Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive156

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:LevenBoy reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Protected )[edit]

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


Page: Peter Edwards (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:54, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423690701 by HighKing (talk)POV removal of disputed term")
  2. 18:24, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423854197 by HighKing (talk)")
  3. 16:18, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424599137 by Eliaspalmer (talk)Revert obvious sock")
  4. 16:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424731315 by HighKing (talk)nope, definitely a sock, and a POV pushing one at that")
  5. 16:30, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424877474 by Snowded (talk)Revert. I thought you'd given up on this, but clearly you like the disruption")
  • Diff of warning: here

Page: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Time reported: 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424911661 by SmackBot (talk)")
  2. 20:41, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424910621 by Domer48 (talk)See Talk")
  3. 20:51, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424913340 by Armbrust (talk)It doesn't match the surce - do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? see Talk (and UK & I is not better)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • NOTE: LemonMonday another SPA account who edits in tandem with LevenBoy is now up to six reverts on the same article, three within in the last 24 hours together with some failures of WP:AGF on the talk page. The behaviour of these two really needs some admin attention--Snowded TALK 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User:Snowded also appears to be a battling warrior on this matter, having several reverts under his belt on this article but carefully avoiding 4 reverts in 24 hours. LemonMonday Talk 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Isn't it weird what a small wiki-world it is? No offense about the autopatrolled mess, Armbrust, seriously :> LevenBoy has only one goal: to insert the term British Isles in as many articles as possible. I'm quite familiar with this editor, and this is a SPA account if there ever was one. I suspect there are others involved, and this goes back a long way. Even if there isn't a technical 3RR violation (I see only 3 reverts vs. the usual 4 required to file a report), LevenBoy is acting disruptively as usual. Doc talk 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Gaming the system includes things like PRODing articles simply because they contain the words "British Isles". One could, perhaps, level the same accusation against you - you're more concerned with admin stuff like this. Anyway, what about the discussion in hand. What is your view on the assertiong being made at the talk page? LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm done with this thread. Hopefully the closing admin will see this for what it is and make the correct decision. This has gone on for far too long. Doc talk 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that an SPI be done on the LevenBoy & LemonMonday accounts as possible socks of User:MidnightBlueMan. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend you crawl back under your slimey little stone. Every time there's any issue such as this up you pop with your stupid suggestions about SPI or whatever other idiotic thing comes into your mind. Why not try addressing the matter in hand for a change? Try commenting on my assertions at the Talk page in question, since no-one else has bothered to do so yet, merely being content, like you, to bang on about SPIs, SPAs and other such irrelevances. LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, this lame fight over inclusion/exclusion of British Isles across Wikipedia, should be ended with blocks to accounts that begin adding or deleting BI in articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough I agree. There are few, if any, editors trying to add it, but a veritable army, well a platoon at least, of them trying to get rid of it. And sorry about the slimey stone stuff, but you can be most annoying at times. LevenBoy (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I'v suggseted a compromise to the above issue at User talk:Ged UK#No personal attacks ? Maybe we wait to see what he thinks. If the compromise is accepted we can all move on unscathed. LemonMonday Talk 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very creative. It defies logic that LevenBoy would have gone to that much trouble to trace that edit before he inserted the phrase for his very first edit to the article. You should bring it up on the article's talk page where others who have edited the article beyond inserting the term can see it and consensus will form, instead of the admin's. This is strictly about the edit-warring issue on this board, and it seems that nothing is going to be done about it anyway. Doc talk 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeadSend4 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi )[edit]

Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeadSend4 (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]

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above

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

See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.

Another of the multiple editors he is warring with, User:Crohnie, also noted this at the above talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Article semiprotected by admin Courcelles (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:68.99.91.135 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 48h )[edit]

Page: Nanuet, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.99.91.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See contribs. TwoThree (third added since posting this) edits today, but this same edit pattern goes back to November and has been reverted by a number of independent editors.

The IP editor persistently adds the same para of text to the same article. It's not an unreasonable edit at first sight, but it makes three claims that should be, but aren't, referenced. As it has been regularly reverted by others, it needs a reference before it can be added, per standard policy.

I came to this editor's contribs through POV statements (similarly repetitive) on an unrelated article. As it's an IP, then it may not be the same editor.

