastly against WP:NPOV. This hasn't been done by the user, instead they reply with vandalism or other rule breaking accusations.--213.6.17.166 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This is a malformed request. No 3RR warning given to the accused, and the reverts reported are the requester's own reverts. Requester is blocked as the result of a previous report. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by User:Anarchangel (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:14, 29 January 2011 (edit) (undo) Vsmith (talk | contribs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Latest revision as of 03:30, 23 February 2011 Anarchangel

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 22:00, 15 February 2011 McGlockin

Comments:

Disinformation, nominated by Tentontunic, was Kept at AfD. I looked at the Talk page, and found signs of an edit war. McGlockin edited in mainspace contentiously, and his 5RR block was well deserved, but he kept his cool in Talk and made several good points, despite being quite a new editor. Tentontunic, despite his experience and the ongoing AfD he nominated, edited in mainspace contentiously, including removing a good 1/3 of the article, material that had been in the article since at least 2008 and edited meticulously close to the meta-game for Talk: sweeping assertions, report all own grievances, give nothing away. Anarchangel (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not right, the first diff is the addition of an AFD template, how is that a revert? There are three reverts on the 15th and one on those was the result of the discussion on talk about the content sourced to a blog. The content removed was uncited, see the article history. And how is putting this template [20] on my talk page eight days after the fact of any sense? Tentontunic (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Blocks can only be used to prevent current edit-warring and although the definition of current is a grey area, a week old edit-war is not sanctionable. CIreland (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eleassar reported by User:Doncsecz (Result: Malformed report)[edit]

User:Eleassar on end delete the template in the article Prekmurians. The Banat Bulgarians, or the Mexicans, Argentinians, Austrians and few people have template in his article, but this is Bulgarian, Spanish and German ethnic groups. This interview was with writer Evald Flisar in 2007 in a literary magazine: The homeland regards Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders… It is unthinkable for two Prekmurians to speak with each other in anything but Prekmurian. I used to meet the former President of the Republic Milan Kučan at public events quite often. We always spoke Prekmurian, it would have felt odd to use literary Slovenian, since he is from Prekmurje too. Others joked about us, asking why are we so secretive. When I met a compatriot in Australia, Africa or America, we immediately started to talk in our own language. This is our language. And other peoples Feri Lainšček, Franc Kuzmič, Branko Pintarič (all of us intellectual peoples) promulgate the Prekmurian indetity. But Eleassar time and again delete this informations. I'am from Raba March near the Prekmurje and i ken Lainšček, Kuzmič and Pintarič. I have few source from tidings and books, but Eleassar markedly disclaim this sources, all the same this is spell in Slovene language. Some time ago Eleassar want delete the article Károly Doncsecz (1). His argument: An obscure potter. No sources except for what can be found in different wikipedias. Károly Doncsecz or Karel Dončec is for Eleassar unknown, i have approbations, that Károly Doncsecz was notorius, as Slovene president Milan Kučan and Hungarian Árpád Göncz also make a call on Doncsecz and come in for few award. Eleassar not dispose of store of learning but affirm, that this informations is fakes. In the Slovene wikipedia (Prekmurci) never nobody not be shocked at the template, soly Eleassar. Doncsecztalk 07:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, why have you reported me at all? I reverted you after you readded the infobox without any discussion or edit summary. When you again re-added it and provided a rationale in the edit summary and started discussion on the article's talk page, I haven't reverted you.[21] So what's the problem actually? To remove biased and unsourced information after mentioning this on the talk page and getting no feedback? To propose articles for deletion that don't have any source and seem obscure? To remove unbalanced personal opinions (even if attributed to notable people) from the lead? Where have I breached the 3RR policy? I can't take your words for granted, so please cite sources when contributing material. Please, refrain from edit warring. And please, don't add unbalanced opinions, even of notable people, to the lead. --Eleassar my talk 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Malformed report. Please use 'Click here to add a new report' and fill out the expected fields. Considering following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If you are uncertain whether a 1921 source should be used, ask for comments at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sanjay911 reported by User:Shshshsh (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sanjay911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been warned to stop edit warring and was asked to take part in the talk page discussion (Diff). Despite an agreement on the talk page, he keeps reverting the article without further discussion. Has made many reverts already, don't know if enough within 24 hours, but he is now an active edit warrior, and is not willing to stop and discuss. ShahidTalk2me 15:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I took part in the page discussion and were discussing two different subjects. One, about Filmfare and two, about Raavanan's critical and commercial success. I put forth my argument citing about five credible, approved sources claiming what is true. But the user keeps arguing telling they have been taken from Wikipedia, when the fact is they have been there long before Wikipedia came into existence.

