Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive155

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Wawawaer reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Indef, semi)[edit]

Page: Vijay Bahadur Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wawawaer (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: User has not tried to do so.

Comments:

  • This user has also not been adhering to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: User:Wawawaer has been indefinitely blocked by User:C.Fred. A banned user created Wawawaer as a sock, and has been gaming the system with BLP experiments. See the edit summaries for the background. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu reported by User:Rodchen (Result: Reporting user blocked; 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Barbara Boxer
User being reported: Template:Muboshgu


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:

Muboshgu is attempting to insert controversial changes to the article while a discussion is ongoing on the discussion page where I am trying hard to build consensus. Please look at the discussion page. Rodchen (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to get the 'links' right here, but I can't get it quite right, but I think you can see and determine my meaning. Rodchen (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As an admin can see by evaluating the recent edits, my edits are not controversial. Consensus has been against this users' edits over the past week or so. Oh, and the most important factor in this report: I haven't violated 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I welcome an administrators intervention. Given the ongoing dicussion on Boxer's discussion page, Muboshgu's edits were controversial and unhelpful. I am choosing NOT to revert again, and participate in an editing war, but instead welcome administrators intervention. Rodchen (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodchen reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Page: Barbara Boxer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:32, 6 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 422689018 by Muboshgu (talk) Trying to reach consensus before changes are implemented.")
  2. 00:29, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Reproductive rights */ Restoring sentence in paragraph until consensus reached.")
  3. 00:48, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 422781979 by Muboshgu (talk) Controversial issues should be discussed before editing. If you try to put this in again, I will report you for edit warring.")
  4. 01:11, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 422783823 by Muboshgu (talk) I have reported you for war editing.")

– Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions have taken place at Talk:Barbara_Boxer#Major_rehaul and Talk:Barbara Boxer#Honors and awards section and Abortion catagory. I did not place a 3RR warning for this edit war because it happened so fast I didn't have a chance, but this user has been warned for violating 3RR before on his talk page and in edit summaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor has documented the situation of my reporting of him better than I have. I appreciate that. The editor has continued to fight an editing war with the latest revert. I refuse to participate in an editing war, and welcome an administrators intervention on this matter. Rodchen (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Rodchen, take care. You've been warned before of edit warring. You have to take extreme care not to reach such a situation again, as the next block would be longer. Use the talk pages of relevant pages for discussion. You have been reverted by not only the reporting user, but by other well meaning users too in the past. May I suggest an immediate stoppage to your edit warring please? I have your contributions and the relevant pages watched for the next few days. So kindly, do not make this tough on you. Please do feel free to ask me for any help on your talk page (till you are blocked) and later on my talk page. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:Another editor blocked for 24 hours along with the reported editor)[edit]

Page: Jason Voorhees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: X4n6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]


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

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

Comments:

Despite three editors contesting the edits on the talk page, User:X4n6 has invoked WP:BRD as a defence for his actions i.e. we shouldn't remove his edits until a "consensus" is reached. I'd pretty much say the consensus is that his edits shouldn't be accepted unless he provides sources that the actor in question is credited in the role. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

