Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive157

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer (Result: page protected)[edit]

This user keeps removing any reference from the Unicron page to him being a Decepticon. I have provided THREE different officially licensed sources by the character's creator saying he is a Decepticon to the user on their Talk page and on the talk page for Unicron, but all talk is ignored and the reverts keep coming. I think we are already in a bit of an edit war, so I wanted to try to stop it now and get help. Any advice? Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the problems shows that you have both gone past "a bit of an edit war". I've protected the page for three days to allow the two of you to try to discuss the change on a talk page instead of through tit-for-tat edit summaries. Please try the suggestions at WP:DR. If this flares up when the protection expires, you can both be subject to having your accounts blocked if you repeat your recent actions. Kuru (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd look forward to a talk. I've been posting on talk pages for several days now, and all she does is revert to her edits, never responds to the talk invitations. Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Your edits are wrong man. He's not a Decepticon in any canon. One toy does not count.--FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Say, how about Talk:Unicron? People who are interested in this conversation are more likely to be watching that page. Kuru (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:86.145.105.224 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Tom and Jerry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.145.105.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Comments:
This is a long-term IP hopping vandal, who continually reverts to his preferred version (with poor spelling and grammar) whenever article protection expires - this article needs semi-protection again. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:71.235.150.99 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Saul Alinsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.235.150.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

  1. 02:08, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  2. 02:35, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  3. 03:14, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  4. 03:34, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  5. 12:51, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  6. 12:59, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  7. 13:04, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  8. 15:28, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")
  9. 16:51, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Community organizing and politics */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Comments:

User:Seabas73 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Planned Parenthood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seabas73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=427112268&oldid=427111971


Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seabas73&diff=prev&oldid=427113721

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planned_Parenthood&diff=427114559&oldid=424854762

Comments:

Violation of community-imposed 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

    • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Lgmagone reported by User:lhb1239 (Result: No action for now)[edit]

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


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

Note: The last revert diff above was made without an edit summary and after I had reminded that editor in my own edit summary to please come to the talk page and discuss.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16], [17], [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] Note: This isn't the first time I have tried to keep things civil in editing this article -- I have repeated myself many times over on the talk page of the Mortenson article about editing together rather than fighting about the edits and reversions just to revert.

Comments:
A number of editors (and one administrator) have attempted on more than one occasion to reason with this editor on his talk page and on the talk page of the article. From practically his first edit in this article, this editor has been engaging in edit-warring behavior. Administrator User:Will Beback has tried to reason with him by telling him point-blank that his edits are disruptive (diff here [20]. Last week, it got so tiresome that Will Beback asked the two of us to take a break from editing the article for three days. I did not edit the article for at least three days, the editor this report is about was back editing considerably sooner than that. Other editors have tried to tell him to back off, too. This editor has also been making edits at the Mortenson article and talk page as various different IPs rather than logging in. He's been warned several times about logging in and not editing as an IP. This has also seemed to go unnoticed by this editor. Some diffs (on the article talk page) for this are here [21], here [22], and here [23]. Some diffs for this in the article editing here [24], here[25], and here [26]. I have come here because his biggest offense is edit warring. He has essentially mocked anyone coming to a noticeboard regarding his edits by stating "I don't think anyone would find them disruptive"[27]. One administrator has already found his edits disruptive and edit warring in nature (Will Beback, as noted above). If I'm in the wrong place, I apologize. I'm totally new to this process. From my observations, Lgmagone is an agenda editor (he's pretty much only ever edited the Mortenson article) on a POV mission to win. If there is something I've left out or I'm at the wrong place, please let me know. One more note, I see that this editor has now gone to the BLP noticeboard (as seen in the following diff: [28] He also seems to be now forum shopping with the addition of this: [29]. Personally, I'm real uncomfortable coming to any noticeboard because I think that if one is going to take responsibility for editing Wikipedia, they should also behave in a responsible manner when asked to do so. More succinctly, I just don't like being a "tattle-tale". But, at this point, I don't think I have/had any other choice. Thanks for considering this. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add my response.

Reponse to 3R Violation

I've been attempting to add souced, reliable information to the article about Greg Mortenson since the original news broke. The other editor, LHB1239, continues to remove the souced, reliable information that I've added into the article very quickly after I've added it. Just last night, I added several bits of good information to the article, and LHB1239 reverts all of it - and accuses me of edit warring. I don't understand how I am edit warring if I'm adding information and he is the one reverting it.
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "revert" above are not reverts at all. It was times that I was refining what I wrote. If you look at the change, you will see that I did not revert any information in those edits.
I'd also like to mention that LHB1239 has reverted as many times as I have. So I'm not sure if he is edit warring and I'm simply making the article correct, or if I'm edit warring and he is simply making it correct. In fact, after the three day break as requested by administrator Will, he went in and promptly removed all of my recent changes. The revert that I made today was putting them back in because they were constructive edits. Needless to say, LHB1239 does not go without blame
I think it would be most insightful if someone were to read the discussion page...you'd notice that LHB1239 goes in tirads at many different editors who add unfavorable information to the Greg Mortenson article.