His source is the same as mine. His source, from TOI, is dated 1998. But the same TOI has corrected the real winner from what he claims is true to what I know is true. There has been a false representation in the media, which has later been corrected. I asked him to give more sources, but the sources are just a duplicate copy of the original source. I have put forth more than 5 distinct sources, from reputed, trusted journals like TOI, NDTV, Economic Times, The Hindu etc. claiming the same.

There was no response from his side when I put forth an argument about the same, where I even pointed out one of his sources has been duplicated where as the other source from "Daily Excelsior" cannot be trusted. Since there was no response coming from him on this matter, I corrected back the real winner with all my five credible sources while he continued talking about the other issue we were to discuss - the Raavanan crisis.

Thank you.

Sanjay911 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)#

That one user is me and I would like to tell what I feel. The one source by TOI I provided, this one, is straight from 25 April 1999 and covers the entire Filmfare event, mentioning all the winners who were honuored that evening and reports even more. Now this editor claims that TOI was that much stupid and didn't notice the winner that event and falsely stated Kausalya as the winner, and found out 11 (!!!) years later that it was not Kausalya but Aishwarya Rai!! Now ladies and gentleman, decide yourself whose version sound more absurd. All of Sanjay's sources have been from usually reliable and credible sites, agreed, but all his sources were published later than 2008!!! This edit, back in 2006 by some Prince Godfather, who by the way has been blocked since 2007, made Aishwarya the winner of that award then. His previous and subsequent edits prove that he most probably guessed who might have won the award each year, since most his edits are wrong!! Sanjay's sources were all published later and you probably can think from where those sources originated! Of course, it's way easier to find current sources than sources from 1999, when the Internet was hardly in use!!! That Aishwarya won the award, that is the real false representation in the media!!! We are asking Sanjay to provide just one single source from earlier than 2002, which cites that Aishwarya Rai won that particular award in that particular year, but so far he couldn't. Johannes003 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Kausalya winning the award has been misrepresented I believe. That is beacause, only ONE source says she won the award and another source supporting it is the duplicated version of the same source! And the original source is TOI. This was reported way back in 1999. Where as the names of the other recepients' of the awards from the same awards in 1998 have been circulated all over the web (for example, Sarath Kumar's, who was adjudged the Best Actor that year), Kausalya's name is nowhere to be heard. The editor says Kausalya won the award. But that news about her winning has never been heard again. In fact, TOI, and several other reputed journals have already been carrying out facts about Aishwarya winning the award. Even if the other journals turned up to Wiki for the winners, why would TOI come to Wiki for knowing the winner that year? I mean, it was already pre-recorded and archived by their OWN publication about Kausalya winning! This is where I want to point out where the mistake has occurred. Her name was misrepresented in ONE source and has been so for long. That is the exact reason why TOI has been carrying out many articles claiming Aishwarya won the award, eversince, because they corrected to the right winner! And rightly so, even the other credible sources like The Hindu, NDTV, Economic Times, IMDB have done the same. And not just these, many hundreds of articles on the web too contain the same fact. But that one unsorted out article from 1999, as the editor claims is the source of all the trouble and hence so, I wish it to be corrected to the right winner, Aishwarya Rai. Thank you. Sanjay911 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not the content dispute, the issue is the fact that you continued edit warring despite being warned to stop and did not even try to solve it on the talk page. ShahidTalk2me 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 31 hours. Sanjay911 has been edit-warring long term at Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil) (eight reverts since Feb. 17 of what seems to be the same thing). Though he responded here, he did not promise to stop until consensus was found. When he argues that the published sources are wrong, he should get backup from others that his conclusion is correct, and he seems unwilling to wait for that. While all this was going on, he has made a clear-cut 3RR violation by reverting four times on 23 February at Raavanan. This kind of behavior should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Father Santiago reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Father Santiago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] (warning from another editor)

