Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive154

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Nmate (result: indef)[edit]

Page: Hungary–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  1. 16:23, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420310534 by CoolKoon; This article refers to the realtion bteween Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic. (TW))")
  2. 16:48, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 420511934 by Iaaasi; content does not fit here. (TW)")
  3. 16:59, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "I've explained to you very clearly, if you continue I'll file a reportReverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))
  4. 22:44, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")
  5. 10:36, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW))")
  6. 10:42, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Koalicio (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Iaaasi. (TW)")


Familiarity with 3RR : [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3][4] These are my attempts to explain why this content obviously does not fit here. The second diff is a link to my comment, consequently my attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. I was not reverting-without-talk (Iaaasi (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Comments:

The user is willing to discuss edits without wanting to adhere to the 3RR rule as has also recently been blocked for a whole week for a violation of 3RR.[5] Also, it is important to note that the user had already been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing from which got a second chance for the return.[6]--Nmate (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism does not count as a revert in an edit war. It is an obvious vandalism, User:Koalicio was even warned by the admin User:Anthony Bradbury for that: "one more vandalism edit will result in your being blocked from editing". It is a clear explanation on the talk page why the respective text does not fit in the article. I invite the admins to see it, because it is an obvious inappropriate addition (Iaaasi (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Unhelpful discussion
No, It was not. And Iaaasi and two users, User:Koalicio and user:CoolKoon are in a dispute over content. And Iaaasi clearly reverted both opponents in a content dispute 6 times within a period of 24 hour. Admin Anthony Bradbury expostulated that the user deleted the vandalism warning from his/her own talk page but have not checked that the warning for vandalism whether was justified or was not. To which the user answered here: [7] --Nmate (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. Anthony Bradbury was referring to Koalicio's vandalism on articles, which included unexplained removal of referenced text on John Hunyadi article. Removing warnings on your own page is not vandalism WP:OWNTALK (Iaaasi (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
Well, you've just confirmed yourself then that it has nothing to do with the Hungary-Slovakia relations article then. Nice job ;) CoolKoon (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
He was warned for both articles (Iaaasi (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
You seem to be doing it again. Someone has appeared who doesn't share your POV, opinion etc. so you've marked him/her as a vandal and try to get rid of him, right? In the process you've managed to call basically my addition a vandalism. Do you intend to call any other editors who assert on putting my chapter back into the article "vandals" too? Also you've cynically marked the content restoration of user Koalicio as vandalism and deleted it several times as a minor edit. It should be obvious to you after years of editing and sockpuppeteering that the "minor edit" flag was NOT meant to be used in such way. It's for marking edits that fix typos, grammar mistakes, syntax errors etc. in short minor edits. Removing a whole chapters on claims of "vandalism" has very little to do with "minor edits".
Your argumentation is also cynical and illogical to say at least. You seem to assert that relations between Slovaks and Hungarians did not exist before 1993, which is outright absurd. In order for someone to understand the tensions between Hungarians and Slovaks one must dive into the common history of both nations. You on the other hand either don't seem to comprehend this, don't want to comprehend this, or don't want the article to be comprehensive at all. Either of the answers is quite sad and makes one question your motives and the fact whether you assume good faith. Still, I don't think that this is the right place to argue about this, so I don't want to discuss it any further. CoolKoon (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please read the lead of the article: "the foreign relations between the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic". Slovak Republic did not exist before 1993. God, why is so difficult to understand this? I've already explained that you must create the article Hungary–Czechoslovakia relations‎ on the model of the couple Czechoslovakia–Poland relations and Poland–Slovakia relations. It is like writing about the beer Heineken Hungária in the article about Hungarian wine and asking: "What is wrong? Because it is a Hungarian drink brand". Are you doing this on purpose? (Iaaasi (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
And are YOU removing well-sourced content on purpose? Besides, considering your edit history and your attitude it's likely that even if I'd create the Hungary-Czechoslovakia relations article (which IMHO still has nothing to do with the anti-Hungarian sentiments present in the first Czechoslovak republic) that you'd be tempted remove it from there or remove a link from Hungary-Slovakia relations article which'd point to it. I don't think there's any point in taking guarantees from a disruptive editor anyway... CoolKoon (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I never said that it is not well-sourced content, I just said this is not the appropriate article. You assume bad faith, but that is not something new. If you want to write "anti-Hungarian sentiments present in the first Czechoslovak republic", why don't you add that text to the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment or First Czechoslovak Republic?(Iaaasi (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
I rarely ever assume bad faith. I've only seen your (and your sockpuppets') "deletionist" edits over at the John Hunyadi article. I'm not sure how to put it for you to comprehend, but the section I've added is a historical one. It deals with history of Hungarians' cohabitation with Slovaks and tries to shed some light on the reasons Hungary-Slovakia relations deteriorated so much during Fico's rule. I know it's hard for you to imagine, but someone who knows nothing about the struggles, wrongdoings and grievances that plague the Carpathian basin with all the nations living in it, would be unable to comprehend/interpret the reasons behind these tensions. You know well as much as I do that this article is still little more than a more detailed stub. It lists some events and facts, but nothing about the fact that why the relations of Hungarians with Slovaks are what they are. However by removing new additions to the article you make it impossible for anyone to develop it into a better article (including myself who planned to add some more information to it as well). Besides, did you make any notable contributions to the article? So far the only thing you've seeming done was deleting parts which you deemed "inappropriate". Fortunately there are very few like you otherwise Wikipedia would only have a few dozen articles, not millions. CoolKoon (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
@Nmate When did you last do a constructive edit to an article (adding text + reference)? You have a clear battlefield mentality and all what you do is making reports against others (Iaaasi (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC))
So when you run out of arguments in support of your deeds you resort to ad hominem attacks and arguments that have nothing to do with the nature of the report nor the article? When you look into the mirror, do you like what you see? CoolKoon (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On a semi-related note: please stop adding additional content to your posts after you hit the "Save page" button or label them as such. It's really annoying to get in constant edit conflicts because of these actions and it makes some of the replies look awkward too. Why don't you just gather your thoughts carefully, look up all the links/article names carefully and post your reply ONLY after you have all the details in place? CoolKoon (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To show you that I am a flexible user who seeks dispute resolution, I've opened a thread at WP:ECCN (Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Fine, I'm always open to discussion and I'm sure the other editors are too. Still, I don't think you should get away with engaging into an edit war with two editors. CoolKoon (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgh, that is really ugly edit-warring, and the later reverts falsely label the content that is being removed as vandalism. Considering that Iaaasi has been previously blocked indefinitely for similar disruption and was only unblocked upon the condition of good behavior ([8]), I am reimposing the indefinite block as a normal admin action. In view of his previous WP:DIGWUREN warning ([9]), I am also imposing the following restriction to take effect in the unlikely event that the block is ever lifted: In application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Iaaasi is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe. A "revert" is any action that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part, as explained at WP:EW.  Sandstein  15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:GoetheFromm (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [10]