There has been no communication from this editor, by either edit summary, response to warning templates, or through talk pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:


Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Blocked for 48 hours by admin Nyttend.[1] (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sam Degelia reported by User:Nkgal (Result: 72h )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [2]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:28, 20 April 2011

Comments:

This user has had a periodic edit war on this article since February 2009, and was blocked for it in April 2009, but returned in 2010 and again this month. User:Kww, an admin, semi-protected the page since the user was switching between their login and their IP address, though they've continued to edit the talk page using their IP address. The user has been trying to refocus a section on a tertiary character by citing a file they uploaded to the Commons. I've been trying to remove that citation, explaining Wikipedia can't be used to cite itself. The file they uploaded has been already deleted twice for copyright violations. The user has had no edits on other articles, or even in other sections of this one article. Given their username, there's also a strong possibility that they have a conflict of interest. Looking for a little help!--Nkgal (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

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

Comments:

Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Please read this editor's edit summaries to get a sense of where her/his head is. Consideration should be given to a long-term, possible indef, block. Frankly, I would have done it myself were I not involved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that User:Tgandz was indef-blocked while I typed this notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dimestore reported by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments: Editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Further comment Editor claims not to have read the 3RR warning before making final revert. Inexperienced editor, so is probably unaware of WP policies. A block may not be necessary, a note from an admin may be sufficient. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE: This was my reply to Catfish Jim's message to me regarding the edit war:

'"Hi,

thanks for your e-mail. I just saw it. I changed the sentence again but if it is reverted, I'll avoid the edit war. I already put the explanation in the talk page, otherwise I'll just appeal to place a POV tag on the article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimestore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)"'

If the understanding was that I changed it AFTER reading the message, then it is wrong. I had changed it PRIOR to reading his message, which is why I had wrote "I just saw it," meaning I had just seen the warning AFTER I made the final edit to correct the POV sentence that is threatening the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article. A warning is not necessary. A consensus has not been reached because nobody has made any replies to my explanations in the talk page. I am willing to reach consensus. Those, however, who wish to push a POV statement and present it as fact are not. I have presented my case to both WP:RSN and WP:NPOV to dispute the contentious sentence.Dimestore (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Page was previously protected (currently unprotected) by admin DMacks. (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Interferometrist reported by User:86.183.175.94 (Result: Already protected)[edit]

Interferometometrist keeps reverting the article Vacuum Tube to incude an invalid definitionn of a term.

Last reversion here: here

I have requested a citation that the term is as he claims here

His reaction is to simply delete the tag here

I am perfectly entitled to challenge material added where it is incorrect. I am also perfectly entitled to remove unsourced material. Interferometrist has sought to effectively prevent my challenging his inaccurate information by getting the article protected so that I can't challenge him. This seems to be an abuse of the protection of articles. It isn't there to prevent invalid information being challenged. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And the citation neded tag has once more been deleted here claiming that no citation is needed. This goes against WP:VERIFY

86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article's talk page that Interferometrist has been referring to. Instead of trying to get Interferometrist sanctioned for edit warring (which you're also guilty of if they are), you should keep on discussing it on the article's talk page. Also, Interferometrist, by what I see, did not protect the page or request its protection. It was done by another editor. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's the user/pagelinks for convenience, by the way.
Zakhalesh (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Right. But I was just about to request the page protection (actually I should have done so a while back when we had another edit war over terminology) when someone with less patience for this crap went ahead and did the obvious thing. As far as no {CN} being needed, I invited reactions on the talk page. Anyone can thus reinstate it (but if it's done by DieSwartzPunkt I will revert that too, as he well knows). Interferometrist (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw your intent to request page protection and was prepared to decline it if it was a request for semi. Content disputes need to be worked out on the talk page, not in edit summaries, not in revert wars, and not here on this ANI page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I surely agree with you about settling content disputes on the talk page. I did adress the content there when this initially arose, but it went way beyond content when this person continued to waste our time rather than seriously listening to what he was being told. This case was more clear-cut, by the way, than the previous case where you DID (briefly) grant semi-protection to this page when he was also wasting our time over a different linguistic concern (this person has been on a long crusade to rid WP of American English in favor of British English, but automatically assumes that any term he hasn't heard must be "American" -- as I've disproved -- and begins an edit war with that petty motivation).
He even admits that he didn't understand the issue initially but then invents a different and PURELY LINGUISTIC issue: that two words which are synonyms (in the context) are not to be interchanged because HE had never heard of one. There are 134 editors watching this page and none of them felt that his {CN} was needed when I invited anyone else to revert my removal of the tag if they felt it was needed (although someone did finally add references at that position to shut him up, but those actually detract from the article where the use of the term was incidental to the purpose of the discussion). The wording he felt so strongly about removing as "unsourced" had been in the article since 2005 as "high-gain" until some time ago when I overhauled portions of the article I made it more precise: "high voltage gain," both of which meant "high mu," a more technical (and obscure) term which is synonymous with "voltage gain" (and I include both terms in the recent versions).
I'm not interested in this particular issue so much as being able to edit without defining every little term that one person fails to have heard of. A NORMAL person (who isn't out to pick an edit war) will go educate themselves or at least discuss their concerns on the talk page (constructively) rather than spending one minute adding a tag just to waste other people's time (the purpose of adding citations is to back up FACTS, not language usage when the article isn't about linguistics). If I spend an hour (or 2 or 3) editing an article to make Wikipedia better, then I'm happy with what I have done and feel my time was well spent. If I spend an hour (or more!) dealing with disruptive behaviour by this or other anonymous editors trying to pick a fight, my time has been wasted. For the sake of Wikipedia, editing good content shouldn't have to involve this sort of hassle and I'd be happier if every editor were forced to take responsibility for their entire history of edits, not just the ones that you can trace to the IP address they've been using for the last week :-( Interferometrist (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Page was already protected by admin EncMstr before this report was filed. (non-admin backlog close) Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Anonymous user (IP address of 68.194.239.60) is causing problems on several articles including Puerto Rican people, Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico‎, and Puerto Ricans in the United States‎. User is apparent sockpuppet of banned editor User:Afrodr. Others editors such as User:SamEV have reverted edits and and have pointed the fact that user is posting unbased claims with no concrete evidence. I require some help here on what to do as I have reverted an article three times, but do not want to cross the 3RR rule. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have reverted all his unconstructive edits. he apparently cursed me out on my talk page, but that was removed by an administrator keeping an eye on the situation/--XLR8TION (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Traditha reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: Discussion moved to ANI)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [18]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
In addition to the 3RR warning and the article's Talk page I made the following attempts to engage the editor in discussion: 1 2 3 4

I also sought help from the WP:SOAPS community here

The edits this person is making are entirely unsourced, made up of original research, completely in-universe, and notability hasn't been established. Not only are Wikipedia guidelines not being followed but even the soap opera project's guidelines are being ignored (here).

I've also left messages in my edit summaries: 1 2 3

It was a different editor who initially trimmed the article down here

I know that I'm guilty of edit-warring myself but I was really trying to get the editor to engage in discussion and honestly trying keep the article from being unencyclopedic. Thus far the editor has refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussion or even leave any kind of edit summary. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Looks like admin intervention is needed, as you've got multiple issues going on here, with possible tag teaming/sock puppetry at work from Big BLA (talk · contribs). According to the talk page of User talk:Traditha and the article talk page, you've tried to engage this user in discussion since February 2011 with no success. More to the point, the user has made 205 edits to articles and zero edits to user or talk pages.[25] Based on the evidence, I think User:Traditha requires a block for failing to respond to repeated queries, for refusing to work collaboratively with other editors, and for edit warring and introducing OR to Wikipedia. I also recommend an SPI on Big BLA and Traditha. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Should this be closed and then I report it to ANI? SQGibbon (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe report it to ANI first? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've basically copied my report here over to ANI. Thanks for the advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:212.124.170.220 reported by User:John (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.124.170.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Adds material


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:212.124.170.220

No recent talk page discussion, but the article has long been subject to shall we say nationalistic editing. I just added this to try to resolve the situation but I am reluctant to get involved in a discussion if this user is just going to revert their preferred version ad infinitum. I'd like this anon editor to get a block or a stern warning about edit-warring. Obviously I am not able to do it as I reverted the addition once. --John (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment As far as I can tell from the diffs, the IP was warned about edit warring at 19:20 on their talk page just after making their third revert. However, they ignored the warning and made a fourth revert at 20:20. The IP has been edit warring with two other users. Although Wikipedia culture frowns upon commenting on content, I don't subscribe to that POV. Looking at the edits in question, it appears that a compromise is possible, such that both edits can be combined. I say this, because the IP's source (BBC News) mentions an "Italian defence ministry" report which may also be included in the UNEP report. A compromise is therefore possible such that both POV can be presented. The NGO in question, "l'Association nationale des familles des victimes des Forces armées" (ANAVAFAF) may or may not be notable, I don't know. But the fact remains, the IP is using a secondary source from 2007 to make their claims while the competing editors are using a primary from 2002. Granted, a pressure group isn't the best source for medical claims, but the BBC News report mentions at least one other study. I think the IP's point can be preserved if it is rewritten to adhere closer to the source and attribute the claim to "Anavafaf". If this is not possible, then use the talk page to explain why not. However, it is clear that the IP was wrong to attribute the claim to a nebulous entity referred to as "European non-governmental groups" when the source clearly says "Anavafaf", and to specifically claim that the use of weapons with cancer-causing depleted uranium was the cause of their deaths when that is not known or actually claimed by the source in question. If these speculative claims rise to the level of significant source coverage, then they should be added in a neutral manner. If not, they should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 3RR violation, and this edit summary is unacceptable - even if POVs can be combined. Administrator John is reminded not to use the rollback tool is a dispute. If the IP evades the block, feel free to request protection on my talk page or at RFPP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Insider201283 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Amway Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Financeguy222 (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:1. It would be appreciated if you could revert the page to the version with my hard work if any blocks are added! 2. I placed a 3RR warning on FG222's page, he removed it[37].

--Insider201283 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Charges of conflict of interest aside, the user is engaging in little constructive talk and blanket reverting. The way to handle a conflict of interest this is surely not, especially after requests to do otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist (Result: 1 week)[edit]

This editor has continually reverted well sourced information without any discussion or excuse.He has done it again and again in the following articles and others.

[38]1

[39]2

[40]3

[41]4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talkcontribs) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike: :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Cannot see that they do actually as you never reported the guy responsible for vandalism and I did.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Others have complained about him reverting/editing stuff without reason as well. [42]1 [43]2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talkcontribs) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Andres has been blocked for a week I believeOwain the 1st (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Adotrde reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: PP)[edit]

Page: Robb Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 09:06, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Speaking and networking */ restoring info with citation")
  2. 10:20, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424832589 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) What? Read about Streaming Faith -- most definitely relaible and notable")
  3. 10:37, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424835602 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) "Revert-wars do not help build consensus" Before reverting, please post on the talk page...sthg I have been doing.")
  4. 14:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "added two new refs from City News Singapore (one refs him as speaking to business group, one includes info on talking to govs) / added one new ref from The Christian Post")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], [45]

Comments:

  • These edits amount to an on-going effort to peddle the notion that Thompson is an advisor to business and government leaders. I have added {{fv}} to the source originally provided for this claim and have made a case that alternatives provided do not satisfy WP:RS. The fourth removal of {{fv}} subsequent to a 3RR notice today puts this editor into >3RR territory, and a block is warranted to reinforce the message that the talk page -- not repeated edits -- should be used to form consensus for this sort of change.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I changed the sources; I didn't believe I was reverting. Just because one editor disagrees with me on whether a source is reliable or not (one of which is KTBN-TV and the other Streaming Faith (the world's largest online faith based broadcasting portal)). OK, the editor disagreed on both of those sources, so to save ourselves from ongoing back and forth, I researched and found new sources and instead of "no citation given" which Nomoskedasticity added, I replaced them with the new citations. I've been referencing everything I was doing on the talk page. I really don't see what I did wrong? If I was simply reverting him, I understand, but I wasn't. I only undid him once (without editing the article) because I felt my sources were genuine and he didn't discuss it on the talk page (I asked him to discuss it on the talk page in my edit summary when reverting). Adotrde (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Adotrde, I get the sense, as a fairly new user, you aren't familiar with the WP:BLP policy. Is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The fourth edit isn't really a revert. However, there is definitely a dispute on the article, so I am protecting it. King of ♠ 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Unfortunately, this report is three days old (although it was reported at the time of the edit warring), and I see edit warring on both sides. However, if you wish to report a user for tendentious editing (e.g., improperly removing {{fv}} tags), by all means I recommend taking the issue to WP:ANI. However, I highly recommend to both sides to be wary of a) edit warring, b) the WP:BRD cycle, and c) WP:BLP. Editors are warned that blocks may be placed in the future for violation of any of these principles, even if 3RR is not specifically broached. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:3456truth reported by User:GabrielF (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3456truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 13:43 April 20th [46]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] I should have gone to the talk page earlier in this process, but I referred to 3RR when I did.[58]. Additionally, I brought the situation up at the NPOV noticeboard.[59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60][61][62]


Comments:

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Editors on both sides breached WP:3RR here, but I believe page protection will facilitate the discussion that has started here more than handing out blocks will. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Passover Seder Plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:47, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by 99.32.190.213")
  2. 19:59, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "you don't get to inject your own opinions here")
  3. 20:46, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv again")
  4. 20:47, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
  5. 20:51, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
Note, User:Ohnoitsjamie, being an admin has blocked the IP who made the edits he was reverting

Pi (Talk to me! ) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a clear cut case of repeat NPOV editing. I gave him plenty of warnings, which were ignored. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The way I interpreted the edits (yesterday and today) is that firstly 69... removed a paragraph and put a POV edit summary in, and rightfully you restored it. However, it's the 4 times that you removed the word minority without going to the talk page, or going to the user talk page with an attempt to find mutually satisfying wording (for example specifying specific Jewish groups which do or don't use the orange) which I think is poor form for an experienced admin. In my opinion, just because an editor has a POV and is changing the meaning of a paragraph it doesn't mean that the original paragraph was neutral, or even more neutral than the IP's edits. Pi (Talk to me! ) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I find the edit warring entirely unacceptable. ONJ only left boilerplate messages on the IP talk page, didn't bother to use the real talk page, and used the rollback tool. If I am to treat ONJamie as any other user, I would block him for 24 hours, and reduce the block time on the IP (the IP is using such language as "arbitration" which clearly shows the IP is aware of Wikipedia policies, and thus 3RR). But frankly, I don't feel like dealing with another shitfest on my talk page, so I'll just leave my comment and recommendation for a few hours and wait to see if another administrator responds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am somewhat suspicious with the IPs first edit here, removing the whole section that was later warred over with the edit summary "(This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture.)". If someone started a long dispute with that and I was an uninvolved admin I might react as Jamie did here. However, I don't know if he was uninvolved or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If we're going to assume that this was the administrator mistaking the edits for POV pushing to the point of disruption, then a) we should reprimand the administrator for not paying attention, as the last 4 changes were not outright POV pushing, and frankly the behavior wasn't bad at all, and b) either block both of them or unblock the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My thoughts are that while the initial edit by the IP that blanked the paragraph was unacceptable POV, subsequent edits were more reasonable (as far as I know making a rash POV edit doesn't mean you can't subsequently make an edit in a better way, as the IP did). ONJ made 5 revisions, with the last 4 being to basically remove the term "minority", which may be more accurate than the original text (I don't feel I know enough about the issue to say which version I prefer). Although ONJ says he gave warnings, all these warnings were simply the template warnings, and I'd have thought he could just as easily have tried to discuss the wording on the talkpage. I'm also not convinced that removing the word "minority" is less POV than putting it in. It would appear to me that two editors who disputed whether or not the word "minority" should appear in the sentence repeatedly reverted each other until the one who was an admin blocked the other for 3RR (while making 4 reverts himself). Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Jamie seems to be mistaken in his edits here. This is not POV pushing as a quick check online and in the source quoted in the article shows the oranges are not really catching on. It is not vandalism either. I think they should both be blocked for edit warring, or the IP should be unblocked. Since no 3RR warnings were issued to the IP and they did not discuss on the talk page, I would suggest unblocking the IP. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops there is a wee conversation on the talk page; Jamie says if you continue to remove it you'll be blocked. But the IP did not continue to remove it. He changed the wording. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Jamie has not edited for three hours so this might have to wait till morning to be resolved. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've encountered this before from an admin, who I locked an article on. It's entirely unacceptable to act this way. It's either negligence in not bothering to read any of the four diffs while fighting vandalism, or it's intentionally disregarding the rules. i stlll think that a) a block on the IP was appropriate, and b) a block on the admin would also be appropriate, unless ONJ comes clean and can admit fault where it lies. Self-criticism is a vitally important tool in all of life Face-smile.svg. And meting out justice blindly, without regard for someone's title, is also important (thus, if the IP also were to come clean, I would say an unblock be appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR? DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is after consideration that
  • the evidence shows that Ohnoitsjamie has edit-warred,
  • the preceding discussion shows that other editors agree about this,
  • Ohnoitsjamie as an administrator is presumed not to need warnings about the edit-warring policy,
  • of the five edits Ohnoitsjamie reverted, only the first was vandalism (removing lots of sourced text for no clear reason) and thus exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring, while the subsequent four ([63], [64], [65] and [66]) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement,
  • Ohnoitsjamie did not avail themselves of the opportunity presented by this report to revert themselves, and
  • Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools, which were used to win the content dispute and the edit war.
I am not unblocking the IP because they edit-warred as well and have not made an unblock request. Because blocks of administrators tend to be controversial, I am submitting this block for review at WP:ANI#WP:AN3.  Sandstein  13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Sandstein, for taking on this potentially controversial work. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Jamie bit a newbie (69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs)) pretty badly, in addition to the edit warring. I left a note on 69.116's talk page. It also seemed excessive that Jamie used a block template that doesn't explain how to request an unblock. The person had no clue about how to act in a content dispute, but was IMHO not a vandal. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Opinion I posted this here because I thought it should be brought to the attention of the admin community for discussion (and because they know rules/procedures/consensus better than I do). Although I agree (and proposed) that ONJ was out of order breaking 3RR and blocking a newbie he was in an edit war with without trying to resolve the issue through appropriate methods, I want to voice some general criticism of the block. I agree that in principle the rules on 3RR should apply equally whether the user is an anonymous newcomer or an admin with 100,000 edits as ONJ is, however I question the logic of imposing a 24h ban on an admin in ONJ's position. My understanding of the block policy is that it is not supposed to be punitive but rather to prevent disruption/vandalism of the encyclopaedia. I don't really see how blocking ONJ for a day is going to improve the encyclopaedia since a) The edit war is over b) ONJ will be aware of 3RR and having a reprimand or warning from other admins would probably serve to remind him to be more careful in the future about identifying POV pushing. I think that we as a community should either trust someone with admin tools and accept that they are a reasonable and beneficial editor or we shouldn't (I am not calling into question ONJ's general ability or conduct) and find it a bit of a contradiction that the result of this incident is to say that we don't think ONJ would make useful contributions in the next day but we think that tomorrow he'll be a highly trusted member of the community again, worthy of admin tools. I would also like to make clear to ONJ that I didn't report the incident here so as to grind an axe or call for him to be blocked, rather I wanted to note my objection to his conduct and have some other admins comment and decide the appropriate outcome. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    It's all well and good to say a block shouldn't be applied for bad behavior, but any horse and buggy driver without the bite of a whip is going nowhere. The same applies in human circles; if the law is not enforced, it is almost always ignored. ONJ has been asked before to stop things (as shown at the corresponding WP:ANI thread), without effect. My universal experience on Wikipedia has been that endless warnings for behavior do nothing if not eventually enforced with a block. Otherwise people don't get the idea that they're not above the rules. A block is thus most certainly preventative, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:216.120.248.83 (Result: User:216.120.248.83 blocked for 24 hours; reverting multiple editors )[edit]

Page: List of The Glades episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.120.248.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] Editor has thus far ignored the discussion, and prefers to discuss via edit summary

Comments:
I may be starting this too soon, but it seems to me we're pretty clear-cut here: this IP editor popped up roughly 24 hours ago to install one particular edit on a small number of television list articles where it had recently been removed. His editing style is aggressive, and until he met with some resistance on the article in question, did not provide an edit summary for any of his edits. He ignored the discussion on the article's talk page on his last revert, and appears unwilling to work to consensus. He has four warnings on his talk page, to which he has not responded, and which have no effect except to possibly make him more aggressive in his editing (he's subsequently reverted comparable edits on a number of other pages). Some stronger action is needed to get his attention and get his editing on track.

The basis for the reverts of his edits is straightforward: MOS:HASH is unequivocal that the № symbol should never be used to replace the word number in text, and that # should be used under limited conditions. There has been widespread recent addition of №/# to separate columns in television article lists that contain the episode number and life-of-series number of episodes. Aside from the MOS issue, their use is nonsensical: they simply tell the reader that each column contains numbers, but not what the numbers mean. Use of this numbering style has consistently been removed in GA and FA articles, and I along with a couple other editors, have attempted to replace them with meaningful labels as we encounter them, brooking resistance from two editors more concerned with how the lists appear on their particular monitors than with a label that is meaningful to an encyclopedic standard. (See discussion at Talk:List of Covert Affairs episodes)

I have concerns this may be a sockpuppet of a registered editor, but no foundation to pursue it beyond a suspicion. However, this IP is far to knowledgeable about reference articles, FA and other elements of Wikipedia for an editor on board for barely 24 hours. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bradford Guitar Boy reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result:Blocked 72 hours )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [75]


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

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

Comments:This is the third time this editor has been referred here for inserting this piece of text. He utterly refuses to go with talk page consensus which has included an RfC. This follows the Bradford page being locked for two weeks(on his version).--Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


I've blocked him for 72 hours - 3rd tme = 3 days to think about it. Should there be further addition against consensus, then a page ban may be in order, such page ban being logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.232.253.45 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: already semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Armenian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.232.253.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

  • 1st revert: [82]
  • 2nd revert: [83]
  • 3rd revert: [84]
  • 4th revert: [85]
  • Edit that he keeps reverting [86]

--Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Avanu (Result:No action; 3RR was not violated)[edit]

Page: Pauline mysticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Edit_Warring_at_Pauline_mysticism

(The other editor, Crews Giles, has also been notified to be careful not to edit war.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pauline_mysticism

Comments:
Looks like editor Crews Giles was trying to PROD the article and Richard decided to remove the tag without comment. Crews seems to be providing lots of discussion on the Talk page, and Richard provided no explanation for initial revert, then proceeded to use his original revert as justification for later 2 reverts. Also appears that Crews has asked Richard to provide some discussion on why he is making these changes and Richard is not responsive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A PROD can be removed at any time by any editor, and should not be reverted. It would be nice if there were a discussion, but it's not required. I've re-removed the PROD since an editor objects. The next step should be in filing an WP:AFD. Dayewalker (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You don't need three reverts to 'edit war'. And additionally, its kind of poor sportsmanship to mess with the content in favor of one side or another when this is being discussed here. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 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. Three reverts does not cross the line. (Dayewalker, we must have edit conflicted, because actually I re-removed the PROD. :) I've explained the policy to the tagger.) Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No editor "objected". Simply removing an edit without explanation doesn't signify what the edit is for. That is the problem here. An editor making pushy changes over and over without explaining himself, while the other editor is asking for comment in the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Policy does not require an explanation; it says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, you understand that the page you refer to is not "policy", but a guideline. And in line with overall guidelines on Wikipedia, there is 'community' and 'consensus'. Anyone is allowed to object to the PROD, but we end up in silly territory if we say that people *SHOULD NOT* explain their actions to other editors. In fact, the majority of community guidelines say we *SHOULD* explain when we do things, that is what the Edit Summary is for. So, despite it being 'approvable', it is not at all in line with community/collaborative editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The page is appropriately tagged "policy" at the top: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Whether it is in line with community/collaborative editing or not, it is not required to give an explanation for removing a PROD tag (although it is recommended); it is, however, forbidden to restore the tag when it is removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Did I somehow ask this to be a 3RR review? Because I thought it said 'edit warring'. Hmmm. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to take it up at WP:ANI if you disagree with my administrative decision. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Its not possible for me to disagree, because I never claimed that RAN violated 3RR. You closed this after continually arguing that with me, when that wasn't even my assertion in the first place. -- Avanu (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a peculiar perspective on events. I'm an uninvolved administrator declining to take action on a noticeboard. I am not arguing with you and have not been arguing with you, unless you count pointing out your obvious error in describing WP:PROD as a "guideline" as arguing. Nobody crossed the 3RR threshold, and there is no edit war on this article...now. Richard should not have removed the PROD notice repeatedly, but should have explained to the other contributor that he was in good faith violating policy by restoring it. The PROD notice is appropriately removed, and there is nothing to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
By 'argue', I was meaning debate, although argue does express a more acrimonious situation. My mistake there. My reason for bringing this here was to encourage Mr. Norton to communicate with other editors, as he has a bad habit of making sometimes controversial or unexplained edits and moving on. You framed it as a 3RR (which it was not), rather than as an Edit War (which it was), and then summarily dismissed it (correctly, if one assumed it was 3RR, which it wasn't). Since you dealt with it this way, it is hard to say that anything positive was accomplished beyond letting Crews Giles know not to edit war also. But since I already notified him, and he was communicating and looking for answers already, it doesn't solve the other side of this problem. -- Avanu (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason I note that it was not a 3RR is because a 3RR is the bright line for blocking, unless the reversion is exempted. Nobody crossed that threshhold. A block to prevent disruption at this article might be appropriate if edit warring were ongoing or, even if not, in some other circumstances, but the fact is that Richard Norton was right that he is entitled to remove the PROD notice without explanation and that, once it is removed, it is not to be restored. Blocking him for not communicating when policy is behind him is not likely to encourage him to engage more collegially in the future. I spoke to him about communication at the time I addressed this listing. If you think that more is needed, your best bet is probably to pursue other means of dispute resolution, such as WP:RfC/U. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I would hope that blocking isn't the only (or even advisable) option in such a situation. I don't care to see anyone blocked if we can help it. I just want editors to take a moment to communicate if the situation needs it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.18.192 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:76.67.18.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Comment This anon keeps reverting a simple sentence from the lead of the article. When asked for reasons this person goes on to very complicated logic fogging and starts serious personal attacks. This person is so immune to discussion that on the article talk page his/her most reply so far was pure bullying, which is further enhanced by edit summaries. in a bit more than two days time the same thing was reverted 6 times, four in less than 24 hours. No use warning this person, as the anon is threatening me with the three revert rule on the article talk page. A a very stupid wheel war and a very nasty stance, if I may say so. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see four reversions within 24 hours, maybe I'm just missing it. I see both of you sitting at three reverts in that period. If it continues, we can fully protect the page, or we can block both of you. It might be wise to seek other opinions or at least limit yourselves to the talk page. Kuru (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir reported by User:76.67.18.192 (Result: no violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Also note:

  • Additional revert: [97]

Please note that the links provided by AK demonstrate edits over a multiday period, amidst discussion, regarding a content dispute: namely, a point regarding the undue weight of indicating that South Asia and Indian subcontinent are unequivocally the same, which is already dealt with in a lower section of the article ('sometimes'). Another editor first discarded them as 'ip nonsense'.[98] This editor, in his revert warring, removed mine and other's edits in the 1st revert noted, and has not otherwise addressed points discussed on the talk page, comments obtusely, and simply proceeds to belittle, call names (referring me to a 'brain' essay, and mockingly referring to me as 'dear', and 'gurudeva' on talk page), level accusations, and babble with less-than-par English fluency. I suspect the editor is a South Asian (directly or indirectly) who is attempting to insinuate a political stance about the propriety and equivalency of using 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent'. No matter -- the droning passive-aggression of this editor is vexing. This editor has apparently also morphed and POV-pushed these notions at 'Indian subcontinent' in a similar manner over months, advocating the merging of the articles and doing so long ago without consensus or process[99]; observe article history. And, so, further discussion with this editor seems futile. It is also ironic (but unsurprising) that the editor indicates I was warningthreatening him about 3RR, and then reports me for doing so. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See that thing flying in your vicinity? Could be a boomerang... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Two reverts without an intervening edit from another user count as one. Your "bonus" revert is out of the time window. Please see my note above and consider this a final warning for both of you. Kuru (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly did you post the same link twice? To make it look like different edits? Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Box2112 (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (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: [103]

Comments:

I'm not an American, so I don't really understand your politics. But I was reading a political blog last week (I didn't save the url - sorry) and found an attack on Wikipedia for bias, instancing the "political" section of the Astroturfing article. A quick look at the section indicated only Republican party was mentioned, which looked dodgy. A look at the talk page revealed long-term concerns by various editors. So I added the POV-section tag, and added a suggestion as to how to move forward. I can't fix the section, of course -- don't know enough about US politics! --; but marking it with the tag will defuse criticism.

The tag was reverted three times by Xenophrenic, without any attempt at discussion. It looks from the talk page as if he is the person responsible for the bias, and there might be a violation of WP:OWN as well. Can someone please deal with him? A POV tag encouraging people to address a perceived issue is probably the right approach. Deleting the tag does not sound right. Box2112 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag was inappropriate, if you know of instances of "the other side" engaging in astroturf, please add it! Otherwise, the POV tag is mute as you're asking to add information which nobody can verify exists. I've removed the tag. Also, this is not a 3rr violation, and no warning was left on the user talk page. BelloWello (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is the tag inappropriate? Whether something is POV is not dependent on whether I try to resolve the POV.
Not sure where the other stuff comes from: I didn't assert that it was a 3rr violation, but editwarring. And if you look at the bottom of the user talk page, you will see the warning. :-) Box2112 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with BelloWello's reasoning. Tags can be a topic to discuss, but you don't say that they invalid simply because the tagger did not fix the imbalance.North8000 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Why is the tag inappropriate?" Please see NPOV dispute "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Mojoworker (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry mate, but I need to correct the misinformation in your report here. I haven't reverted more than 3 times. I haven't reverted "without any attempt at discussion"; you'll note the instructions to "see talk" in my edit summaries, as well as the lengthy discussion on the talk page. You'll also note that I haven't edited that article in 2 days, and your edit warring has resumed against other editors. You folks can take it up with them. (This is an interesting turn of events from Box2112, who has fewer than a couple dozen edits over just a few days, and claims to have been directed here by a Wikipedia attack-site). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the situation at the article in question but have been engaged in gentle friendly arm wrestling with Xenophrenic with similar issues for months at a similar article, where "astroturfing" has been a hot topic. (Tea Party movement) But since it usually involving them using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)(Unsubstantiated comment struck.) there probably aren't any explicit wp:violations (except IMO one 1RR vio. that I didn't report) because I am more interested in building a consensus to fix that mess of an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Struck a part of my comment. It was it was taken as being overly harsh which means that it was overly harsh. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment struck by North8000 for being completely unsubstantiated, not "overly harsh", per WP:WQA resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact what is the point of a tag, if it can only be added when someone fixes the problem? (after which it is unnecessary). I think perhaps BelloWello was addressing which side of the argument he felt was wrong, not whether an editwar was in progress? It's curious to see how the rules are used on wikipedia. Even when they are clear. Box2112 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating to see Xenophrenic, Mojoworker and BelloWello working in tandem. It seems that some people have a pretty desperate need to keep this section saying what it says, it seems. I think we've established WP:POV pretty clearly; and who the guilty parties are... :) Box2112 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a 3RR, obviously, and no evidence of an imminent continuation of edit-warring. This seems stale at this point as the conversation and editing of that page have moved well past that spat. Kuru (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Xenophrenic has carried this to my talk page, saying that my posts in this section are a "personal attack". This may not be over yet. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:75.64.77.105 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: Alvin Plantinga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.64.77.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:03, 15 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ added link to paper")
  2. 03:57, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 42424