Comments:
Father Santiago has tried to add the same line of criticism to the lead four times in a slow edit war. He has not joined the talkpage discussion. (In addition to the current talkpage thread, there is a recent archived discussion about criticism of the SPLC's finances). The contested info oddly enough appears on his user page. The account appears to be an SPA or possible sockpuppet. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given an unequivocal last warning. This behaviour must stop, but I don't want to chomp down if this is a genuine newbie. His userpage has been deleted under G10 as unsourced and negative, and well, WP:SPI handles sock concerns a lot better than ANEW, for very obvious reasons. Courcelles 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing as stale - no edits for two days, article relatively calm, sufficient discussion on the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Majuru reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Organ theft in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Majuru (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: Diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff on user's page.

Comments:
Here i tried to talk to user, but he/she didn't responded... Also, i informed his that i dont want to edit war, and that he/she shouldn't also. User is mostly editing only this page on wiki, but i dont think that he/she may be problematic or disruptive in bigger scale, so some useful admin assistance may be needed, if i am wrong... As there is some questionable activity on Robert De Niro page. :) The same way of including information per bad You tube video. (in this other De Niro case, misunderstood also.) --WhiteWriter speaks 22:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I note that the 3rr warning was given after the final revert reported above. No disruptive behavior has been evident since then. It is possible that Majaru wasn't aware of the three revert rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing as stale - no edits for two days, article calm for over a day. Please come back if discussion does not resolve this. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Flyboi9 reported by User:Dpmuk (Result: Blocked, 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Family Foundation School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flyboi9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • 1st revert: [28]
  • 2nd revert: [29] (by IP but given similarity in edit comment nearly definitely the same editor logged out).
  • 3rd revert: [30]
  • 4th revert: [31]
  • 5th revert: [32]
  • 6th revert: [33]
  • 7th revert: [34]
  • 8th revert: [35]
  • 9th revert: [36] (again by the same IP)
  • 10th revert: [37]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion on talk page - there's lots so no diff

Comments:
Reporting user for repeated slow motion edit warring. User was blocked on 17 January (after first warning and diffs 6-10 above) and has now continued (diffs 1-5 above despite a second warning). User is attempting to discuss things on talk but this is always combined with reverts to their version on the article. Although slow progress is being made the repeated reverts are becoming disruptive.

Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks CIreland (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous block. The actual article is clearly not neutral and after doing research on this facility, this is clearly a place that is missing content that is extremely relevant and neutral. SMH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.46.63 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:InternetHero reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: InternetHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [38]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43], warned by another editor than myself, who has also been participating in the discussion at the article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:War of 1812#Apparency of the southern theatre being a context for the defeat of Britian's ndn allies

Comments:
An editor with a history of POV pushing and what seems to be trolling has started a campaign at the article in question, War of 1812. He was reverted per BRD and a discussion started at the article talk page. Without even so much as expaining the edit he wanted in any kind of coherent fashion, the editor has proceeded to edit war over his point, which so far none of the rest of us can fathom. I am currently at 3rr myself, so am disengaging. Heiro 05:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And after taunting me on my talkpage for awhile User talk:Heironymous Rowe#Removal of citation, they have now purposefully made a disruptive edit at another page Enriquillo [44], daring me to revert them there. Heiro 06:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks The editor has a prior block history that seems to justify this escalation of block length, although s/he is free to appeal the block. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Fohren reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 36 h)[edit]

Page: Phaistos Disc decipherment claims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fohren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:06, 23 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Comments:
Stubborn inserting of fringe theory sourced to obviously unreliable source. Aggressive ad hominems on talk pages [46], [47], [48]. Fut.Perf. 16:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Courcelles 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


User:GaryColemanFan reported by 3bulletproof16 (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: SummerSlam (1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