X4n6 has also given at least one editor an erroneous 3rr warnings (Betty reverted ONCE and he gave her a warning) and displayed a general lack of understanding of WP:BRD while continuing to revert war. Millahnna (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan disrupted a legitimate BRD request as editors were seeking consensus. Once the opposing editor and myself, after some early disagreement, had already agreed to BRD and were working toward that consensus, and had also already agreed to allow the edit to stand unaltered while we sought further agreement and consensus, Betty Logan felt the need to immediately insert herself, attempt to arbitrarily impose her own will and unilaterally reverted the edit in question. When Betty Logan was asked to respect the BRD, was asked herself to BRD and also asked to refrain from making edits that were disruptive to the consensus process, she attempted to retaliate by posted a 3RR warning on my talk page. Fed up with her unhelpful and ridiculously petty bullying tactics, I placed the same warning on her page and again asked that she seek consensus while refraining from making disruptive edits. I also linked her to WP;DE so she could acquaint or reacquaint herself with the policy. [16] Predictably, Betty Logan felt the need to retaliate once again by filling this pathetic grievance. At this point, I could have very easily filed a retaliatory grievance against Betty Logan myself, but clearly one of us has to be the adult here and her actions clearly indicate that obviously isn't going to be Betty Logan. However, if other admins. would like to explain to this editor how consensus is obtained, what the proper procedures are for respecting a BRD, what the rules are for posting 3RR warnings and what the threshold is for filing complaints in this forum, it would certainly be a useful and much appreciated exercise. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As to Millahnna, I have absolutely no idea what this editor is talking about. What does it mean to say I've "given at least one editor a 3RR warning"? Seems to me, if Millahnna can't even be bothered to get his/her material facts straight regarding his/her own allegations and know exactly how many warnings were alleged to have been given by and to whom, then exactly what does that say about this editor? Additionally, there were no 3RR issues with either of these editors on my part, so there is no substance whatsoever to either of their complaints. But I am now concerned with the very real possibility of WP:SOCK sockpuppetry with these two editors and would very much like that investigated. They both followed each other in rapid succession on the talk page in question, and now they appear to virtually parrot each other here - with about as much coherence. Again, this merits review. If after investigation my concerns prove unfounded, I will retract them. X4n6 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The 3RR warning I was referring to. Millahnna (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yet you didn't originally seem to know how many 3RR warnings I had left or to whom? Nor did you even bother to mention [17] which began all this silliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4n6 (talkcontribs) 06:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Calling for an sockpuppet investigation of two editors with 10,000+ edits each just because they differ with you on one article isn't a very wise thing to do, X4n6. I would suggest you retract that accusation in good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for the sockpuppet investigation because two editors disagree with me. I was calling on it because I found the manner in which they work in tandem to be suspect. However, in light of your request, I'll defer, and withdraw it - for now. But I'll reserve the right to renew it at some other point should the circumstances warrant. And would appreciate your monitoring the situation as well. As you can see from the comment below, this clearly isn't going to resolve itself easily with these two editors. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Bignole has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly undoing edits; and in my perspective, edit warring. X4n6 will not be blocked; as I believe the reversions are borderline and have been undertaken with some discussions on the talk page. However, even in X4n6's case, a warning has been left formally on the talk page noting the danger or the 3RR mark. Beyond that, I am watching the page. I really would like the editors to appreciate the fact that right now, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, just stop undoing and reverting all over the place. If this continues, apart from more blocks that may occur, the page in itself would get fully protected. So please start discussing on the talk page rather than using the undo button. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
While I was initially surprised and naturally unhappy with the 3RR warning that you placed on my page, I accept it as your effort to fairly resolve this mess. Likewise, I'm going to request, if I may, that you unblock Bignole. We had a rather contentious start to our editing, which I understand because he has been an active editor on the article in question for some years and I expect will continue to be, and so he perhaps felt a bit proprietary toward my edits. Not policy, but human nature nonetheless. But since I brought that to his attention, he has been much more reasonable and in fact, cooperative toward building consensus. So may I offer his more recent contributions as mitigation for the early responses and request the unblock. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can clarify this outcome for me (feel free to bring to my talk page if it's inappropriate here)? I find it really confusing given the sequence of events and the consensus of the page. X4n6 made a bold edit that was reverted for lacking in reliable sources. He continued to revert while Bignole placed requests for comment on several related project pages and engaged in discussion. I don't understand how the one is edit warring while the other is borderline. Can you help me to understand this for future reference? Millahnna (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No problems. I'm leaving a discussion on your talk page. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the record needs to be clarified. There are amble reliable sources, most of which were deleted by Bignole. That's all reflected in the talk page discussions. Still, that was early on and I'm still requesting the unblock. I think the point has been sufficiently made. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite see how User:Bignole has got a block in all of this. From my count he only reverted outright three times. He removed the IMDB reference a couple of times, but it's established that IMDB is not a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB. He participated in discussion, he posted an RFC on the Film Project talk page to try and get this resolved, and consensus backed his view that the actor's name shouldn't be added to the infobox, and it found for User:X4n6 that it was acceptable to mention the actor's participation in context. Bignole never edited against the consensus and I don't see how he violated 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly additional clarification needs to be made here too. IMDB is indeed a reliable source as WP:IMDB clearly states it is acceptable as an external source; the only real complaint relates to biographies there and not credits; and any objectioning view must be treated as the top of the page clearly states: "Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." X4n6 (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, going through your edits more deeply after Betty's and Millahnna's pointers, I did realize I had made a mistake in counting your reverts. Unfortunately, you are as much on an edit war as Bignole. I have blocked you too for 24 hours and would request you and Bignole both to stop reverting and undoing each other's edits from this point. The consensus displayed on the talk page of the article is of prime importance; at the same time, the 3RR cannot and should not be broken. If there is any clarification you need, feel free to leave the same on your talk page; I will be watching the same. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:Tzu Zha Men (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Juliano Mer-Khamis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
This article is subject to a 1RR restriction, per WP:ARBPIA, so even discounting the obvious gaming of 3RR by making exactly 3 reverts, there is a clear violation of the restriction. This user has been blocked for edit warring numerous times [21], and is obviously aware of the rules, per his report, right above. Both editors need to be blocked.