Response to Forum Shopping

LHB1239 accused me of "forum shopping" as I put in a request for comments on the article. I do not believe that it is inappropriate requesting comments when two editors disagree. Lgmagone (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: No action for now. Lgmagone is pushing the limits, especially on a WP:BLP article. Since he has opened an RfC we hope that the editors will try to reach agreement there. Be aware that we expect a high standard of accuracy and sourcing for any negative information about the article subject. If you are uncertain whether something is acceptable, ask any admin for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Lcmortensen (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: New Zealand dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [426751268]

  • 1st revert: [427091227]
  • 2nd revert: [427133140]
  • 3rd revert: [427141213]
  • 4th revert: [427142316]
  • 5th revert: [427142811]


Non-consensus removal of images

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [427144340]

Attempt to resolve dispute: [30]

Comments:
Edit war over the non-consensus removal of compliant non-free images in an article relating to currency.

Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR. ΔT The only constant 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:BelloWello (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to:Varies

  • 1st revert: [31] - straight undo
  • 2nd revert: [32] - same as previous undo without using undo
  • 3rd revert: [33] - Pretty much the same thing, may or may not be revert
  • 4th revert: [34] - straight undo
  • 5th revert: [35] - undoing this a few minutes before


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:

User has username and has stated that he is alumni of the school. The "Fountainview" from his username is because of his affiliation with the school. User was blocked on April 29 for a 3RR violation. Also has previous blocks for socking and BLP vios. BelloWello (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to improve this article by adding references and changing wording. BelloWello (talk) has been messing up this article by trying to delete whole sections. I have been careful not to revert, but rather to revise in order to create a better article. I have been working on this article because it needs a lot of revision, but that doesn't mean it should be cut. As for "previous blocks, etc." those are from a long time ago and are a red herring. BelloWello (talk) has been following me around for a long time trying to engage in many edit wars. Fountainviewkid 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems very odd to accuse me of following an editor around when they haven't edited this article since at least 2009 (I haven't looked further back). The evidence does not exist for me "following" this editor around. I believe the evidence presented is quite clear above. BelloWello (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You have been following me to different articles that I've been involved in, or you've worked to delete whole sections of articles instead of doing the better job of editing. You have also engaged in reverting my changes that I made to try and strengthen the quality of the article. Fountainviewkid 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Still, it is not a reason for edit warring. On Wikipedia, we have to discuss if we disagree as it's bound to happen. BelloWello might disagree with you on this, and you have to discuss with him, not edit warring. If he removes something, it's usually explained.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree which is why I suggest we go to the talk page, before we delete whole sections. BelloWello (talk) , however it seems would disagree at least in action. I am willing to compromise as all of us should, but this should be done fairly not attacking editors who try to restore deleted sections that strengthened the article. Fountainviewkid 24:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────── And whether they strengthen the article or not is something that needs to be discussed. You should not revert regardless of how you feel there - in that action, you are not endorsing that version of the article. And please explain how BelloWello is attacking you.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If I've been attacking him (which I don't believe I have...) that should be discussed at WP:Wikiquette alerts, not here. BelloWello (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I was revising the article to strengthen it's material. I honestly wouldn't say that was a "revert", though the definition is still somewhat foggy. If you look over the past week or so especially on the Southern Adventist University article BelloWello has been engaged in quite a fight with myself and other editors. Additionally he began by challenging my username and other articles I had been involved with. Fountainviewkid 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A revert is defined as the undoing of one or more actions of one or more other editors. I wouldn't consider BelloWello's comments to be fighting; instead, just arguing, which is normal here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I see full reverts at 23:33, 23:28, and 20:59. I see partial reverts at 22:35 and 21:58. The editor is fully aware of 3RR from previous blocks, and was warned during the course of the edit war. Since this is his second block for this in a short span (not including the ignored one), I have upped the duration to 48 hours.
For Bello, I see full reverts at 23:27, 22:21, and 21:36. 23:48 is new material, and 23:31 seems new as well. I'm disappointed to see him show up at another article and start reverting. There is not 3RR violation here, but I want to be clear that future bank and forth reverts will be considered as simple edit warring, especially when you're explicitly counting the reverts and playing games. Kuru (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree - no more gaming the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban or indefinite block?[edit]

It seems, after the long term disruption caused by this user, we may need to invoke a community ban or an indefinite block.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to write up a more extensive request and post it at ANI or AN. This noticeboard is just for editwarring. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree on a permanent block for Fountainviewkid. If I may interject here, this seems to be the third time BW has filed an edit war report against FVK, the first [37] resulted in a page protection and a warning for both editors for 3RR (in deed or intent). The second [38] resulted in a block for FVK and a warning for BW that he would be blocked in the future for edit warring, and not just for violating 3RR. In the interim, BW has filed a username complaint against him [39] and a wikiquette alert [40] based on an argument they had on FVK's talk page while FVK was blocked. These two editors just are not getting along.
Looking at the diffs, FVK is clearly edit warring again. BW has reverted [41] [42] [43] [44] four times as well, and is well aware of the concept of edit warring. Looks like they can't keep it between the lines, and can't stay away from each other. Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion not related to FVK
The first one you listed is not a revert, it removed the promotional material for the first time. BelloWello (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It actually is, and, reverts do not have to be over the same content.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I realize that. The first one still isn't a revert because that was MY FIRST TIME removing the content from the article. BelloWello (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's still a revert, regardless whether its your first time or not. In any case, you seem to be going to the brink of 3RR pretty often. Please do not game the system.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Redacted. If it continues, an interaction ban may be necessary, but, I've been unable to cooperate in the past, but, it did not require any disciplinary action.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring[edit]

Fountain has been a good editor up until this point. He simply does not know how to deal with an extremely bold editor like Bello. And trust me on this one: Bello is very, very bold. Fountain would greatly benefit from mentoring, and a little impulse control. Lionel (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm under mentoring myself. Yes, I think that this user has been bitten a little. I endorse mentoring.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:842U reported by User:Barnstarbob (Result: Page Protected)[edit]

Page: Chevrolet Vega
User being reported: 842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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:

842A keeps deleting lead section and replacing it with his version after a long project discussion he started (but did not participate in). The section was approved in article talk page and automobile projects discussion by many Users. 842A is acting alone, not following opinions of Users in the two previous discussions, and is editing with OWNERSHIP of article.

The discussion regarding Chevrolet Vega is ongoing and not something that is either resolved or static. The discussion page reflects numerous editors citing problems with the article; I am not acting alone. The article essentially has been crafted by one editor who is very close to the subject matter: he has populated the article with his own photographs, photographs form his own cars and promotional material from the manufacturer. He has gone to great length to expand the article, including sections about minutae (fake wooding siding application) while avoiding the broad legacy the car has earned -- which happens to have a large negative component. In discussing these points, the editor has refused to allow the information to be included either in the introduction or in a legacy section – often subdividing the sources for information by "auto" sources and "non-auto" sources as a way of obfuscating the facts. He has suggested that the sources (all listed on the discussion page) are problematic. This includes sources such as Time, Newsweek, Popular Mechanics and books by noted historians. In the process of discussing the article, the editor has strongly discouraged editing of the the article by others, saying others are wasting his time, etc. He has verbally attacked other editors. I can see where including a products extremely negative reputation can be a delicate matter, but at the same time the Vega article receives hundreds of hits per day. There is no need to have an article crafted by one editor, near to subject matter, who strongarms other editors out of the conversation. 842U (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
[45] Writegeist (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Per previous report. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:174.143.205.51 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Vittorio Arrigoni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.143.205.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:59, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  2. 02:01, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427169312 by ClueBot NG (talk) is this rigged or what?")
  3. 02:08, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "nothing on the Talk page justifies to me the removal of criticial information, from a reliable source, that points to worldview")
  4. 02:15, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427170646 by Sindinero (talk) your claim that it is "false" is Original Reseach, is it not?")
  5. 02:20, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427171169 by Sindinero (talk)")

The article is under a 1RR per WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. Reverts of IPs are exempt from that restriction. Arguments show a familiarity with Wikipedia, such as saying "reliable source" and "original research" nableezy - 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CIreland (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bahamut0013 reported by ΔT The only constant (Result: Declined - go argue at ANI please)[edit]

Page: List of characters of 8-Bit Theater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 11:30, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427158046 by Δ (talk): uh excuse me, but if you want to change the current consensus on the number of non-free images, discuss it first instead of overriding and removing them all.")
  2. 11:36, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427219314 by Δ (talk): discuss, then act. Don't edit war over this.")
  3. 11:43, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427219900 by Δ that's an essay, and your opinion on what constitutes "overuse" isn't in line with the previous consenus. If you revert again, I'll have to protect the page to force you to discuss this.")
  4. 11:49, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427220535 by Δ (talk) You know damn well what you are doing is disruptive and counter to consensus, and this isn;t the only article you're doing it to. Stop or you'll wind up getting blo")
Repeated reinserting non-free content against policy per WP:NFLISTS and WP:OVERUSE ΔT The only constant 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Nay, it's actually Δ who is edit warring over this, and refusing to discuss the issue. I was forced to protect the page. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing to discus policy is crystal clear, usage of 10 non-free images in lists are not allowed. ΔT The only constant 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
[46] I Agree with Bahamut0013, You are still playing with rules misleading policies, and it seems several user are saying you this. So first stop, then ask and discute! --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any policy with the number 10 on it. I do see a previous consensus on the article's talk page when we reduced it from the previous number. Nor do I see a policy that says we should remove every image from an article when one editor deems the number to be excessive. NOR does the 3RR policy allow for continued reverting when other editors object to a nebulous justification. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and this isn't the only article where you have done this. It shoudl have been clear from the previous disputes that your hard-headed charging isn't the best way to go about dealing with this kind of diagreement. Even if you were 100% correct (and you're not even close), being a bully is not a productive way to go. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

-

Previous consensus was for one group shot. read WT:NFC archives. ΔT The only constant 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was regarding different articles. If it was supposed to apply to all, they why wasn't the actual policy amended? If it were truly agreed upon by all that only a couple of non-free images were acceptable, then why did you remove ALL of the images, including the group shot? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats what minimal usage means, NFC never gives an exact number because there will always be one or two exceptions to the rule. Minimal usage is one or two group shots for list of... character pages. ΔT The only constant 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict - how apt!) Consensus changes - by discussion. Your attitude is causing trouble. Templating experienced editors is not the way to influence people. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to change policy WT:NFC is the third door on your left. ΔT The only constant 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
And he freely admits to using force because it's been effective for him. The policy is not so crystal clear as he tries to make out, but still he tries to enforce what he thinks is the letter of the law. The article has a talk page for a reason, and I'm still waiting for him to use it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

───────────────── The way I see it, is that we do not leave a possible violation of the law (or of a decree of the board) stand while discussing, we remove the possible violation, and discuss its re-inclusion. For me, this seems to be the opposite, (in some cases several) editors reverting to a version which possibly violates law/decree, wanting a discussion of removal. The policy may not be crystal clear, it does suggest that overuse is not appropriate and should be removed. Unreferenced material should be removed until properly, reliably referenced, excessive external links are removed and inclusion is discussed, external links to possible (or likely) copyvio's are removed until discussion shows that inclusion is warranted. This is an area under debate like those examples, and I suggest that they are treated in the same way. IMHO, thé way forward is then to remove all, and discuss which of them should be re-included, or even, if all should be re-included. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To be exacting: the use of 10 images - otherwise meeting all other NFC policies - on an article likely isn't a legal problem since that likely falls under US Fair Use. But on WP, we have to go by what the Foundation has said in their resolution on non-free images which is stronger than fair use law, and they have said that all editors must maintain minimal use of non-free images, removing improper images quickly. The end result is still the same as you're talking about - non-free images should be removed if they are not properly used - just that this comes from a slightly different authority. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
that was what I meant with 'decree of the board'/'decree' --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bahamut0013 is wholly out of line here. (1) threatening to use protection to force discussion (see edit summary), (2) using administrator privileges in an argument in which he was directly involved (protecting), (3) attempting to force mass overuse of non-free images onto a list of characters article (multiple edits) in violation of WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC #3a and #8, (4) edit warring while discussion was ongoing on his own talk page. I am absolutely shocked that an editor entitled with administrator, checkuser, and oversight permissions is abusing their privileges in this way. I don't agree that Δ should have continued reverting while this was going on, but the burden on Bahamut0013 is considerably higher. Wow. WOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And again, I have to repeat that I wasn't involved in the matter of the image's suitability until after I protected the page. The point of the matter is that I saw what was clearly a disruptive edit from a user who had a pattern of such edits. I reverted it, and didn't even get the chance to warn the user before he reverted me and templated me as if I didn't know the NFCC. I continued to approach the behavior of his edits, not the content, until after the protection. The persistance of his disruptive edits even after being warned to stop (and just for this latest incident) proved to me that he wasn't going to stop (and he said as much), so I protected the page (on the reversion he preferred, no less) to end the warring. I haven't edited this page (or any of the associated pages) in a long time, and while I still have a mild interest, it was his disruptive editing that got me involved, not my desire to have images of a sprite comic that was long concluded. I refuse to be bullied, especially since it's my duty as an administrator to protect people from such behavior as I tried to stop. And you want to criticize me for doing that? It's an insult. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I too have conducted a large number of such image removals (examples: ([47][48][49]). Am I disruptive? There is a reason WP:NFCC#3a and #8, and WP:NFLISTS exists. Addressing his behavior by protecting an article rather than blocking him solves nothing. He was free to continue editing other list articles in the same manner. That you chose to protect just one article in which images you personally uploaded images that were removed and were recently edit warring to force their inclusion on was out of line. If you were truly intending to address his actions, and not guard a particular article when you supposedly observed a pattern of edits across many articles, then blocking would have been the better tool (though just as equally egregious in use because you were involved in a dispute with the editor). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined No way this is going to be resolved here; please continue the naval gazing at AN/I. For what it's worth, Delta's reverts are clearly exempt from the 3RR rule and I very much doubt that Bahamut0013 would be so daft as to revert again - making a block, whilst maybe allowed by policy, pointless. CIreland (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Szalas reported by User:Cimmerian praetor (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [50]

  • 1st revert: [51]
  • 2nd revert: [52]
  • 3rd revert: [53]
  • 4th revert: There are other reverts using IP, I believe it might be the same user.


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

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

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Cimmerian praetor has violated 3RR and Szalas has made 3 reverts - 2 of which included personal attacks. CIreland (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bijuts reported by User:Samaleks (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to:
Link: [54]
Diff: [55]

Further to edit-warring in Kochi page, the user was trying to do the same thing in Kerala page too.

The user is using Multiple IPs to evade the block; inserting the same content every time.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] [68] [69]


Comments:

The user Bijuts has been blocked once (48 hrs) for editwarring in Kochi, Kerala pages. The user is constantly trying to push his POV, and not using talk pages or other dispute resolution processes.

The user is trying to use Multiple IPs to evade the block. This user should be blocked for a longer period, and the pages should be semi-protected. --Samaleks (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of three days Semi-protected to avoid sockpuppetry (I cannot verify that these IPs were the same user). If the user starts edit warring against in the next 24 hours, feel free to report to me or to this board again (making note of what I said here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Another revert in Kerala page now : [70]
As per Duck, Bijuts could be blocked. Else, I am afraid, that the user is going to use multiple IPs for edit-warring in different pages. Samaleks (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Indian notable cities have nick names. Whenever I am trying to add the nick name to Kochi city page with solid references, the User:Samaleks and anonymus ips reverting it without valid arguments. About sock puppetry, nothing to say- User:Samaleks simply allege about sock puppetry without any valid proofs. Administrators can investigate very well. My ip address is 59.93.43.177. Till date no other user logged through this ip address and till date i logged to wiki only through this ip address. --Bijuts (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)



This is in reference to the note by Magog the Ogre.
Magog the Ogre stated "If the user starts edit warring against in the next 24 hours, feel free to report to me or to this board again (making note of what I said here)."

Even after semi-protecting the page, User:Bijuts is edit-warring in the article:

Moreover he just copy pasted the same warning from his talk page to my talk-page : [73]

Admin attention is requested. Thanks, Samaleks (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Samaleks was blocked on February 28 for edit warring in Trivandrum article. See [74]. And i reinstated the "Commercial Capital tag with solid reference". Administrators can check the references.

--Bijuts (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after the page was semi-protected, User:Bijuts is continuing to push POV without consensus in talk pages. The evidence is given in my above message. --Samaleks (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:ClaudioSantos reported by Xanthoxyl < (Result: Blocked 5 days)[edit]

Page: Non-voluntary euthanasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

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

  1. 19:34, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "No it is not explained any where.")
  2. 06:00, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "The lead explicity mentions the Groening Protocol.")
  3. 14:08, 3 May 2011 (edit summary: "Let discuss and then delete.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:
Well aware of 3RR. In the history are recent previous attempts to add similar material over others' objections. Xanthoxyl < 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion, User:Gabbe requiered a graduate source and I added it, so my last editions were a response to that requirement. And I was not the one who first deleted and then discussed but you was Xanthoxyl. I wonder why you always runs to the noticeboard when I add editions against euthanasia. Actually I was one time blocked because of the same reason in the same article and I was the only one punished, despite of some months later the other user (User:Ratel) who was really engaged in "edit warring" my editions, he indeed was expulsed because of his abuse of puppet accounts in order to force his pro-euthanasia editions. Of course you Xanthoxyl denounced me for that edit warring and I've got a block but you did not denounced him. Actually later on you defended his editions in the AktionT4 article. And now indeed my current edition is balancing an edition made precisely by this expulsed user, but you do everything to keep the edition of this expulsed editor but also do everything to delete mine. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked ClaudioSantos for 5 days. CIreland (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Spanman03103 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Spanman03103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Comments: Fairly long-running dispute on article on including this material. Recent article on WND will probably trigger new editors to the article. Spanman has been asked several times on his talk page and on the revert edit comments to use the talk page, but has not.

Ravensfire (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Textbook. Kuru (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Solopiel reported by ΔT The only constant (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:28, 24 April 2011 (edit summary: "As many as it takes while the British are still there.")
  2. 16:22, 26 April 2011 (edit summary: "Not vandalism.")
  3. 05:18, 28 April 2011 (edit summary: "")
  4. 10:19, 30 April 2011 (edit summary: "")
  5. 06:22, 1 May 2011 (edit summary: "Status says: "Presence of British troops in order to train Iraqi military until May 2011."")
  6. 23:09, 2 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 426850875 by V7-sport (talk)")

— repeated edit warring ΔT The only constant 03:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — It seems multiple people opposed the edits over the course of the last month or so, while none seemed to support them. --slakrtalk / 03:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Platinumshore reported by User:206.188.60.1 (Result: defer to WP:ANI)[edit]

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

March 29 report that was not acted upon at the time: [84]

April 7 removal of tags:[85] (again without any discussion)

April 26 removal of tags:[86] (again without any discussion)

Comments:

This SPA user only logs on every week or two to make this one change and then leave. This has continued since January. Please help curve this disruptive behavior. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 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. The user has explained the edits adequately. Lack of discussion is problematic; however, this is not the place to report tendentious behavior. Try WP:ANI instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Human evolution semiprotected for 3 days )[edit]

Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.90.197.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98] by User:GManNickG

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Human evolution#Refs on 'Out of Africa'

Comments:
Seems some what willing to talk at first - however since this edit and 8 to 10 reverts i see no point in trying anymore. 5 different editors have raised concerns about the edits in there rv summaries to no avail. At this point i believe a correction in behaviour is needed and hope that another ban will get this across.Moxy (talk)

I have semiprotected Human evolution for 3 days, effectively barring the IP from participating. 10 reverts is alot and not a first offence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the same results at all - not sure this is sending a message that his behaviour is wrong. 10 reverts is way over the top for anyone.Moxy (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:70.92.140.153 reported by User:Izauze (Result: )[edit]

Page: Mark Belling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: User:Izauze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.92.140.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [99]

Also, regarding harassment on my talk page:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108] [109] [110]


also warned via revert comments, and on discussion page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

This IP has had a short but volatile history of editing. This particular page (which is rather slow) has had a long history of being whitewashed by various anonymous IPs that may or may not be related to the current IP. The current IP has done a lot of repeated deleting on the article above, and a lot of repeated harassment/vandalism on my talk page, and has done essentially nothing to communicate with anyone in any way other than false edit summaries. It is because of this lack of communication and efforts to support his/her actions that I feel like outside action is needed. They keep deleting factual, neutrally-voiced, well-sourced material regarding controversy surround this particular article. They also revert to their preferred peacock words and non-NPOV descriptions throughout the rest of the article, which leads me to consider whether this is an editor with a bias or even a vested interest in this article, and is intentionally controlling/whitewashing it anonymously. Izauze (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note in my defense that Izauze edits his own talk page and the talk page of the article in question to delete my comments, then goes and claims I am not supporting my edits with commentary. See the history of Izauze's own talk page as well as the history of the talk page in question. Additionally, I believe you will find Izauze's own edits probably deserve a vandalism complaint, but seeing as I'm a new user and only an IP address I felt it presumptuous to do so until I get a handle on Wikipedia better. In any case, his/her destructive edit history is, IMHO, notable in the page in question's talk *history*. Just remember, Izauze deletes (and probably will continue to delete) my comments/comments in my defense in order to suppress me and my edits and support his efforts to suppress my edits.70.92.140.153 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
His removing content from his talk page cannot supress your comments, they are still in the page history. A specific user's talk page is typically not the correct place to discussing an article, that is best done on the article's talk page, so that multiple user's can discuss the content (and other users typically have no way of knowing that you put the explanation for your edits in another user's talk page). - SudoGhost (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is no Wikipedia policy forcing a user to keep most comments on their talk page (there are exceptions, this is not one of them). WP:OWNTALK states that Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. WP:REMOVED says that 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. and, specifically states at the end: Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
What a mess. I'm seeing a little red flag by an IP user whose first edit summary includes a wikilink to our BLP policy. 70.92, which other accounts/IPs did you edit under before? Kuru (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I also would like to get the IP on record on this subject,as s/he seems to have some pretty developed wiki-knowledge for someone who refers to themselves as "a new user." Izauze (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this still active? Why archived? Izauze (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ninalba reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This happened in two days, 2 may and 4 may, while:

  • 1. no talk page activity.
  • 2. No other subject edited except this article. (quite possible sock, due to the complete historical unimportance of the subject, except nationalistic pretensions.)
  • 3. Despite warnings and 2 user page discussions by User:A Stop at Willoughby, no reaction nor respond is available.

I am afraid that no other option is available. As far as i know, this is school example of disruptive editing. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I first became aware of this article after a recent deletion review for a pair of related articles, after which I added the article to my watchlist. Essentially, Vojsava Tripalda was the mother of Skanderbeg, an Albanian national hero, but sources disagree on the question of her ethnicity; many say that she was a Serb, while many others say that she was Albanian. As a result, this article is of interest to both editors interested in topics pertaining to Serbia and editors interested in topics pertaining to Albania. It therefore is fitting to have both {{Serbia-stub}} and {{Albania-stub}} as tags on the article. However, Ninalba has repeatedly removed {{Serbia-stub}}, sometimes also adding the article to the non-existent Category:Christian Albanians, always without comment. WhiteWriter warned him against edit-warring; for my part, I tried to engage him in discussion and to explain to him why the stub tag was appropriate (see User talk:Ninalba#Stub tag). Sadly, he continues to revert without comment. This is not only edit-warring but also tendentious editing and a failure to follow our editing policy, so perhaps a warning under WP:ARBMAC is also in order. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Concur. The complete lack of communication after multiple polite requests and explicit warnings is the most concerning. This is simple edit warring. I will read up on WP:ARBMAC to see what remedies are available there. Kuru (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User: Mikeymike2001 reported by User:TySoltaur (Result: 72 hours/MM, 48 hours TS)[edit]

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_champions_in_WWE
User being reported: MikeyMike2001

<

Previous version reverted to: []


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

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

Comments:

WWE.com currently lists Christian as the champion (http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight)and the continuous change to Orton is unsourced and unsupported by WWE. TySoltaur (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He's clearly been edit warring, possibly 3RR if you count the first as a revert. I can see at least five explicit reverts for you as well on the same article. I'd love to simply protect the article, but there's way too much traffic from people who are editing constructively to justify the disruption that would cause. Since you're both familiar with our policy on edit warring, I've blocked you both for durations determined by your previous blocks for that problem. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:74.72.163.219 reported by User:Kmhkmh (Result: )[edit]

The IP keeps making inappropritate/questionable edits at American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein and is not reacting to comments or reverts by other editors. The IP has ignored repeated comments in the version list and/or the discussion page and was already warned by another editor and myself(see version history,User talk:74.72.163.219). A page semi protection has been declined as the problem so far is only tied to one individual IP and vandalism report was referred to this board. It might be also wortwhile to check whether the IP is identical with User:Politika6969, who was making somewhat related edits at the same time and is not reacting to comments either (see also Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2011_April_25#REF:_Page_of_documentary_American_Radical_the_Trials_of_Norman_Finkelstein).--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sleetman reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: Not strictly applicable, editor has two double reverts on same article involving different (but related) texts


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:In the last 5 hours, this user has added back disputed content twice without consensus, with the majority of those commenting to date objecting on BLP/WP:UNDUE grounds. His prior edit inserted content similar, but not identical, to previously deleted content. He then added a spurious tag challenging the neutrality of the article, claiming it can't be neutral unless it covers the subject he insists be included. The tag was twice removed by other users, with talk page discussion; and he has twice more reverted to add it back even though no other users find his position reasonable. In response to my 3RR notice on his talk page, he substituted a different, equally spurious tag, and "warned" me on my talk page [122] that filing this 3RR report would be "a personal attack on [his] character." The underlying issue is a running dispute over whether the article should include a discussion of the article subject's (he's a pro football player) rather foolish comments on Twitter regarding bin Laden's death. Whether he's technically broken 3RR or not (and he's pushing its limits at best), he's edit warring against multiple editors without regard for consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no editing warring that user Hullaballoo speaks of, he said that I was in violation of 3RR and told me to undo change of the the tag I put in order to avoid the risk of being blocked (which I did). Despite the change, the user went ahead anyway with the 3RR complaint and my telling him that doing so would be an attack on my personal character. As for the neutrality tag itself, there was consensus before the user joined that stated the tag warranted...which is an important note as the person who consented with the tag was the person with whom I was engaged in a dispute (the exact words of the user was this: The section, in its current form, does not have a slanted POV, considering it only mentions his brother, Walter. If we add back the Twitter controversy in its entirely, I think it would be appropriate to add the tag.[123]) I should also point out that the changes the user is agitating is to remove ANY mentioning of Mr. Mendenhall's twitter controversy despite the incident being widely-reported in national and international news media outlets, (which he defends because "The internet may stretch these 15-minutes-of-fame events out to 15 hours or even 15 days, but they're still transient events without lasting consequences.") As of today (May 05, 2011) the talk page makes it clear that that change the user is advocated for is supported by nobody but the user. Sleetman (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You have misread Eagles247's comment rather badly, turned it on its head. He was giving you his opinion (and he's an admin) that the article form you objected to was neutral, and that the version you proposed was not neutral. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I stand mistaken I didn't see the "not" word...although I must say the sentence was poorly worded. That however still doesn't change the fact that user Eagle 24/7 doesn't object to putting information about the twitter controversy by Mendenhall on the Wikipedia page. Sleetman (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Biker Biker reported by User:Barnstarbob (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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


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:

The Lead, Problems and Reception were covered in two long discussions and were approved by many Users. Biker Biker did not participate is now also reverting the sections. None of his edits according to Wiki prose and content were reverted, but the deletion and complete change of the three sections above were reverted as the previous versions were already approved in two discussions for content and neutrality.

Look at the changes made in the past 24 hours by myself and 842U and you will see a concerted effort to improve the article. No tendentious editing like Barnstarbob, no WP:OWN issues like Barnstarbob, and no POV pushing - making sure that the article is whitewashed by having more praise than criticism for the vehicle. All we have done is try to balance the article, reduce the trivia and fancruft, remove many of Barnstarbob's COI blog entries and videos, and generally make the article better than it is. Barnstarbob's response was four straight reverts in a row. I stopped when I realised he wasn't going to give up, but each time I asked him to cease and engage in a discussion at the article's talk page. He refused instead pushing the same line of "the article has been approved by others" meaning effectively that it can never change. Wikipedia is based on consensus and one editor (Barnstarbob) does not own this article. Where he gets the idea that an article can be approved and for ever more set in concrete I don't know. If you look back at Barnstarbob's behaviour over the past couple of weeks it has been a constant cycle of reversion of other people's work in favour of pushing his own content into his article. Even this report, crazy because he's the one edit warring by reverting mine and 842U's work, is because I reported him to ANI (see current case there). As for this case - you'll notice he can't provide 4 reverts because I didn't make four. He did however, here are the four diffs for his wholesale reverts of a lot of hard work by myself and 842U - diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4 --Biker Biker (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Barnstarbob[edit]

  • Invoke WP:Boomerang. Reporter did not provide diffs, but lets look at a few from them. 1 2 3 4 reverts. Seems like a clear cut case of a 3rr violation by the reporter. Reporter obviously knows the 3rr rule by virtue of filing the report here. Monty845 18:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Barnstarbob has continued his 3RR behaviour today. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected This dispute is too complex and concerns too many diverse areas of the article to believe that blocking Barnstarbob and Biker Biker would solve anything in the long-term. Consequently, I am protecting the article for a fortnight, during which time, I hope that interested editors will pursue dispute resolution. I would recommend an RFC on the main areas of contention. Asking for the involvement of additional editors at associated WikiProjects may also help. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it's a good decision, although I don't hold out much hope that Barnstarbob with his "I don't see what the problem is, there's nothing to discuss" attitude will actually engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Good decision. I just finished reading through the issues at the WikiProject earlier this year and the current AN/I, and I think that a nice in depth discussion of the issues is called for here. It may be worth creating a userspace draft and holding a request for comment advertised at WP:CAR. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I can definitely see the wisdom in this decision, in terms of encouraging editors to work collaboratively on this article. However, I am concerned that Barnstarbob clearly violated 3RR and is "getting away with it." If he continues to play the role of censor to edits that do not conform to his ideal of what the article should be, I think a block will be needed to show him that he does not own this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I too am concerned that Barnstarbob has got away with several breaches of 3RR with not even a warning from a third party, let alone a ban. I would still like to see that happen or his behaviour will only continue - perhaps worse reinforced by the knowledge that nothing will happen. Would it help if I spelled out with a specific set of diffs the incidents of tendentious / 3RR editing? Having said that however, I am actually more interested in moving the article forward. I have never done an RFC before, but am very keen to find out more and kick one off. Can someone give me a pointer / kickstart? --Biker Biker (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
♠While I can't speak directly to breaches of 3RR, I've known Bob to rv anything contrary to his vision of the page, so violating 3RR would not surprise me.
♠In Bob's defense, I see no particular problem with him using his own pix, if they're available. (I've used quite a few of mine here & here, because there weren't any others, & would welcome better or more varied ones. Especially, may I say, of the Pacer pickoupe. :( )
♠I've seen varieties of disruption, including people who start fights for the sake of starting them & walking away. This may be the most insidious kind, because there's actually good intention at bottom, & good info & effort put in. It's too bad it's been perverted. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Betsythedevine reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Betsythedevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

The article is under WP:1RR

The user was warned about edit warring, when she did it yesterday, but today she did it again. In her second revert she claims Restoring "quote as per discussion on talk page", but she did it without trying to reach consensus. Broccolo (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment - I don't think Mbz1 should be issuing warnings about content edits that are clearly within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions given her topic ban. Just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 issued warning before the article was marked as I/P related. as it is seen from this thread the article was not under 1RR when Mbz1 issued the warning. Broccolo (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the AE report and that thread, nevertheless Mbz1 should know better than to issue warnings about content edits that are very obviously I/P related given her topic ban. In her warning she specifically referred to making more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours so she was invoking the ARBPIA 1RR restriction. Someone cannot have their cake and eat it. For my part, I will be continuing to add ARBPIA/discretionary sanctions templates to articles that are or become I/P related despite EdJohnston's personal opinion that it should be done by admins. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
at 19:18, 3 May 2011 EdJohnston said: ":::@Gatoclass: User talk:2over0 gave permission to Mbz1 to create this article (see his talk page) in the belief that an article could be written that would not touch on the I/P conflict. My impression is that the original version of this article was not related to I/P. However, normal expansion would probably bring it into the area. The thing that Broccolo reverted about 'stolen land' sounded like an editorial rather than a review, so the article shouldn't be marked 'I/P' just because of that one thing. I'm saying that it should be considered I/P from now on, and people like Mbz1 who are restricted from I/P will no longer be able to comment on it". Mbz1 never commented on it after that. If you have a problem with mbz1 warning file AE. This board is a wrong place. Broccolo (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, good morning. I did not mean to be edit-warring. The two diffs cited by Broccolo were part of a GF effort to improve the article. The sum result of those two diffs was to (mostly) undo this single diff by Gilabrand [126], plus add a bit more information about one co-author.

Before discussing those diffs, I would like to respond to absolutely false claims by Broccolo above. First, I did not do any previous edit-warring on the article--I have now added the relevant diffs to Mbz's May 3 complaint. User_talk:Betsythedevine#Edit_warring. Second, I did seek consensus on the talk page for the second of the two diffs cited, and I find it hard to WP:AGF about Broccolo's claim that I didn't.

  • [127] Seeking consensus with the edit summary "Can't censor critics complaining about what isn't in the book on the grounds that stuff isn't in the book"

My statement got several replies from other editors:

  • "Well I disagree, and incidentally, I don't believe I need anyone's permission to edit the article, which I have worked on extensively and upgraded considerably from the miserable mess it was before I started." (Gilabrand)
  • " The reviews say what they say. Reviewers always talk about whatever they want. C'est la vie. It's nobody's fault." (Sean.hoyland)
  • " also have no problem with the quote discussed above." (No More Mr Nice Guy)
  • Gatoclass had also previously stated he thought removing the quote was "an inappropriate edit."
  • Nobody but Gilabrand had supported his removal of the material at that point, and believing that consensus had been expressed, I did restore it. After I did so, GabrielF who had not weighed in before also objected to the quote and I replied. As I said, I thought consensus had been achieved at the time I restored the quote.

Now about the first diff: I saw on the article talk page that Gatoclass had complained about the peremptory removal of the author section and restored it, adding a little bit of information about the second co-author, information which a different editor quickly expanded. Only after that edit, did I learn (again from the article talk page) that Gilabrand's edit had also removed part of a review in the Jordan Times. I have not attempted to restore the author section after Broccolo removed it; I think there is consensus that the author section is out.

It was not my intention to edit war. The first of the two diffs cited by Broccolo was something i would do differently if I had the chance. That is, instead of restoring the author material after seeing that Gatoclass had complained about its removal, I should have waited for wider discussion on the talk page. As for the second diff, I thought consensus had been achieved. I also thought it was not a violation of 1RR since in fact the only material being changed was the exact same diff by Gilabrand as my previous restoring of the author material. If I was mistaken about that, I apologize. betsythedevine (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

    • The user claims she did not understand what is revert, but she was extensively explained what is revert. Besides the user participated in AE request that discussed the situation with reverts for this very article. The fact is the user was edit warring on May 3, was warned and continued edit warring on March 5. Also, The edits the user made were not innocent edits as she's trying to present them. Both of them were reverted. Broccolo (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't consider my efforts to improve the article edit-warring, either on May 3 or on May 5. I do not claim that I don't know what a revert is, although I had no idea before May 3 that any change to the work of another person could be considered a revert. I think that's a bit draconian but if that's the rule I would like to abide by it. But doesn't that rule encourage wikilawyers to make drastic changes in one huge edit rather than thoughtful, well-justified single changes?
      • Broccolo's claim that both edits were reverted is also untrue. The first diff was indeed reverted...by Broccolo[128] [129] The second diff was not reverted but transformed into an indirect quote. Where I had restored the direct but disputed quote "The West Bank and Gaza, a $3 billion economy that is virtually closed to Jordanian exports, are not mentioned as a source of revenue for Israel." Now instead there is an indirect quote "He also takes the book to task for failing to mention the contribution to Israel's economy from the occupied territories." This effort to reach a consensus version was made by Gilabrand and slightly modified by Sleetman. betsythedevine (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yet another edit "for improving the article" got reverted. In this edit the user inserted POV " for his longtime employer the Jerusalem Post. Please also note the edit summary "Answering one more salvo" . The user clearly does not understand what is edit warring. She believes that if in her opinion she "improves" the article it is OK to edit war.--Broccolo (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

<-- Everybody can read the diff supplied by Broccolo and see if he represents it fairly. I explained that edit on the talk page [130] saying, "The claims in the lead do not have a reliable source and misrepresent the source they do have, a statement made by coauthor Saul Singer when being interviewed. The lead claims the book reached " fifth place on The New York Times Best Seller list and The Wall Street Journal's best seller list for books on business. What Singer actually claimed is "It reached No. 5 on the business bestseller lists of both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal." The "Business Bestseller list" of the NYT is entirely separate from the prestigious NYT Nonfiction bestseller list [2]. The lead should not be wikilinked to the more prestigious list. betsythedevine (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)" I really did try to find a better source for those claims before making the change I did, but since I could not find any support for them outside that interview and the book's own website, I thought I should indicate the source being used. Once again, Gilabrand greatly improved the situation by finding better sources for both the NYT and WSJ bestseller lists. Since a better source was available, there was no longer any need to mention the Jerusalem Times interview.

I am sure any admin can easily decide who here is engaged in