  1. 19:42, February 22, 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415420184 by 3bulletproof16 (talk) don't start that crap again")
  2. 07:24, February 23, 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415473263 by 3bulletproof16 - cited below, so no citation is necessary in the lead; it's also an important part of the article summary")
  3. 07:41, February 24, 2011 (edit summary: "the consensus was that such numbers were notable if they were reported by a variety of sources and reliable if they meet the criteria for reliable sources; both apply here, so it stays - added more sources to support notability")
  4. 16:22, February 24, 2011 (edit summary: "you're wrong on all counts; the link isn't broken, Baer and Meltzer are established experts with multiple published works in the field, and WrestleView has been accepted as reliable in an FAC")

Comments: The editor appears to push non-neutral position in article. Cites unreliable sources for in-article commentary regarding a non-notable rumor. A consensus was previously established on the subject issue @ Talk:WrestleMania 23 - a disscusion in which the user also pushed a non neutral position in said article. The editor has yet to respond directly to article concerns on the involved article talk page. --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected 3 days. If I was issuing blocks, I'd have given you both one. You didn't cross the 3RR, but you both were clearly engaged in edit warring, which is sanction-able without crossing 3RR. Since no one else seems to be involved, take it to the talk page, which hasn't seen an edit in six weeks. Courcelles 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:96.50.79.235 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.50.79.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49]


All five of them neatly lined up: Special:Contributions/96.50.79.235


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]


Comments:

  • Note: I have filed a semi-protection request for that page, precisely to stave off persistent POV-pushing (look at this IP's record—this is not an empty accusation) like that. Whether I should have informed Seb az86556 about this is up to him. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I haven't protected the page as the disruption as of late hasn't been too bad, but re-request at RfPP if that changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tincup2684 reported by User:Spril4 (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Robert Ehrlich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tincup2684 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ehrlich&oldid=399366246


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] and user talk page: [59]

Comments: The editor's history includes only edits to this page as indicated at [60]. The majority of these edits consist of removal of sections describing controversies about the article subject which are cited in reputable sources. The editor has refused to explain how the information is repetitive, redundant, outdated, or biased as claimed. Is this board the correct place to report such slow-motion edit wars?

Spril4 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours. Long-term warring to remove well-sourced info that is critical of Robert Ehrlich, a former governor of Maryland. In some cases, the text was removed with a misleading edit summary, calling it 'outdated'. Whether the critical information belongs in the article is up to the consensus of editors. There is no obvious defamation being reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It may not be a coincidence that editor 98.233.175.133 has now blanked the same well-sourced content, calling it "biased and baseless controversy". Best regards, Spril4 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be evasion so I've made the necessary blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:24.147.177.19 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result: PC)[edit]

Page: Rick Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.147.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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


  1. 22:03, 24 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* High-Speed Rail */")
  2. 22:04, 24 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* High-Speed Rail */")
  3. 22:17, 24 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415761646 by Cuchullain (talk) Verifiable, therefore not original research. Article is from FDOT - government agency tasked with accurately assessing impacts")
  4. 22:33, 24 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415765834 by Cuchullain (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments: Tendentious IP editor appearing to push non-neutral position in article. No apparent willingness to seek consensus as noted by commentary on article Discussion page and IP editor's Talk page.

Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment User was warned after the 4th revert, and has discussed the dispute on the talk page since the warning even though the page currently is the version the anon wants. Wait and see. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes protection applied by Jclemens (talk · contribs). Discussion on talkpage seems productive enough, so nothing more to do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Medicineman84 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Somali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Medicineman84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Involved in lengthy discussions with user about his edits on the article's talk page, but to no avail: [62], [63]