User:AFolkSingersBeard reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Juliano Mer-Khamis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]


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

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

Comments:

This user has already been blocked twice this week for disruptive editing. He has been repeatedly warned about edit-warring on other articles [27], [28], [29], [30], though not on this article. Most of these warnings have been deleted from the user's talk page. RolandR (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What unmitigated nonsense. This is a clear a case of "gaming the system" as you will find. First of all, Rolandr has been HOUNDING ALL MY EDITS across Wikipedia ever since I joined - I must have distressed him somehow. He reverts precisely 3 times, and then magically, someone reverts FOR HIM a 4th time, so he doesn't breach. He has simply REFUSED to engage in the article's Talk Page, provide sources, contribute at the RfC, etc. The 4th Diff he has supplied there is not a revert, but a third editor removed the reference to nationality altogether, which I naturally re-inserted in line with the reliable sources I have presented (BBC, Reuters, Haaretz, Guardian). And I have only removed ONE ITEM from my Talk page - a ludicrous Edit War warning FROM ROLANDR, based on a revert war that Rolandr began! AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I would please ask that any admin please look at Rolandr's recent Contributions to see the pattern of harassment: between 09:08am and 11:50am today, he has reverted me 7 times across 2 articles, without once bothering to engage on the Talk page. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this is a clear violation, but it is equally clear that the reporter is himself guilty of edit warring, and of violating the 1RR restriction on this article, see my report below. Both editors need to be blocked. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For users that are reading this that may not be aware of this policy, I would just like to clarify removal of warnings from a user's own talk page. As per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." With some exceptions (blocking notices, deletion tags, etc.). - SudoGhost (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 70.130.144.54 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.130.144.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Comments:
Strange edit war: some parts of the IP's edits appear to be a good-faith content dispute [38] (though probably misguided), but some parts of it, especially the apparently random copying of some out-of-context content of an entirely unrelated disambiguation page (probably some old version of Macedonia) is inexplicable. Fut.Perf. 11:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

non stop edit war, IP is moaning on my talk page and calling other users Macedonian liars --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can not be reached with a blind reverts. Jingby (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Kuru Minima© (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice that he's discussing his edits, but he's still reverting during the discussion. Not much question here. Kuru (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Fractional-reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrewedwardjudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Also warned in edit summary here: [45], [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Voluminous extensive discussion followed. See Fractional reserve banking talk page.

Comments:
Andrewedwardjudd also edit warred last week, he was warned but was not reported at that time. See: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Edit warring continues. Andrewedwardjudd has just re-inserted one of the disputed quotes, but into a different section of the article.[53]

LK (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours And LK, your recent self-revert is the only reason I didn't block you too. I ask that you take a 24-hour break voluntarily. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Monte Melkonian reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [54]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:
Review of the article Talk page discussion will show that the editor does not appear to address the issues at hand, introduces collateral matters, and was editing against an incomplete, but emerging, consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, efforts to resolve the issue at the editor's Talk page are here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The first "revert" given above is not actually a revert; however, this [61] is, in that it once again removed McClellan's name, and reintroduced the phrase "said nice things about him.". Editor additionally warned of sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnInDC reported by Monte Melkonian (Result: declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [62]