This user has a history of edit warring, on June 2010, April 2010, Dec 2009, Sept 2009. Also, it was made clear, by user Sean.hoyland [16] earlier today that "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

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

<[[17]]> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Hope I did this correctly, GoetheFromm (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the first and second reverts are the same. The others are distinct. I don't believe GoetheFromm understands this policy or many Wikipedia policies. Instead, as you can see on this talk page for Talk:Miral, s/he is flaming other editors and clearly not assuming good faith by labeling certain editors "pro-Zionist" and thereby rejecting their contributions that are well based on Wikipedia policy. I would like that behavior to stop and this faulty incident report seems to be a part of that behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the two similar reverts I made were before the WP:1RR restriction were placed on the page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that if you read wikipedia policy on 3RR, that ANY revert within a 24 span is subject to 3RR violation! GoetheFromm (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, I invite you to show me where I labelled someone and dismissed their contributions as a result! I expect an apology if you are wrong in your implication. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
1) All my edits aren't even reverts. 2) You characterized BioSketch as a "pro-Zionist" and belittled his/her edits on the page by unfairly implicating they were a product of ideology, when there was no evidence to do so. Not cool. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
1) Yes, I believe the edits that I've brought up are reverts as per wikipolicy, 2) You are not BioSketch and I was not belittling his edits (other users and admins can support this). 3) You have had past experiences of edit warring and your behavior on the Miral page is borderline, if not certainly, editwaring (hence the purpose of the inquiry) GoetheFromm (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for that apology....GoetheFromm (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

<- I'm not an admin. I can't put 1RR restrictions in place on articles. That restriction was already in place on the article because 1RR already applies to "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" whether the templates are there or not. Anyone who edits regularly in the I-P topic area will already know that because the templates are on a almost 800 articles. I added the headers to theMiral article because the article had been missed and GoetheFromm does not edit regularly in the I-P topic area and so cannot be expected to know about the restrictions in place. He is aware on them now. Having said all that, it would be much better if things were resolved on the talk page rather than through edit warring, name calling and noticeboards. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Protected three days. It is advisable to use this time to discuss the open issues on the talk page, and try to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:SayHiWorld reported by User:Truthsort (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

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

Last version since the user started editing: [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [27][28][29]

Comments:
Constant edit warring from the User:SayHiWorld since March 22. It started when he wanted to add the POV term "flip-flopped" based on two separate facts. The source did not directly say it and it was essentially his own personal analysis. Since then, the user has been adding self-published sources into the biography in order to justify his addition of using the term. However, I explained to the user that self-published sources were not allowed in BLP's. He ignored what I said and kept adding it. Furthermore, he is misinterpreting what sources are saying which I have explained to him on this talk page. He has added his own original research again by characterizing quotes he has made as "extreme" and misinterpreting a comment he made on "climategate" as meaning he denied climate change. As I previously said, he ignores my comment and continues reverting to add the content in. Truthsort (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for severe edit-warring to include unsourced (or unreliably sourced) negative content in a WP:BLP.  Sandstein  07:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:98.119.162.85 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result:2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Cannibal & the Headhunters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.119.162.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments: This has been a repeating pattern going back several weeks - the user has been repeatedly warned on his/her talk page, with no response. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of IP users reported by User:DileepKS69 (Result: semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Kochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP Users 59.92.x.x, 218.186.x.x, 218.248.x.x


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kochi&curid=56274&diff=420774500&oldid=420771506

Two qualifying claims about the airport was there on the page for a long time. It is removed by editor User:Samaleks. Solid proof for those statements was provided on the Talk Page by myself. No response was given by any editor. Several IP addresses started to continually remove the information, without coming to talk page. The intention is to remove the information, despite the solid proof provided.

This tactics of using IP edits and avoiding discussion has become a standard procedure by the editors who want to push a POV. The recommended methods of dispute resolution breaks down in these situations. Playing by the rules by refraining from reverting those edits would only encourage such malicious tactics. A semi-protection forcing edits by registered users seems to be the only way to restrict this behaviour.

DileepKS(talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semiprotected for a month to stop the absolutely confusing edit war about what seems like a trivial point among the IPs.  Sandstein  19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:89.40.216.246 reported by Anonimu (talk) (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: 1941 Odessa massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.40.216.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

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

  1. 23:38, 25 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420708095 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate.")
  2. 12:25, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420741377 by Biruitorul (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!).")
  3. 13:21, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420803339 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!!)")
  4. 15:48, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420808710 by Dahn (talk) Previous edit was politically motivated to support a forum debate (again!!!)")
  5. 17:23, 26 March 2011 (edit summary: "Please consider the content as valid (and stop this nonsense) as this subject is still under scrutiny and has yet to be decided over the accuracy of the figures presented. Better leave both sides displayed for the sake of pervasive information. thx")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:
IP adds revisionist material to the article, trying to diminish the importance of one of the largest massacres that took place during the Holocaust, massacre acknowledged even by the government of the perpetrating country. Considering the version reverted to was added by a different IP, a semi-protection may be needed too. Anonimu (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and semiprotected for a month. No matter what one thinks about the content changes, the removal of external links, categories etc. is clear vandalism.  Sandstein  19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Gharr reported by User:Sloane (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [38] this is the first edit by User:Gharr which started the edit war, this is the original another user reverted to [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for previous edit war: [44], warning giving out by User: Gharr to another user on current edit war: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
The edit war largely consists of User:Gharr making changes to the article for which no consensus exists among the other editors. He seems to refuse calmly talking them through. His reverts have been conducted over a long than 24 hour period (41 hours), but the behaviour seems pretty blatant. Note that there's broader problems with the user's behaviour, documented at this very long thread at ANI (ironically started by himself). --Sloane (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This guy/girl called User:Sloane has no case, I did not make any 3 edits reverts withing a span of 24 hours. This user is simply trying to intimidate me. User:Sloane also gave me a generalized 3RR tag previously that Wikipedia states as being aggressive:
  • The rules on issuing a 3RR tag are clear “see Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive." This links to the tag User:Sloane used: straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me--this type of warning is clearly aggressive in nature and he/she should not have used it.
  • I consider this action to be an aggressive attempt at continuing to “hounding me” by striking back at me for saying that the use of this aggressive 3RR tag together with with the history of a BLP incident in the past—that I believe involved his friend User:OpenFuture—was the reason behind why he/she is “hounding me.” You can check out my complaint about User:Sloane here: Complaint made to Administrators (assuming it has not been moved into archives yet, but it was active at the time User:Sloane made this complaint).
  • Incidentally, User:OpenFuture and a new person who turned up suddenly called User:Edward321 are the people who have been reverting my edits. User:Sloane seems to be kindly stepping in on behalf of his/her friend User:OpenFuture while also continuing his task of hounding me.
  • I also feel offended that this user is trying this without checking the facts. Perhaps User:Sloane was expecting you to make an error in the time calculations, but that would be dishonest and taking advantage of this place for the purpose of threatening me to back down on my complaint to administration. --(Gharr (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
Gharr, there are 4 reverts, done by you, within a 24-hour period. I doubt you'll be let out on the template technicality, especially since you've accused others on violating the 3RR and thus should be very aware of the policy. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, for the record, as I stated above, the reverts happened over a 41-hour period, instead of a 24-hour period. But that obviously doesn't excuse the edit warring.--Sloane (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh, you're right. I really need a new set of eyes. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
[Statement from you own user page] Zakhalesh:
  • "I am Zakhalesh. I've got nothing to hide but I prefer to keep some obscurity as I don't want any "real" problems arising from conflicts with the people I oppress."
  • "Although my edits may seem genuine and even friendly, I have several disgusting plans for Wikipedia. Remember to treat me as you would treat any online terrorist, as I will do my best to prevent you from learning the truth."
"Nice sense of humor you have there;" I wouldn't worry about your error, "since they will get better at taking down their prey now that you have let them practice." --(Gharr (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
Gharr, that does not belong in 3RR noticeboard, and if you weren't trying to find anything to use against me, you'd probably sense the irony, if not from the text itself, from the links. I seriously urge you to stop attacking other editors. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
However, I taste some sweet irony in the fact that it is you who take that seriously. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I dropped a mention on Gharr's reply to the ANI thread. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 24 hours. A typical edit by Gharr seems to be this one. It takes opinions which are cited to Fresco and expresses them like they are simple matters of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. This violates WP:NPOV, which doesn't always lead to a block, but when accompanied with edit warring, it's hard to defend. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:98.238.238.238 reported by User:milonica (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Revenge of the Nerds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.238.238.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:
I have noticed this apparent edit war pop up in my watch list over the past few days. Although the IP editor may be acting in good faith, he/she is actively changing the article the same way each time. Multiple editors have reverted the edits but IP continues to change it. This subject was already discussed on the talk page, but I'm afraid no consensus was reached. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! • 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No 3RR here, obviously; the edits are spaced over a month. I see no edits after the warning, either - that's kind of the point of the warning. Keep working on a consensus on the talk page, but I'm not sure if any administrative action will help here. Kuru (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by User:Igny (Result:no violation)[edit]

Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Reported by: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring/3RR warning diff: [59]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page diff: N/A has a long history of edit-warring. Failed to follow the BRD procedure many times

What a big fat lie. There are but three reverts on that article. And one of those ought not count due to IGNY moving the article without consensus knowing full well it was contentious. Tentontunic (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:

I am hoping the administrator who looks at this report looks properly, there are not five reverts there at all, IGNY is being dishonest here. Edits done one after another with no other editor editing between does not count as a revert. As IGNY is no doubt aware. Tentontunic (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I only count three reverts (the three successive edits count as one). Yes, even reverts which undo "contentious" edits/moves will count; those are the kind we'd like to avoid the most. It may be a good idea not to skirt around the edges, and move any further discussion to the talk page. Kuru (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

131.156.211.10 reported by User:Rusted AutoParts[edit]

Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 131.156.211.10


Clean version: unvandalized version.


IP has been hopping and refuses to understand Wikipedia guidelines. Revert profile: 1, 2, 3, 4.



Comments:
The IP has been warned that he was reverted. I cannot see why he refuses to add a source or acknowledge this is trivia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:38 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Airplaneman (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Markelmitchell reported by User:Dan56 (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: 51/50 Ratchet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Markelmitchell (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:Since this user has made similar unconstructive edits to numerous WP:Albums articles, and has ignored any attempt to talk to him (see user talk page) this is not about the individual article. But the user did slip up here. He has been blocked once before for being non-responsive and his disruptive editing.

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for nothing. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Avanu (Result: malformed report)[edit]

Page: Swedish diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other pages are relevant to the discussion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_diaspora&curid=17379619&diff=421088211&oldid=421087198

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&curid=30941449&diff=421093828&oldid=421092312

For example, a recent revert of a single quotation by two unrelated editors in the lead paragraph has led the reported editor to call it an edit war, rather than simply addressing the reasoning for the quote in the Talk page.

User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user is consistently avoiding consensus discussions in favor of BOLD editing. This might be fine, but I feel it might be occasionally crossing the line into disruptive editing. This user makes literally hundreds of changes to Wikipedia a day, and boldly moves on, but it would be nice if they would stop when questioned to simply give a rationale for their actions. It strikes me as not in line with fair play to simply push others aside in favor of making major adjustments to the encyclopedia.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User failed recently to respond to a complaint regarding their behavior regarding calling other editors "Essjay". My feeling is that the editor will continue to ignore comments, and so I will place a notice on their Talk page, but I would rather see other editors review and resolve this.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: The editor seems to be now involved in Wikipedia:Canvassing in an attempt to 'win' the argument of whether their edits are proper or not. So far this still has not been in line with simply asking for opinions, but again is being phrased as "edit war". To me, it appears designed to again promote their POV on articles.

04:13, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Aristophanes68 ‎ (top)

04:10, 28 March 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Sharktopus ‎ (→Diaspora edit war: new section) (top)

Content of canvassing: It looks like the diaspora edit war has heated up again. Would you look at Swedish diaspora and help decide whether the quote should stay or go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Without diffs of the reverts constituting the alleged edit war, the situation cannot be evaluated.  Sandstein  05:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not the person calling it an edit war. I am responding to the tone of what Richard Arthur Norton himself is calling it, and the pattern of rolling over the community in the edits. I guess really I am asking for assistance before it begins to escalate into something further, and since first encountering Mr. Norton, the general attitude has been one where he seems unwilling to stop and actually discuss his actions, and more of a person who simply changes things and moves on, and others are left to pick up the pieces.
  • As far as "complete diffs", I'm not sure without going through dozens of edits how to present a cohesive picture of what is occuring in general. The article link and the diff I provided at the beginning is the one that Mr. Norton recently called attention to as an "edit war", rather than simply addessing other editors in a community fashion.
  • I would ask you to reconsider this decision to simply say 'malformed report', and give me some idea of how to proceed if this is incorrect. I am really just looking for Mr. Norton to act as a community partner, not as a singular, driven editing machine. -- Avanu (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the complaint is about RAN's characterization of certain situations as an "edit war", a characterization that Avanu disputes. If so, then this is something that should be worked out between RAN and Avanu, or, if RAN is somehow acting disruptively, be reported to a suitable venue such as WP:ANI. This board is for dealing with ongoing edit warring. If you think that there is no edit war then there's nothing for us to address. T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My mistake then. At the time I filed this, my impression was that RAN was beginning an edit war, and has characterized the edits as such with 2 other editors on their Talk pages in order to enlist their aid in pushing his POV. I have explained further at User_talk:Sandstein and he also advised me to go down the WP:DE route with this. I really don't want to make a huge issue of this, but I am a big believer in community and mutual support of editors, and it seems from my research and experiences that RAN is typically more apt to act unilaterally. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: no violation; self reverted)[edit]

Page: Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [60]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] This ought not be needed, Igny made a spurious report here on myself, and then proceeded to break 3r himself to edit war in a POV tag. This is not the first time he has done this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

Igny has persistently edit warred this POV tag into the article. This is not the first time, nor I fear will it be the last. I am unsure if moving the article without consensus is a revert, if not then he has but four. Tentontunic (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


I am unsure this meets a full-blown edit war status (it hits 4RR only because of the attempted move) - I am more concerned that [68] (moved Occupation of the Baltic states to Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states over redirect: move per talk) evinces a unilateralist philosophy which is contrary to consensus building in any case (having noted that nothing remotely near consensus existed for the move). Collect (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This move was not unilateralist. As the discussion on the talk page demonstrated, numerous sources and arguments have been provided from both sides. I would say, the prerequisite for this edit war was created by Peters, who attempted to close the RfM[69], a step he could not do, as Lothar explained here[70]. Although I see no any gross violation in this Peters' step (he definitely genuinely believed he could do that), the same step made later by Tentontunic few days later[71] was a more severe violation: he was informed by me about incorrectness of the removal of the tag by involved users[72], and, nevertheless preferred to ignore my advice to self-revert. Therefore, per WP:BOOMERANG the most correct solution would be to direct sanctions against Tentontunic. BTW, it will be not the first, and even not the second block in the recent Tentontunic's block history. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul's attempt to blame Peters' RM closure as a cause is a misrepresentation and may be a breach of WP:HONESTY, Peters' good faith closure has absolutely nothing to do what so ever with Igny's disruptive behaviour, as is demonstrated by Igny also removing the RM tag[73]. I note that a totally uninvolved editor has noticed Igny's disruptive behaviour and reported him to ANI[74], some action needs to be taken here. --Martin (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I do not blame Peters in anything, I just explain what the Lothar's position was: an involved user cannot close the RfM. After Peters has been explained, the issue was easily resolved. Again, I see no serious violation from the Peters' side (who genuinely believed he had a right to close the discussion, which, in his, (and in my) opinion became dormant), and I expect Martin to withdraw his odd accusation. In any event, by this step Peters unintentionally renewed the discussion over renaming, which, despite a visibility of dormantness, appeared to be not completely resolved.
Interestingly, another step that lead to escalation was a unilateral change of the sidebar's title by Martin[75] That has been done without any discussion, and the need of this step was questioned by others (see talk page). Therefore, although I see no traits of edit warring in these Martin's actions, he definitely contributed into the development of the conflict, and, therefore, this his comment is somewhat hypocritical.
However, all of that are just minor details. The reality is as follows (I reproduce it again below):
"Tentontunic removed the RfM tag[76], the step, he, being an involved user, could not do. After the issue has been explained to him[77], he refused to self-revert. This[78] is a proof that he has read my post. This[79] is a proof that he was an involved user by the moment he de facto closed RfM. This[80] is a proof that he removed a POV tag despitre the fact that the thread named "POV issues" is still active on the talk page[81]. Therefore, despite the fact that Tentontunic made just three reverts:
  1. [82]
  2. [83]
  3. [84],
by these three reverts he removed the POV tag twice, and removed the RfM tag.
When I started to write this post I didn't know all these details, and I didn't realise the situation is so severe. In this situation, to block Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has already been blocked recently twice, would be a good solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you clarified your position and have struck my comment accordingly. Note that Igny's move was marked as minor. This is not the first time, Igny has previously attempted to move this article against concensus, also marking those edits as minor: here,here andhere, so this current move is part of a pattern of reverts by a long standing edit warrior. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Good. Although I do not think Igny's behaviour is correct, however, we must concede that some steps made by other users could contribute into the Igny's emotional outburst. Moerover, since Igny seems to accept my advice[85] (at least, his last edits just restored the status quo ante bellum editorarum[86]), the situation seems to be resolved, and any actions against Igny will be punitive, not preventive.
Re minor edits. I myself sometimes do the same mistake by automatically clicking at this box.
However, that does not resolve another issue: the behaviour of Tentontunic. I suggest to focus on this problem. Do you have anything to say on his behalf?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The 3RR case above against Tentontunic is closed, this is about Igny. No, Igny's last edit did not "restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum" as you claim. This edit by you was the last edit[87] before Igny started edit warring[88]. I can understand accidently marking an edit as minor, but doing it four times for the exact same edit in the case of Igny? Igny was previously warned by an admin for this kind behaviour[89], so any action here would be preventive. --Martin (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to remark that Tentontunic's move was also marked "m". Now Martin, you go ahead and try to move an article and mark it minor. I would like to see how you do that. (Igny (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Just my tuppence.

  • My report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, he just got a break on a technicality, for some reason, 2 reverts were counted as one. I would appreciate if someone reviews how how 4 reverts ([90], [91], [92], [93]) do not mean an automatic block.
  • By contrast, Tentontunic's report was frivolous, I would like someone to explain to me how 2nd and 3rd edits reported by him can be considered reverts.
  • Amount of bad faith from Martintg's towards me is staggering, but understandable as I have so far refused to put up with his behavior here. I can not help but wonder if that is a new EEML technique to irritate opponents by ignoring opponents' arguments while poking at anything which could potentially provoke an outburst. They however fail to realize that attempts to boycott an opponent does not work on WP, as they would in a kindergarten, for valid arguments not go away unnoticed.

(Igny (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Old news first, I suppose. The previous report against Tentontunic was not frivolous, it was simply incorrect. I'm surprised that you've used the phrase "for some reason 2 reverts were counted as one" as this is specifically coded into the policy as "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I'm not sure how much more clear that could be.
The four diffs you give as examples appear to be from the same sample set as your report above. All four are indeed clear reverts. You will also the reverts at 14:27 and 14:03 occur without interventing edits and count as one - he could have just as easily done it in one edit. If you need a better explanation, please let me know, but this seems quite clear. So that's the old news, I'll look through this report now. I do notice that you are still the last editor on that page and there is still time to self-revert before I dig through this. I would encourage you to do that before I finish. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for an explanation, and for the opportunity to self-revert. (Igny (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Collect is pretty spot on above; I see four reverts including the move revert, not five. Since Igny has self-reverted the last one, there are only three and no 3RR which forces a block. I would encourage everyone on this article to start making sure there are discussions that are completed on the talk page before making any other reverts. This is an excellent time to point out that 3RR isn't the only criteria for an edit warring block, it's just the bright line; please don't start playing games with four reverts in 25 hours or some other nonsense. Kuru (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:92.20.46.8 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Éamon de Valera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.20.46.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under discussion at [98]

Comments:
The article is under a 1 revert restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE_case. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale T. Canens (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [99]


  1. 08:28, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421111187 by Moonraker2 (talk) I suggest you read up on exactly what he was doing. An undercroft is not a cellar")
  2. 09:45, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "he was caught "skulking around" in there, not leaving, and the pile of explosives was not limited to gunpowder. Do try and keep up, try buying some books on the subject, they may help")
  3. 09:52, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 421121143 by Moonraker2 (talk) the house of lords contained gunpowder? News to me.")
  4. 10:47, 28 March 2011 (edit summary: "Jesus Christ, there was only ONE undercroft beneath the house of lords, and it contained MORE than just gunpowder. If you're going to make changes then make them legible and factually accurate!")


In all four reverts the word "gunpowder" has been replaced with "explosives", but there are other reverts in the diffs as well.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I will post a message about this posting on User talk:Parrot of Doom. PoD is an experienced editor and has already been warned by me twice in the last week about 3RR. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] see the section Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night#"explosives not limited to gunpowder"

Comments:
This is the third time that PoD has broken the 3RR limit on this article in the last week Once was report here by me, the second time I pointed out PoD's breach on POD's talk page with a list of the diffs See:

  1. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive153#Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken) (22 March)
  2. User talk:Parrot of Doom#Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours (24 March)

-- PBS (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Surely it's now time that PBS was once again blocked for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 1 week in lieu of blocks and rollback removals and whatnot. T. Canens (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I had already asked for the page to be protected (on the 25th) so I am please that you have done so. However, that does not address the issue of of PoD breaching 3RR not once but three times on the same page within a week, and coupled to this two editors on the the talk page have suggested that PoD has an ownership issue with this page.

I think that PoD should be blocked for a time so that a clear message is sent that whatever the content dispute may be, breaching 3RR multiple times is unacceptable to the community, particularly as his/her conversation on his/her talk page with User:Charles Matthews shows no understanding that his/her breaching 3RR is out of order. Although I do notice from the archives of this page that PoD will bring 3RR complaints against others.

Also knowing that this 3RR report was open PoD performed another revert at 08:25, 29 March 2011 bringing the number of reverts up to five in a 24 hour period. Exactly how blatant does breaching of 3RR have to be before a block is imposed? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the editors who feels PoD has ownership issues also told an American editor she has no 'qualification' to comment on the talkpage - essentially telling her to go away. I think protecting the page is the right decision, but don't think blocks are necessary at this point because of the provocation I'm seeing on the page and talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Truthkeeper88 to which editor are you referring? I have checked the edits of the two editors who have explicitly commented about PoD's ownership of the article on the article's talk page by linking to WP:OWN when making those comments, and could not find any comment by either of them of the type you describe. I presume that the discussion you are referring starts close to the top of the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archives/3#Bonfire night. Do you think that the editor who wrote "Hello, Truthkeeper88. As you would suppose.." also thinks that PoD has ownership issues? BTW I do not think that the editor in question, suggested anyone should go away. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to bring personal histories into this PBS then perhaps I should post this link, which clearly demonstrates that quite a few experienced editors (content creators unlike yourself) feel that you are disruptive. Although you're "clever" enough to not appear to break the rules you are obviously edit warring, and having clearly lost several arguments on the article's talk page you are now attempting to force your view with this bureaucracy. The scholarly integrity of that article is far more important than my block log and I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks. Cease your disruption and go and do something constructive. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Good move to protect the page. I've tried to stay out of the childish name-calling, and have no intention of defending all of PBS' edits, but the comment by PoD above that "I will not allow you to derail it by adding a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced bollocks" hopefully is sufficient demonstration of the nature of the problems facing other editors - see WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The views of PBS are clearly at odds with the majority of editors on the article's talk page. PBS is using bullying tactics to impose his minority view. Several editors have suggested to PBS that his suggestions could improve the Bonfire Night article yet he seems intent on degrading the Guy Fawkes Night article to the level of the Oktoberfest article. Parrot of Doom is not the editor creating drama here, it is the sustained campaign by PBS to get his own way.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That comment is utterly misleading. There is a group of very active, very technically proficient editors, including Parrot of Doom, J3Mrs, and some others associated with the Greater Manchester WikiProject, who take the view that articles such as Guy Fawkes Night should take a certain form, and be academically unimpeachable. That would be fine, were it not for the fact that they (in some cases) abuse and generally denigrate other good faith editors who take a less absolutist and more inclusive view of different approaches towards informing readers. PBS has one view, and has edited in accordance with that view - his editing approach on the article (I can't comment about other articles) is far from "bullying". I don't personally agree with many of PBS' edits, or all his comments, but to suggest that he is in the wrong and PoD's approach (which includes, at best, gross arrogance and incivility) is "right" is completely preposterous. There is no evidence either that PBS' views, or those of PoD, command the support of the "majority of editors" - there is disagreement as to the way forward (in particular, as to whether the GFN article should be expanded, or whether an (effectively) new, more general, article on Bonfire Night should be developed), and a poisonous atmosphere which is apparently designed to ensure that GF editors on such articles are driven away. What a shame that PoD should be defended in this way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
J3Mrs, rather than discussing the content of articles and the alleged behaviour of other editors in this section, do you think that editors should be allowed to repeatedly breach 3RR? -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am unsure as to why you mention the Greater Manchester WikiProject and what it has to do with my comment. From my reading of the talk page I disagree with Ghmyrtle's analysis but that is my opinion. However I should point out it takes two editors to create these situations. If I have harmed caused PoD any offence, I apologise to him.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The only relevance of mentioning the WikiProject is to indicate that those defending PoD's behaviour will have had many previous WP interactions, and may conceivably even know other in real life. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You haven't offended me at all J3Mrs. As usual, certain people here are whinging about personal insults while spewing forth their own. The hypocrisy is amazing. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not "spewing forth" or "whinging" at all - just commenting. Independent readers will quickly come to their own conclusions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but they already have. Parrot of Doom 19:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's good the article was protected. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:67.248.151.69 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Paypal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.248.151.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 20:47, 28 March 2011

Comments:
Incessantly edit-warring and reverting multiple users. Adding POV, OR and unreliable sources. At RFPP I was told to report here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Timothy. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jane his wife reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jane his wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 3rd revert: Reverted User:Crohnie at 23:51, 28 March 2011 from here through 01:38, 29 March 2011 here
  • He then went on to revert User:Drmies three times after this. You can see the extent of his singleminded efforts at the article's history page, where you'll also see his uncivil comments to the multiple other editors who disagree with his press-puffery, his WP:PEACOCK, WP:DATED and other vios, etc. Despite a request on both his talk page and the article's talk page, this is his reply:
First off, I'm not 'new' to wikipedia, I just got another screename, second I don't do 'talk' pages, this part of the article has been here for years and is staying. My 'snide' comments are only to those who deserve one
LMAO yeah that was really un-friendly, you want to see un-friendly, go out more, how about you stay away from here. There is nothing wrong with how the article stands, not to mention I added 70% more information to it.
I wasn't even talking to you. How about you go away. I'll reply in my edits if someone responds like you are now, so shut it.

As well, he is exhibiting WP:OWN and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: "if I'm blocked I'm reverting all the edits I added MYSELF back to how bare and unprofessional it looked a month ago"


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jane his wife#Reap what you sow

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Jane his wife#Nicole Kidman, and bottom of Talk:Nicole Kidman.

Comments:

--Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:124.169.173.59 reported by User:TeleComNasSprVen (Result: rangeblocked/semi'd)[edit]

Page: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.173.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: stable revision, seven intermediate reverts


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

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

Comments:

Pretty sure this is the same revert warrior hopping IPs. More recent war erupting on Flying Spaghetti Monster. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page semi-protected for a period of 3 days Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 124.169.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:219.144.166.185 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Page: Barbara Boxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.144.166.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Barbara Boxer#Major rehaul

Comments:


I have tried, to no avail, to develop dialogue with a fellow editor regarding edits to Barbara Boxer's article. The only response is him reverting edits. He doesn't seem to be even reading the edits I made or the discussions I have left on the discussion page. Any help would be appreciated. 219.144.166.185 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for standard edit warring. I'm a little concerned that most people on the other side of this dispute didn't take it to the talk, while those who did generally said things like "this edit is not acceptable" without explaining why. Still, it can't excuse this much reverting by any means. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Heimstern, Thank you for your help and assistance. The editor (editors) continue to refuse to discuss and make any comments on the Boxer talk page. You told me that I should not revert, but report it here and it will be dealt with, and so that is what I am doing. 219.144.167.100 (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Heimstern, Thank you for your help and assistance. The editor (editors) continue to refuse to discuss and make any comments on the Boxer talk page. You told me that I should not revert, but report it here and it will be dealt with, and so that is what I am doing. 219.144.167.100 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Strikerforce reported by 174.253.20.207 (talk) (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Matt Painter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:45, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2010-2011 */ meeting with Mizzou about their opening (edited with ProveIt)")
  2. 15:23, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by 98.228.37.170 (talk); No confirmation. (TW)")
  3. 16:20, 29 March 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 168.166.55.11 (talk) to last version by Happy5214")
  4. 16:28, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 24.217.153.255) and restored revision 421502374 by 12.237.176.2 - Media speculation only, at this point. No confirmation.")
  5. 16:38, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 69.1.140.55) and restored revision 421505191 by Strikerforce - No confirmation yet.")
  6. 16:43, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last 3 changes (by 75.9.50.54) and restored revision 421506410 by Strikerforce")
  7. 16:55, 30 March 2011 (edit summary: "Rejected the last change (by 184.78.125.32) and restored revision 421507090 by Strikerforce - No confirmation yet.")
  • Diff of warning: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStrikerforce&action=historysubmit&diff=421509830&oldid=421354814 here]

174.253.20.207 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I'm not going to block people for reverting unsourced (and false, it seems from the most recent reports) crap out of a BLP. T. Canens (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Neilrlw reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [111]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user (only occured on user talk pages) talk page: [119]

Comments:

In addition, the content inserted is a blatant violation of WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY. The user has not listened to what Materialscientist and me have told him.

  • Oooh - and now a sock emerges. The plot thickens ;> Doc talk 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked by another admin --slakrtalk / 03:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Platinumshore reported by User:206.188.60.1 (Result: )[edit]

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

This has been reported at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Platinumshore_and_Peak_oil_again, but I am cross posting here as previous postings at that NB produced no effect. Please indicate there if action is taken.

  • Jan 22 first insertion of text: [120]
  • Jan 22 removal of CN tags: [121]
  • Jan 25 removal of CN tags: [122]
  • Feb 1 removal of CN tags: [123]
  • Feb 1 removal of CN tags second time: [124]
  • Mar 1: [125]
  • Mar 13: [126]
  • Mar 15: [127]
  • Mar 29: [128]

No response on user's talk page or article discussion page.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Peak_oil#Platinumshore

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Yellowstone National Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lkmen (talk ·