Comments:
The user above has repeatedly added original research and synthesis to the article, and stubbornly refused to seek much less obtain consensus for his edits. He has also twice threatened on the article's talk page to take the edits "all the way to the top" (presumably a reference to constant reverting), and at one point indicated [64] that he "can do this for 1000 years if you want". He has in the process well-surpassed three reverts. Another editor has also attempted to discuss matters over with him, but to no apparent effect here either. Middayexpress (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not look good. I have notified Medicineman84 of this AN3 report. I suggest we wait until either (a) he continues to revert or (b) he responds to this complaint. Make a decision if there is no answer by 18:00 UTC on 26 February. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I sound obtuse, but is that comment to not make a decision directed at me or other admins? Middayexpress (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
See my report of Middayexpress. I have made several attempts to discuss and negotiate but, my edits are simply deleted with no discussion. The page in the state Middayexpress has it is incomplete and gives a wrong picture. Alternative views from credible sources are often deleted with impunity under flimsy excuses! Thus, the current state of the discussion has been driven by Middayexpress's arrogance. Middayexpress also has lackeys who are her disciples who view her as a teacher or authority even though from reading her edits her knowledge level with regard to genetics is certainly less than mine. She may have read more on Somali Genetics but, her synthesis of the information seems rather elementary. I have been patient and negotiated in good faith but, my patience has generally paid little dividends. Medicineman84 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We took the time and clearly explained to you what is wrong with the edits you provided. You constantly ignore this and it looks like you reverted again.[65]. Wadaad (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - After brief review, I'm having difficulty grasping the content dispute, but Medicineman84 seems to be the more aggressive editor here. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked No comment on whose sources are better or when various haplogroups diverged. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Medicineman84 (Result: redundant)[edit]

Page: Somali people (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: [66]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people/Archive_3

The user has created a deceptive page were some information is excluded while others are included. All I have simply done is included all information and set a standard of using peer reviewed sources. I created a page which reflects the full information with sources from top level scientific journals and they were deleted immediately. Often without reading. The user then decided to prematurely report me as a way to suppress discussing the issue. This to me is the peak of arrogance and disrespect. IF you follow the talk page it becomes apparent that I have been willing to negotiate and compromise but, constant threats and immediate deleting of info I have added has been the norm. The page in its current state is more correct than previous versions. Medicineman84 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC) -->

This isn't a 3RR violation, please check the times between those edits. However, your edits are a clear 3RR violation as they were within 24 hours[71]. Read the rules, cheers.Wadaad (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing with reporter blocked as part and parcel with the symmetric report above. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

122.151.252.213 reported by User:Tintor2 (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: L (Death Note) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.151.252.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Constant addition of wp:non free content and reverts against guidelines:

I tried contacting such user, but he did not respond to my messages and keeps adding such material.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently that user reverted the article again, but not to add more non-free material[76], just change its position.Tintor2 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 48 hours. Long-term warring by an IP who does not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [77]

  • 1st revert: this edit at 20:08 is the removal of the sentence added by JohnAlbertRigali a day earlier
  • 2nd revert: this edit at 20:22 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
  • 3rd revert: this edit at 12:34 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
  • 4th revert: this edit at 13:07 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it
  • 5th revert: this edit at 22:09 is the reversion of the edit immediately proceeding it


User has been warned about 3RR violations in the past.

Comments:
Pretty standard 3RR violation. - Haymaker (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I do get four reverts (not five), but over a 26 hour period. It may be edit warring, but given the last revert was 14 hours ago, a block is useless here. Courcelles 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to flog a dead horse but the first diff is the undoing of JAR's edit. Isn't that the definition of a revert? - Haymaker (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Every time on your diffs is wrong... I can't make sense of them, so I'm looking at the article history instead. Roscelese's edits of 0208 and 0212 UTC 24 Feb. are debatable, are they reverts or clean-up? JAR's edit rearranged external links, not adding any. Later removing two of them is not a revert, which is all her 0212 edit did, and 0208 appears to be minor copyediting. Courcelles 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, in the first diff above she also removed the text that he included, specifically the contested phrase "He was a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement at the time of his death.". - Haymaker (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
22:09 is also not a revert, it's a wording change and cleanup. (I doubt the IP actually meant to put that fragment floating around in there, because that would be a silly edit. I just assumed it was a draft for the text zie inserted in that same edit, and that zie forgot to remove it.) Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Along with the upper paragraph text that you modified, you reverted, in part or in whole, the work of another editor. Seeing as it wasn't vandalism I don't see why it wouldn't could as a revert. - Haymaker (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
On the side issue of times, Haymaker may have set his preferences to report something besides UTC. For purposes of communicating with other, it's almost mandatory to use UTC. Alternatively, offset from UTC should be indicated.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:118.148.134.43 reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Aryan Vaid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 118.148.134.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84] and [85]

Comments:

The IP user began discussing on User Talk:Managerarc ending with a veiled threat of legal action, claiming to be Vaid himself. I informed the user of the legal threat process User Talk:118.148.225.24 and submitted a report via email to en-q.