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

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

Comments:Have offered solutions but rebuffed with dismissive attitude


  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Malformed report; I suppose you were trying to report JohnInDC but he didn't violate 3RR regardless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BackHo reported by Regards, MacMedtalkstalk (Result: Protected for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Canterbury High School (Ottawa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:49, 7 April 2011 (edit summary: "Updated information")
  2. 22:56, 8 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted Vandalism")
  3. 00:11, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "reverted trolling")
  4. 00:11, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Corrected staff information")
  5. 00:15, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv unsourced content")
  6. 00:18, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "RV unsourced content")
  7. 00:20, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv edits of Seaphto, vandalism")
  8. 00:21, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "The website is wrong")
  9. 00:22, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv wrong information")
  10. 00:23, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
  11. 00:23, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104122 by Seaphoto (talk)")
  12. 00:24, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104204 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  13. 00:25, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104307 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  14. 00:26, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104363 by Tbhotch (talk)")
  15. 00:27, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "u mad bro?")
  16. 00:27, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104602 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  17. 00:28, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104701 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  18. 00:29, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104777 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  19. 00:29, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104842 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  20. 00:30, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104902 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  21. 00:31, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423104975 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  22. 00:31, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423105020 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  23. 00:37, 9 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423105397 by 99.168.85.28 (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

—Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:94.168.210.8 (Result: no violation/protected)[edit]

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&oldid=422883109#Missing_iPhone_death

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&action=history

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foxconn/Archives/2014#Missing_iPhone_death.2C_edit_warring

Comments:The user fleetham keeps reverting my edit regarding the Foxconn worker "suicide" the citation clearly states that the suicide was an assertion of Foxconn and makes it clear that this isn't nesseserily what happened, all I added in my edit is "Foxconn claims" to the beggining of the sentence, on the subject so it is more accurate. Without it the paragraph reads as fact when there is conjecture over the subject. the user has failed to enter into any disscussion on the subject after several attmpts on my end. Thats it really if somone could look into it, it would really help. i also have a suspission that this user is infact a bot as he is not engaging in disscussion at all on this subject and has never replied to anyone on his user talk page 94.168.210.8 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Foxconn: Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.

With respect to Lanix: Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 1 week. Work it out on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajkris reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: R and K blocked 24 h)[edit]

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


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

...(for reverts 5-13, please see the edit history at [72]...


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not actually my dispute--neither editor in this war has discussed the issue, outside of edit summaries and warnings on each other's talk page.

Comments: Now, obviously, if one person is at 14 reverts, the other is at that or about the same number. The reason I'm only recommending User:Rajkris be blocked, and not the other editor (User:Konguboy), is that Konguboy is a relatively new editor (only 130-ish edits so far), and, as far as I can tell has not been informed of the edit-warring/3RR rule until I did in this edit. Rajkris, however, has been given a final warning for edit warring before on another article (back in Nov 2010), and, more importantly, reverted again after receiving the final warning from me now. Hmm...though, as I went back to pull diffs, I see that Konguboy just made a personal attack on Rajkris in this edit, so maybe they need a time out two. I have asked for full protection on the article, as well. In full disclosure, Rajkris claims that the Konguboy's edits are vandalism because xyr source doesn't support what xe claims it does, but that sounds like a content dispute to me, and Rajkris has been previously warned by me and others that vandalism is not just an edit you disagree with.

Followup Alright, Konguboy has reverted since getting the warning from me, so please block xyr, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just given references from responsible sources. Rajkris talk page is full of wikiwar blood. Is this fair to block me?!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talkcontribs) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Rajkris' edits are not clearly blatant vandalism; by continuing to revert his edits, you and he are guilty of the same violation of the edit warring rules. In a situation like this, it's best to take the high road, remain civil, and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Continuous reverting and potshots at the other user's user page are uncalled for. Unless you can acknowledge that, it will be necessary to block you to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This edit of Rajkris's user page by Konguboy replaces it with 'BEWARE OF THIS WIKI WAR LORD'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted edits from Konguboy because the very few refs he has given do not support at all what he wrote. Nowhere in his refs there are mentions of the Aristocratic, Kshatriya origins of the Kongu Vellalar and Chozia Vellalar, on the contrary they are called cultivators... It is the same for other castes he mentionned such as the Muthuraja... It is not at all normal to write such things without giving proper, clear refs. Since a few days, some IPs and user Konguboy are trying to add fake things on this page and I'm trying hard to maintain this page. Since last friday night, I engaged a discussion on this issue in the talk page and gave proper refs which support my action and for the moment no one is able to counter my arguments. I just want someone protect this page (on the initial version) and need a 3rd neutral opinion on it.Rajkris (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Rajkris and Konguboy are each blocked 24 hours. R. continued to revert even while this report was open. K. vandalized a user page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:84.126.221.34 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.126.221.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75]


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

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

Comments:

The article is under a community imposed 1RR restriction yet the IP editor persists in edit warring to include incidents that are not even sourced as being committed by the Real IRA. Reverting IP editors is exempt from the 1RR restriction, for the record. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. This article seems to be the target of single-purpose IPs who may be socks. No IP who has changed the article in 2011 has left an edit summary, used the talk page or added a source. This Timeline is a list of attacks that are believed to be the work of a group called the Real IRA. In this kind of a list it is reasonable that the entries should be sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jprw reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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

  • Version restored (addition of POV tag) March 9
  • Version restored (removal from lead of "unpaid") Feb 27
Comments

I would appreciate help in dealing with a long-term reverting problem at Roger Scruton. Jprw is an admirer of Scruton's, and has been engaged in serial reverting at the article for about eight months, mostly removing well-sourced criticism, or adding the POV tag. The reverting isn't taking place while he adds other content: reverting is almost the only thing he does there, and it is halting article development. He was blocked three times for 3RR in 2010 [79]—the second time in Sept for 72 hours for 3RR at this article, then for five days for 3RR at this article and block evasion. But it continues.

One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years; he was a lecturer and professor in philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, for a long time, but left in 1992. Since then, he's mostly worked as a freelance writer and consultant to companies, topped up with some television work; a few part-time minor fellowships in the States; an unpaid visiting professorship giving graduate seminars at Oxford; and a quarter-time research position at St Andrews. But Jprw is determined to present him as a current, major academic, and keeps removing that his position at Oxford is an unpaid one—something that Scruton himself stresses; see here. Now Jprw has removed entirely the details of Scruton's positions from the lead, wanting to say instead (see his recent edit) that Scruton has been lecturing for 40 years, which is false; giving graduate seminars doesn't make a person a university lecturer. I mean no disrespect by that; it's just a fact. Examples of the reverting:

The reverting has been accompanied by personal attacks (only one of the following is recent) [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] and restoring personal attacks posted by a banned anon. [85] Other editors are subjected to the same approach, e.g. [86]

Any help would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a tissue of distortion, deceit, and exaggeration from an individual who it appears simply cannot stand being disagreed with. One example: One of the issues is that Scruton has not worked much in academia for 20 years Well, I have said [87] that I have put forward a general sample wording to summarise his career as a lecturer (before there was a tedious, long-winded and inappropriate list of establishments he he had taught at in the lead). I'm quite happy for the wording to be changed so that it reflects accurately the new sub-section I created to cover his career as a lecturer. All my other claims regarding neutrality I set out on the discussion page. The editor called SlimVirgin did not respond to these for a lengthy period, quite possibly the reason for this was that my concerns exposed a clear agenda on this editor's part to cast Scruton in a bad light, suppress his achievements, and allot huge coverage to issues that have nothing to do with why he has a WP article in the first place. I have in the past witnessed first hand her dishonest methods; so I am not entirely surprised to see her now hysterically scurrying to Admin with an erroneous/deceitful list of charges, simply because I have continued to disagree with her and consistently point out her POV pushing on the Roger Scruton page. In addition, the 3RR accusation also appears to be bogus as I have reinstated that material only once. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of content arguments here from both SV and Jprw. This board is not going to take a position on content. Nonetheless the abusive language from Jprw might be a factor in how this report gets closed. Jprw made a comment at "Response to unhinged leftist" stating that SlimVirgin is a 'quite seriously unbalanced individual.' Jprw was blocked 72 hours for edit warring on the same article per this Sep 2010 report at AN3. That block was later extended for evasion. Jprw has also made three reverts on April 8 at Melanie Phillips. Can either party say whether they have tried any dispute resolution, such as an WP:RFC, or tried to get comments on the content questions from others? EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I offered to work with Jprw in November last year (see here) to improve the article, in terms of building up a description of Scruton's philosophy. I have a background in philosophy, including postgraduate studies, so I'd be happy to do that. But he declined. The personal attacks since then have been so serious that I wouldn't want to do it anymore. I offered you only a sample of them above. Any attempt I make to involve others—e.g. at RfC, or by taking the issue to the BLP board—will trigger more attacks.
Other editors were involved in a discussion last year about Scruton's tobacco consultancy; see BLP noticeboard here. Jprw just ignored their views and continued reverting anyway, and still wants the POV tag on the article in part because of that material; see here for the section of the article about that.
The issue I would like to see end is the constant reverting of well-sourced material and attempts to fix the writing. If material about Scruton's philosophical ideas is to be added, it will have to follow the academic sources, but Jprw will simply revert anything he doesn't like, no matter how accurate it is, so article development has stopped. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to discuss the content dispute, although it is clear that its resolution would benefit from the input of others. The evidence is pretty clear that Jprw has engaged in sustained edit-warring and severe personal attacks; their contribution to this thread and [88] reflect particularly bad form. I am blocking Jprw for a week for edit-warring and personal attacks, and suggest that the next block be of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  21:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:122.151.252.213 reported by User:Tintor2 (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Gintoki Sakata (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)


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

Comments:
When I was trying to clean up the article Gintoki Sakata, the user just started making reverts to all of my edits as well as his own edits without reasons. I left a message on his talk page, but I noted that was previously blocked for the same reasons.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Total lack of communication, contribs are practically only undos, already blocked 48h for similar warring in March.  Sandstein  21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomballguy reported by User:Trasie123 (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: 2009–2011 Toyota vehicle recalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomballguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

User Tomballguy is engaged in both original research and edit warring on the 2009–2011 Toyota vehicle recalls page. His first edit to the article took place on February 22, where Tomballguy adds the term "pedalgate" using bold font to the article's heading. [97] He then adds List of scandals with "-gate" suffix to the page's see also section.[98]

Using google one easily finds the term "pedalgate" has not been associated with this Toyota recall by the mainstream media. [99]

I reverted his edit here: [100]. Tomballguy reverts my edit without explanation. [101] Another editor requests a citation, [102]. Tomballguy adds two citations: [103][104]. One is from The Truth About Cars (first result to appear on google) which is a minor automobile website/blog and the other some random blog at blogspot.com referred through using google.

I reverted his edit [105], Tomballguy continues to revert without explanation [106][107], adding the same two citations as before. He immediately changes the second blogspot.com citation to yet another irrelevant source. [108]

I'm bringing this to administrator attention as I've noticed this editor makes other questionable drive-by style edits to pages, such as this one [109]. Trasie123 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakrtalk / 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:FCTS 142 (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Talk:Kutless (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above. And there's my own talk page.

Comments:

An IP made a comment/question that Gorlitz found inappropriate. I'd say it was just a newbie making a good faith error, but okay. Instead of explaining the error, Gorlitz simply deleted the IP's message. The IP restored it, he deleted it again. I found that rude and pointless, so I restored the IP's message and added an explanation for the IP that an article talk page wasn't really the place for this. Don't bite the newbies, right? Gorlitz deleted the IP's message AND mine. And when I restored it in an attempt to expand it and explain my reasoning, there was an edit conflict because Gorlitz had already deleted the message I was working on again. And what he accuses the Greek IP of (making up Dutch words) isn't even right, I added a ref to show that. I left a message on his Talk page about all this but he just deleted that too. A discussion on my Talk page went nowhere either. I give up. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Noticed that compared to other reports mine looks pretty messy. Sorry about that, had some trouble with the form. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) )

Never mind that bit. Links fixed. FCTS 142 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:69.142.243.63 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Heat (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.142.243.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: This is the version before the edit warring began, though this is two weeks before the present as 3RR had not come into play at the time. I'm assuming the 24-hour limit doesn't "end" at the turn of day, as these span a few hours either side of midnight but are very close together in 'real time'.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
This editor has been making these same edits for a number of days now, approaching a fortnight. Both MOS for infoboxes, and consensus reached on the article's talk page, indicate that the starring cast in the infobox be kept to a minimum. Instead of agreeing to, or even addressing, these concerns, the editor has thrown up constant strawman arguments by pointing out other articles which fail to meet the MOS standard. User has already been warned by another editor over this same matter almost a week ago and has only increased activity from then. GRAPPLE X 03:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User: Punya6666 reported by User:Indian Chronicles (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Punya6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User: Punya6666 has been continuously edit warring on pager of Vinayak Damador Savarkar. He is indulging in edit warring, introducing POV’s and unsubstantiated information and making personal attacks on me on the talk page of the article. Previous version reverted to: [117] This is the preferred link that I am trying to save.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user had previously been warned by me on his talk page for edit warring on the same article. [121] and warned him on the talk page [122] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123] He has also indulged in personal attacks against me doubting whether I am on Indian [124] and [125] Comments: This page is often vandalized by Right wingers who want to push their Hindutva agenda and extreme POV. It needs to be semi protected permanently so that only established users can edit objectively.
Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC) --

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment(1)As far as I know the 3R rule applies to edits done within 24 hours, Punya6666's edits are spaced over a few days. (2)Punya6666 is a new user who doesnot know how Wikirules well, so when the action is taken against him please consider his newness. (3)Edit warring cuts both ways, please take the content dispute issue and other wiki rules before arriving at decisionYogesh Khandke (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well he was warned. He persisted with his POV and refused to reply to me on discussion page. Furthermore, he may not have reverted within 24 hrs, but his overall pattern is disruptive. I am not asking to ban or block him. I am asking for article protection and a warning to Punya6666 to discuss first.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg CommentThe closing administrator is requested to appreciate the situation that Punya6666 doesn't even have his user page, imo opportunities for dispute resolution on the talk page have not been exhausted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Having or not having a user page has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned the blank userpage to get the point across that he is a new editor.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned No formal 3RR warning so far, nothing else to do here.  Sandstein  21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

85.162.27.170 reported by Severino (Result: Rangeblocked 1 week)[edit]

Page: Chris Hani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:


Previous version reverted to: [126]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:
The different IPs obviously all lead to the same user. I have reported his behaviour already on the incidents noticeboard before i noticed that this one here is more proper. His edits seem to violate Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations ,Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules.--Severino (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems that this user continues his work with a different IP ([136]).--Severino (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

220.227.100.59 - talk - edits - block - log - current blocks - ipinfo - Robtex - WHOIS - proxy checker - ipcheck - Google - HTTP - stalk has been blocked one year as an open proxy, per web reports that it has been serving as a proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
seems that he moves to new proxys: [137],[138]--Severino (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe semi-protecting Church Street bombing, Joe Slovo, Umkhonto we Sizwe and Chris Hani is the only way to deal with this. They don't seem to understand WP:NPOV at all and it doesn't look like they are going to stop. I had hoped my saying "2 proper academic sources "The birth of a new South Africa" and "South Africa: A Modern History" don't call it a terrorist attack. they call it bomb blast/attack. do you see ? that's why we can't say "terrorist"in wikipedia's narrative voice" at Joe Slovo would explain where they are going wrong but the revert response "No. It is unacceptable to call terrorist attacks "activities". It was a terrorist attack carried out by terrorist organization (MK)." shows they just don't get it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
especially this IP seems to have a long "history".--Severino (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
...and now Oliver Tambo...there's probably more to come. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've semiprotected five of the articles mentioned above. Any more open proxies should be taken to WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've also been keeping an eye on the pages, although Severino always seems to be a few seconds ahead of me in reverting. ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess reported by User:Cuddlyable3 (Result: Declined for now)[edit]

Page: Mandelbrot set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: AlecTeal93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and TheRingess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

On-going edit war [139] at Mandelbrot set between User:AlecTeal93 and User:TheRingess. WP:3RR is broken by both. A note [140] I posted at User talk:AlecTeal93. Neither party has brought their dispute to the article talk page. I have posted to both encouraging them to do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined For now. There doesn't appear to be any disruption since AlecTeal93 was warned, but I'll monitor that article.
AlecTeal93 seems to be unaware of the WP:NOR policy; so I left a note on the user's talk page accordingly. Looks like TheRingess was simply reverting original research. I'd cut some slack in 3RR for that, it's just a step away from reverting vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Antiviral reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: indef)[edit]

Page: 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antiviral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [141]