I moved the contentious material to the talk page for discussion, however the new IP began reverting today and was warned on their talk page User talk:118.148.134.43 - protection requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Aryan Vaid. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Shii reported by User:Wikiwatcher1 (Result: reporting party blocked)[edit]

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

This is an attempt to again prevent an edit war by an editor who justifiably feels he is coated with Teflon. Samples of unjustified reverts, from most recent to earlier ones:

Most recent diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] On Jan. 21, he was warned "Your obsessive edit warring may have to go to ANI," and User:Shii responded, "Feel free to take it to ANI, . . " After responding to his edit war a few days ago, I got pulled into a 3RR scenario for which I was blocked, although User:Shii amazingly received no censure, which probably explains why he feels so casual about his disruptive behavior. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am enforcing the consensus reached on the talk page by everyone except Wikiwatcher1. I already used the 3O and RFC processes. There was no disagreement with me, yet Wikiwatcher1 continues to revert. If anyone disagrees that there is a consensus I invite them to engage in the discussion themselves. Shii (tock) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree this looks like a rather blatant case of a single editor edit-warring stubbornly against a well-founded consensus by everybody else. I have blocked the reporting party, Wikiwatcher1, for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Fut.Perf. 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mjs2010 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:24 hours )[edit]

Page: One Tree Hill (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mjs2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [87]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

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

Comments:

No attempt has been made by the editors to discuss the issue on the talk page, but User:Mjs2010 has been restoring unsourced content and reverted two different editors, so this should have been a clear sign to desist. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Editor has reverted again despite being informed of this case being filed: [93] Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
How would you know? You dont even contribute to the One Tree Hill articles? How would you know how we do things? HUH?
An admin also removed it. I will contact the admin to see if there was a reason.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both user and anon for 24 hrs Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist reported by Ken keisel (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Shirtwaist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 00:37, 27 February 2011 (edit)]

  • 1st revert: [Revision as of 23:15, 26 February 2011 (edit)]
  • 2nd revert: [Revision as of 00:21, 27 February 2011 (edit)]
  • 3rd revert: [Revision as of 00:21, 27 February 2011 (edit)]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [:::::::::::I still haven't found my copy of Angel's book, but I did find a similar reference on p. 168 of Piers Bizony's book, where he refers to Kubrick personally selecting the fabric for the costumes and furnishings. I'm also noticing that this secttion is quickly becoming the most reference laden section in the whole article, largely due to one individual adding citation tags, even in mid-sentence, to sentences that are already tagged at the end. If the same standards were applied to other sections this article would have hundreds of citation tags for all the unreferenced material that is contained elsewhere. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Page 168 is the very last page of Bizony, and only has a sketch of Kubrick beside a camera on it. There is no mention at all in Bizony of furnishings that I can find. As for the tags, see WP:verifiability, it's one of the pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. This article underwent a peer review a while ago to find out what it needed to bring it to FA status, and one of the results of that review was that the article had too many unsourced statements. Your adding an entire unsourced section to it, then complaining that it was removed, does not help this situation. I suggest that in future, you become more familiar with your sources and cite them properly (such as providing page numbers so we know what you're referencing) before adding information to WP articles. Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Shirtwaist- If you have Angel's book handy, look for a b&w photo of Kubrick holding up one of the conference room glasses and studying it. I believe the text was with the photo. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no such photo or text in Agel, as I told you before. I suggest you remove the info and ref in question until you find a source that supports it. If you don't, I will.Shirtwaist (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you ever check before making threats? I ammended the passage earlier, and announced the change two paragraphs up. Suggest you read more carefully. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I did, which is why I told you there is nothing in Bizony about furniture on p.168 or anywhere else. This kind of bad faith editing is frowned upon by the admins, and if it continues, you will be reported to them.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, you're a little late, I reported you about an hour ago. I can't help it if your copy of the book is abridged. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

]

Comments:



3RR violation by Ken keisel:


Note: One of the reverts Ken keisel is counting as part of the 3RR complaint was an undo of my own revert, which was done because I failed to include an edit summary in the first edit. Undoing my own edit allowed me to add a summary, and was not a revert of Ken keisel's edit. I explained this in the second edit. Why the undo of my own edit didn't show up in the edit history is unknown to me. This undo revert should not be counted as part of a 3RR vilation.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for one day. There was definitely edit warring going on at that article, but also productive editing. There is plenty of discussion at the talkpage, though it would be a good idea keep the mood a bit more collegial. I do not think that at present this would be best resolved by blocking anyone, but neither do I want to stifle productive editing. Please resolve this question at the talkpage before restoring or removing the material. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange might find another editor with access to the sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Shatnertrek reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: Not an edit warring issue)[edit]

Page: Monroe-Woodbury High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shatnertrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [99]

  • 1st revert: [100]
  • 2nd revert: [101]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:
This editor has not technically reached three reversions and has made, IMO, at least one constructive edit. However, adding a spurious source in an effort to bolster their content after being apprised that their previous source was lacking, combined with their complete lack of discussion proves to me that this user will not stop. Tiderolls 07:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - No vio. Maybe its a nuance I'm missing but I don't see why NJ.com isn't a reliable source. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The cited source is relating events in a New Jersey school. Monroe-Woodbury High School is in New York. Tiderolls 09:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Nothing here resembles 3RR. Also, new users should be warned with either {{uw-3rr}} or a personally written message that at least directs them towards the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy and informs them of the three revert rule. --B (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Passionless reported by User:B (Result:Blocked)[edit]

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

Under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, Passionless "is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces" (almost all the way at the bottom of the page under 2011). And even if he were not, 1RR is in place for all Israel-related articles anyway. And even if they were not, the edits are highly tendentious. --B (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and discretionary sanctions imposed. Courcelles 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a point of information, I did not realize when I reported this here that two of the three reverts were of a banned user. I still think it's clearly tendentious editing and I doubt he knew that the user was banned, but I at least feel it should be noted here for consideration that two of the reverts were of a banned user. --B (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Largeother reported by User:B (Result: Indef block as a disruptive WP:SPA)[edit]

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

This is a new user, but in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies, all Israel-related articles are subject to 1RR and users may be blocked on a first offense without warning. (There is an edit notice in the article that serves as a warning). --B (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Indef blocked as a disruptive WP:SPA and possibly a sock account. Dreadstar 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't even think about it that that's who it was. --B (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:93.19.187.248 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page: Monolith (Space Odyssey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.19.187.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:53, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Asking for a source for such thing is retarded since it's a typical ingame content without official recognition, and screenshots may be find on any image search engine.")
  2. 21:04, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Happy now? Until we need to search for another one again since it's a typical non-perennial source.")
  3. 21:05, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* In popular culture */ Cleaning my mess.")
  4. 21:27, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 416438296 by Yworo (talk) Either remove the video games line entirely to be coherent, or stop being an harrassing admin. Thank you. Added a perennial source for your great pleasure.")
  5. 22:18, 28 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "It's not a random blog, it's the Joystiq magazine website. Also, please read the discussion page and stop abusing your administrator powers.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Notes: 2 & 3 are a series of edits. Editor has four times restored a trivia item removed on December 31, the last three time with different, but not adequate, citation. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked - I only count three reverts and, in any event, at the ANI thread, the IP user promised to stop. --B (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jyusin reported by Kintetsubuffalo (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Template:Libya topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Public Scout and Girl Guide Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jyusin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Because of events in Libya, changes to the template are natural. But User:Jyusin, who has been warned for years about lack of edit summaries, lack of discussion and collaboration with other editors, and using the talkpages of articles to discuss his changes, is mass changing Libya-related articles and edit-warring when reverted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


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:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - several things here: (1) you twice reverted the user's changes without explanation using rollback. That is grounds for removal of the tool. You have been warned about this before. [109] (2) If a user makes a change that you disagree with, try discussing it with them. At least if you're going to revert it, give a reason. See WP:BRD. Just reverting them using the vandalism revert tool is NOT going to solve the problem. (3) Nothing here remotely constitutes edit warring on Jyusin's part. --B (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: John Hunyadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch |