Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive159

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş reported by User:Athenean (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: see explanation below

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

Each revert is to a different version, however there is a clear cut vio as there are four in total. First, SIYKB adds this [5], which is reverted by User:Dr.K. [6]. SIYKB reverts Dr.K. (1st revert) [7]. Second, SIYKB removes this image, on spurious grounds [8], I revert him [9], he reverts back (2nd revert) [10]. Next, SYIKB adds the following text to a figure caption [11], but I remove it on the grounds that it is off-topic and the caption is getting out of hand. He then reverts my removal [12] (3rd revert). At this point I leave warning on his page. His fourth revert [13] undoes the a change I made to the wording a while back [14]. That is a revert, and that's four in less than 24 hours.


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

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

Comments: Seksen iki yuz kirk bes is concurrently edit-warring at here [17] and here [18]. There has been a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing to Greco-Turkish topics of late [19]. It's all about Turkish victims of Greeks [20] and not much else. At Siege of Tripolitsa he cropped the infobox image [21] to this [22] so he could add again to the article [23] to "focus" on the massacre. While not necessarily edit-warring, I find such edits indicative of a tendentious mindset and definitely not a good sign. I think a short block, with a warning of AE sanctions is in order. Athenean (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

... in response to the edits on Greek victims of the Turks: [24]. The other picture was cropped months ago (March 2011) for the Turkish article of Tripolitsa massacre, because of the request of the user who created the article there. And I cannot see a 3RR violation in the article of Greek genocide, a revert of the reliablity issue, a revert of the picture, and a revert of the caption. --Seksen (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
and there is no need to say that this edit is disruptive. As the name of the article is occupation, no other name should be used, and no need to change it. So 3 reverts at total. Nothing more. --Seksen (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I should again say that I am doing nothing different than our Greek (I guess, tell me if I am wrong) users are doing, and my pattern of contribution and revert count are not so different from some other users. Nothing is wrong about writing on Greco-Turkish issues anyway. --Seksen (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I note the edit-warring continues. As of this writing he is edit-warring at Occupation of Smyrna [25] [26] [27] (already 3 reverts today) and Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) [28] [29], insistently and repeatedly calling other editors' edits "vandalism" on top that. This needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing cited material is vandalism. And the Greco-Turkish war reverts are 2 at total, the other reverts belong to the same edits by the same user, which had been done subsequently. --Seksen (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"Removing cited material is vandalism" is an exaggeration and distortion of what the vandalism policy says. The mere fact that a piece of text has a source attached does not exempt that material from policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, or WP:NPOV. And if the source itself is not of good quality, it (along with the content which cites it) is still subject to WP:RS and related policies. Please re-read WP:Vandalism (edit warring over content isn't vandalism) and WP:3RR (the exemption is only for reverting obvious vandalism). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • By this point, it seems this report has gone stale. I do want to impress upon Seksen that repeatedly reverting is likely to get him blocked if he does it again in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


User:WriterEditorPenn reported by User:HidariMigi (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: DontDateHimGirl.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WriterEditorPenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

(plus additional minor edits)

Note: above are principally part of an edit-warring campaign to remove content, reverting back to an editor's preferred, non-critical version of the article.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37][38]

Comments:
Unfortunately, yet another single purpose account has appeared to "defend" the article for DontDateHimGirl.com against any criticism. Shortly after removal of the previous semi-protection last week, WriterEditorPenn appeared and rolled back/removed all critical content. This individual did so again in the series of reverts shown above. WriterEditorPenn has made no additions, improvements or corrections to the article. S/he has, however, posted inappropriate accusations, claiming that the removed, sourced content was from an editor who was "totally biased" and seeking "revenge."[39] -- HidariMigi (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: Warned. Report again if this continues. This is getting close to WP:VANDTYPES#Blanking. Continued removals of sourced content with no talk discussion or edit summary may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly, this SPA editor has chosen to ignore such multiple warnings, and is currently removing sourced material again, without attempt at discussion, much less an edit summary. [40] -- HidariMigi (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one week. Lots of notice, lots of warnings, and the behavior continued. This editor appears to be a single-purpose account and they won't listen to anyone or negotiate with anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sleetman reported by User:Guettarda (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: Karen Armstrong (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: [41]

  • 1st revert: [42]
  • 2nd revert: [43]
  • 3rd revert: [44]
  • 4th revert: [45] (Complex revert, but note the edit summary "re-add critical quotes")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

Comments:
Note that in the last edit the editor also restores material that s/he has been told is inappropriate for a BLP (something he has done repeatedly) - both the material from CAMERA's website and the Sam Harris blog post from HuffPo. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User:74.192.46.84, User:74.192.42.102 reported by User:Richwales (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Birthright citizenship in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.192.46.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 74.192.42.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]


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

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

Comments: The user in question appears to have started using a new IP address. Note (in the talk page discussion) that there is reason to believe the same person previously edit-warred under a different IP address (and was blocked at that time). If this user is going to insist on his version of the material and refuses to acknowledge or participate in discussion on the article's talk page, it may be necessary to request long-term semi-protection. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Further Comment: The IP continues to ignore any constructive discussion. This recent edit [54] to the article's discussion page is largely a personal attack alleging a conspiracy among three editors that disagree with him/her. This type of personal attack led to first a 24 hour block and then a 48 hour block when the IP was using a different IP address (see User talk:74.192.7.135). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. There is an actual 3RR violation by an IP-hopping editor, who very likely has two blocks already under a different IP address. Also a pattern of contentious editing by IPs who don't show much interest in getting talk-page consensus, that has been going on for about a month. If you want to argue a lot and be involved in reverting, getting an account is advised. The editors should consider opening an RfC to settle any long-term issues with this article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended content

Odd that this occurs, after I responded on the Talk Page and alleged that RichWales, Tom NorthShoreman, and Will Beback coordinate their efforts to enforce their point of view which I specifically suggested "violates the spirit of Wikipedia's rules, much like sockpuppetry." The truth does not matter to these guys, enforcing their point of view must prevail at all costs. Richwales refused to negotiate, after using a bogus citation attributed to Professor Kermit Hall and posting redundant material. He then invites his friends Tom NorthShoreman to enter the discussion to back him up. Then Tom NorthShoreman claims three editors disagree with me and all the sudden Will Beback appears. Finally, when I respond to their posts, in a timely fashion, on the discussion page they resort to this shameful tactic. Life is too short to let a liars bother me. Now watch Tom NorthShoreman throw an editorial temper tantrum--I seen it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.46.84 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, Tom North Shoreman had Looneymonkey execute the temper tantrum on his behalf by deleting the entire entry which has been there for months. Clearly, these guys are only interested in indoctrinating readers with their own POV while they feign concern for the rules.74.192.46.84 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sleetman reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Already blocked by 2over0)[edit]

Page: Karen Armstrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:53, 21 May 2011 (edit summary: "readd criticism, you haven't explained why any of the criticisms shouldn't appear on the page")
  2. 16:02, 21 May 2011 (edit summary: "remove paragraph, sourced to unreliable source")
  3. 16:03, 21 May 2011 (edit summary: "entire paragraph source to unreliable source")
  4. 16:09, 21 May 2011 (edit summary: "where's the consensus that my problem is problematic???? stop making things up!!")
  5. 22:58, 21 May 2011 (edit summary: "re-add critical quotes...also deleted paragraph cited to an unreliable source")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:
The first edit restores "criticism" language and section heading, the latter first added by Sleetman several days earlier here. At 16:02/3, straightforward removals. At 16:09, an undo of Guettarda's immediately preceding edit here. And at 22:58, "re-add" and "delete". These are the highlights in a series that includes a number of other edits in this period.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result -- already blocked, while I was preparing this report. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:88.109.19.52 and User:88.109.29.126 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: 3rd millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

  1. 88.109.19.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 88.109.29.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 21:13, May 21, 2011 [by IP 1]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:38, May 22, 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
All edits state the world will end / has ended on May 21, 2011, per 2011 end times prediction‎. Suggest the IPs be blocked until the end of October 21, 2011, by which time they will have undoubtably found something else to do. At the moment, they seem to have stopped, but they are likely to resume before I finish editing this.Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. He [IP 2] said he was going to stop for 24 hours, after being warned. I still think he should be blocked until October 21, 2011, but it wouldn't be for a literal violation of WP:3RR or WP:EW, or even WP:NPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
88.109.16.00/21 is probably too large a block, anyway. Neither of those IPs had ever edited Wikiedia before, but there could very well be non-vandals in the range. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Already semiprotected by User:Kuru. If you think editors from this range are causing problems with other articles, please provide diffs. At a quick glance I did not see problems elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:189.31.107.221 and many other IPs reported by User:SaskatchewanSenator (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Rivaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.31.107.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

189.31.106.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
201.11.106.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
189.30.118.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
187.7.57.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
187.4.212.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
189.30.110.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
201.11.109.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

and others.



Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rivaldo#Recent_edit_war

Comments:
All of these IPs resolve to Brasil Telecom.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. A puzzling edit war. A large crowd of IPs have been reverting each other for weeks. Article can be unprotected when the fight is over, but I don't know how soon that will be. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hubertgrove reported by User:Tirronan (Result: 3-day protection)[edit]

Page: Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hubertgrove (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: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:

Two months ago, I made an edit to the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The edit was a new section called 'Secret Service Trap'. This section dealt with the influence of British secret service codebreakers on the battle. This small - two paragraph edit - was properly verified and sourced. However, the facts that I presented were disputed by the editor Tirronan (the same editor who has reported me for 'Edit War' now). The editor Tirronan presents himself as an expert in naval warfare and in espionage techniques. He is one of the major contributors to the article. For the next six weeks, he argued that the edit was a "hoax". He continually threatened to report me and to ban me. He persistently reverted the edit. He tried to discredit my sources. Throughout, his intention seemed to rubbish my edit. He attacked me on my talk page and on the talk page of other editors who came to my (eg Jezhotwells (talk) )

You can see the "discussion" I had with him here in discussion page. I had to justify every sentence in my edit - the discussion extended to 7500 words!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section

Eventually, I became exasperated at this harassment and requested the assistance of other editors. One of them suggested a compromise: that the "Secret Service Section" of the article be arranged in the following way:

That the section comrpise one large sub-section comprising the "mainstream" opinion.

That this be followed by a smaller sub-section summarising my edit which Tirronan insisted be presented as a "minority opinion".

I agreed to this. I wrote up the section as three paragraph text (two paragraphs for the "mainstream" opinion, one paragraph for the "minority" opinion). This section contained all the citations that Tirronan wanted. It removed some copy to which he objected. It dealt with British secret service code warfare as it related to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and to the pursuit and destruction of the remaining German ships following the battle.

I prepared this new section for the review of Tirronan and other contributors last week. I did this on the discussion page of the article. Tirronan made revisions which I accepted in entirety - and then made a final comment:

Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Today, I posted the section as previously agreed with Tirronan.

Immediately - within a few minutes of posting - I found that the section was edited by the editor Binksternet. His edit made a stylistic change and deleted a final sentence that he argued was irrelevant. He added TWO new sections to the Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#.22Was_informed_that.22_vs_.22who_said_that.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Similarly..._Dresden

I undid this change - and placed my reasons, with citations and evidence, on the discussion page.

After a while, I found that Tirronan had restored the edit. His reasons were not clear. I reminded him that the original text was the one he had approved on Friday - "Perfect!". I once again, went through this argument point by point. I got the following answer:

Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I told him that he was using a spoiler edit to rubbish the section and that I would revert to the original text he had already accepted. He reverted the text again which I undid. I warned him that I would use the dispute resolution procedure if he had not undone the spoiler edit. Before that could happen, I was notified that I had been referred to an Edit Warring section. Here I am. I only reverted to the text that he had already approved less than two days ago!

Tirronan has told me he is a senior editor. He has been in a number of other disputes. I found his behaviour harrassing, bullying and deceitful. I genuinely have tried to be flexible and to offer compromises. I am glad that this issue will now be reviewed by other editors since I genuinely believe that Tirronan's behaviour in this case will be admonished. Hubertgrove (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)



While the claims of content dispute are amusing, they have no place in the 3RR notice board. However if an admin cares to read the Secret Service Trap section there are ample examples of Wikipedia:Civility violations, by said user again yours truly. However to make this case quickly Hubertgrove decided in his wisdom that he needed to revert again yet a 5th time here [67] when I attempted to add additional cited content noting this in the talk page and noting in the edit that no revision took place whatsoever. Apparently I am not allowed to make edits to the article by Hubertgrove. I'm sick unto death of this fellows actions see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. His claim this time being that the section was out of context when in fact it covers a period starting in Sept, 1914 through a period ending in 1917, so I find myself at a bit of a loss.Tirronan (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Both parties have been edit warring, but Hubertgrove is the more guilty of kneejerk reversions, wholly unconsidered ones which restore an obvious misspelling. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected For three days, with warning. It was just good luck that both of you, Hubertgrove (especially) and Tirronan, avoided blocks. Please consider each other more and remember that WP:AN/3 is not a forum of dispute resolution. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

User:Jack11111 reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack11111 (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: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:
Attempts to resolve have been via edit summaries. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Reluctant to block when the user is relatively inexperienced/hasn't been interacted with much, and has clearly been in bed the last while. I'll give the user a warning and keep an eye on it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rememberway (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]


Diff of edit warring: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81] (There's an entire thread started by somebody else other than me.)

Comments:
Mostly me actually undoing his edits, and another user Kwamikagami has reverted it on the policy page itself as well, and a further different user Tony has also expressed concern on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#generally where he started an entire thread on it. There genuinely seems no overall consensus for this on the talk page, So far as I've noticed, only one other user, Blueboar, has supported him, but Pmanderson (and to a rather lesser extent Blueboar) has been trying to simply edit war it through anyway. So that's three people that think it's a bad idea, and only two supporting it, but Pmanderson has evidently just gone to war to push it through, and they're no longer even responding on the talk page. They're at the point they don't care about establishing consensus for it; in fact (regrettably) Pmanderson in particular doesn't seem to have cared about consensus at any point.

He's repeatedly rewriting the policy and edit warring the policy literally to however he wants it, and is not supporting his edits well, he's been reverted by numerous people, and he's not caring about consensus.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really, seriously not ever how it's supposed to work on policy pages!!!Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus! He's more like 'I know the only answer I'm rewriting the policy, and I will edit war until you leave it like I wrote it.' All I've been trying to do is revert back the things that are obviously non consensus, but he just sticks them right back in again. He's made lots of other fairly dubious recent changes that I didn't even dare touch.

It may sound trivial 'generally' but in fact Pmanderson and blueboar seem to be trying to remove the policy by equivocating it out of existence, and without bothering to get consensus to do that. It went from a 'should be a noun' to 'preferred to be a noun' to 'generally preferred to be a noun' which probably doesn't mean anything at all any more. There's no way you could argue with a title not being a noun.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Quoting Rememberway: I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus!. That should not too much to ask but is a sentiment that far too many editors have whenever they must interact with PMA. I suggest consideration be given to identifying particular types of venues on Wikipedia in which PMA simply gets himself into too much trouble and ban him from them for six months. He may be too much of a pain in WP-space such as MOSNUM and policy pages. Greg L (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is, of course, raking up irrelevant past grievances, something the instructions of this page frown upon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a report of six different edits, over a period of twelve days; all of them are alternatives - not always the same alternative - to an edit by the complaintant, who has always made the same one; he has therefore reverted more often than I have. No dates or times are given (this list begins and ends with edits on the same day, but they do not even resemble chronological order), nor did Rememberway bother to inform me himself. (Thanks for installing a bot.)

The "effort to resolve on the talk page" consists of this section in which three or four editors tell Rememberway that his preferred text doesn't belong in the nutshell, depends on a non-consensus view of what article titles are, and is factually incorrect.

In short, this is a pretended conduct offence, invented to get a fringe view into Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Jack11111 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: DerbyCountyinNZ (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:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Reported user does not exist. -=- Adam Walker -=- 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    Note, I fixed the link to the user. It's still malformed, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg CommentWe of course would also have to block the reporter, and I note that the reported editor is not the only editor reverting Jack1111q at what I presume is the article, 2011 nor did he notify DerbyCountyinNZ. Another editor has warned Jack11111 Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:24.128.247.159 reported by User:Tired time (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: The Great Mom Swap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.128.247.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:
I know my actions were not perfect either, because I was too lazy to find out how I should behave in these kind of situations. I apologize for that. File:The poster of the movie The Great Mom Swap.jpg was a good poster of the film which since got automatically deleted because it was not used in the article for 7 days.--tired time (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that this is not the first time user makes edits claiming that a movie or a show won an award which it did not win: [91], [92]. Also, it is not the first time he participates in edit warring. However you can not see that in his talk page because he always blanks it: [93], [94], [95], [96] --tired time (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No 3RR vio, but a block is probably needed to get this user's attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:OptimusPrimeRibs reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [97]


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


Comments:

User only has edits to the John Edward article, no others. Apparent disruptive WP:SPA account. User has indicated that he will continue edit warring until banned.[99] Dreadstar 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sidebar comment: You pointed us to a clear cut edit war between you two. You at 3, them at 4. Them trying to scale back a controversial statement. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not necessarily an SPA;so don't use such words Dreadstar. User has indicated he will continue edit warring; and I agree; therefore, the block. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gerardw reported by User:Pangurban1 (Result: No Vio)[edit]

Page: Los Angeles Unified School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gerardw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]

  • 1st revert: [101]
  • 2nd revert: [102]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

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

Comments:

  • This is now at a RFC and it takes two to edit war. You seem to be editing against the consensus so you should step carefully yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dcupdates11 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: So Random! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcupdates11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

New version being reverted to: [107]

  • 3rd revert: [108]
  • 4th revert: [109] - with addition of reference that does not support the claim

New version being reverted to: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. There have been numerous posts at User talk:Dcupdates11 trying to resolve various issues, including those related to this report, with this editor.

Comments:

Dcupdates11 has been editing disruptively at several articles virtually since he first started editing on 8 May 2011. Attempts to resolve numerous issues on his talk page have been fruitless so I started an ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively. However, Dcupdates11 has since breached 3RR at So Random!.

First and second reverts restored factual error and a previously removed uncited claim to the article. I'm unwilling to get into an edit-war so the content is still in the article. Dcupdates11 then added more unsourced claims to the article resulting in the third and fourth reverts. After this I warned the editor.[114] The fourth revert included the use of a citation that does not in any way support the claims made so I tagged it with {{failed verification}} rather than deleting it, as I knew deletion would just prompt an edit-war. The fifth revert reverted that edit. A subsequent restoration of the tag by another editor was then reverted (sixth revert). All reversions were made over an eight hour period today. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:189.31.107.221 and many other IPs reported by User:SaskatchewanSenator (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Rivaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.31.107.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

189.31.106.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
201.11.106.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
189.30.118.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
187.7.57.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
187.4.212.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
189.30.110.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
201.11.109.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

and others.



Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rivaldo#Recent_edit_war

Comments:
All of these IPs resolve to Brasil Telecom.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. A puzzling edit war. A large crowd of IPs have been reverting each other for weeks. Article can be unprotected when the fight is over, but I don't know how soon that will be. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Hubertgrove reported by User:Tirronan (Result: 3-day protection)[edit]

Page: Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hubertgrove (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: [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

Comments:

Two months ago, I made an edit to the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The edit was a new section called 'Secret Service Trap'. This section dealt with the influence of British secret service codebreakers on the battle. This small - two paragraph edit - was properly verified and sourced. However, the facts that I presented were disputed by the editor Tirronan (the same editor who has reported me for 'Edit War' now). The editor Tirronan presents himself as an expert in naval warfare and in espionage techniques. He is one of the major contributors to the article. For the next six weeks, he argued that the edit was a "hoax". He continually threatened to report me and to ban me. He persistently reverted the edit. He tried to discredit my sources. Throughout, his intention seemed to rubbish my edit. He attacked me on my talk page and on the talk page of other editors who came to my (eg Jezhotwells (talk) )

You can see the "discussion" I had with him here in discussion page. I had to justify every sentence in my edit - the discussion extended to 7500 words!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section

Eventually, I became exasperated at this harassment and requested the assistance of other editors. One of them suggested a compromise: that the "Secret Service Section" of the article be arranged in the following way:

That the section comrpise one large sub-section comprising the "mainstream" opinion.

That this be followed by a smaller sub-section summarising my edit which Tirronan insisted be presented as a "minority opinion".

I agreed to this. I wrote up the section as three paragraph text (two paragraphs for the "mainstream" opinion, one paragraph for the "minority" opinion). This section contained all the citations that Tirronan wanted. It removed some copy to which he objected. It dealt with British secret service code warfare as it related to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and to the pursuit and destruction of the remaining German ships following the battle.

I prepared this new section for the review of Tirronan and other contributors last week. I did this on the discussion page of the article. Tirronan made revisions which I accepted in entirety - and then made a final comment:

Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Today, I posted the section as previously agreed with Tirronan.

Immediately - within a few minutes of posting - I found that the section was edited by the editor Binksternet. His edit made a stylistic change and deleted a final sentence that he argued was irrelevant. He added TWO new sections to the Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#.22Was_informed_that.22_vs_.22who_said_that.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Similarly..._Dresden

I undid this change - and placed my reasons, with citations and evidence, on the discussion page.

After a while, I found that Tirronan had restored the edit. His reasons were not clear. I reminded him that the original text was the one he had approved on Friday - "Perfect!". I once again, went through this argument point by point. I got the following answer:

Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I told him that he was using a spoiler edit to rubbish the section and that I would revert to the original text he had already accepted. He reverted the text again which I undid. I warned him that I would use the dispute resolution procedure if he had not undone the spoiler edit. Before that could happen, I was notified that I had been referred to an Edit Warring section. Here I am. I only reverted to the text that he had already approved less than two days ago!

Tirronan has told me he is a senior editor. He has been in a number of other disputes. I found his behaviour harrassing, bullying and deceitful. I genuinely have tried to be flexible and to offer compromises. I am glad that this issue will now be reviewed by other editors since I genuinely believe that Tirronan's behaviour in this case will be admonished. Hubertgrove (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)



While the claims of content dispute are amusing, they have no place in the 3RR notice board. However if an admin cares to read the Secret Service Trap section there are ample examples of Wikipedia:Civility violations, by said user again yours truly. However to make this case quickly Hubertgrove decided in his wisdom that he needed to revert again yet a 5th time here [127] when I attempted to add additional cited content noting this in the talk page and noting in the edit that no revision took place whatsoever. Apparently I am not allowed to make edits to the article by Hubertgrove. I'm sick unto death of this fellows actions see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. His claim this time being that the section was out of context when in fact it covers a period starting in Sept, 1914 through a period ending in 1917, so I find myself at a bit of a loss.Tirronan (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Both parties have been edit warring, but Hubertgrove is the more guilty of kneejerk reversions, wholly unconsidered ones which restore an obvious misspelling. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected For three days, with warning. It was just good luck that both of you, Hubertgrove (especially) and Tirronan, avoided blocks. Please consider each other more and remember that WP:AN/3 is not a forum of dispute resolution. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

User:Jack11111 reported by User:ttonyb1 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack11111 (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: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:
Attempts to resolve have been via edit summaries. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Reluctant to block when the user is relatively inexperienced/hasn't been interacted with much, and has clearly been in bed the last while. I'll give the user a warning and keep an eye on it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Rememberway (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [134]


Diff of edit warring: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141] (There's an entire thread started by somebody else other than me.)

Comments:
Mostly me actually undoing his edits, and another user Kwamikagami has reverted it on the policy page itself as well, and a further different user Tony has also expressed concern on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#generally where he started an entire thread on it. There genuinely seems no overall consensus for this on the talk page, So far as I've noticed, only one other user, Blueboar, has supported him, but Pmanderson (and to a rather lesser extent Blueboar) has been trying to simply edit war it through anyway. So that's three people that think it's a bad idea, and only two supporting it, but Pmanderson has evidently just gone to war to push it through, and they're no longer even responding on the talk page. They're at the point they don't care about establishing consensus for it; in fact (regrettably) Pmanderson in particular doesn't seem to have cared about consensus at any point.

He's repeatedly rewriting the policy and edit warring the policy literally to however he wants it, and is not supporting his edits well, he's been reverted by numerous people, and he's not caring about consensus.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really, seriously not ever how it's supposed to work on policy pages!!!Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus! He's more like 'I know the only answer I'm rewriting the policy, and I will edit war until you leave it like I wrote it.' All I've been trying to do is revert back the things that are obviously non consensus, but he just sticks them right back in again. He's made lots of other fairly dubious recent changes that I didn't even dare touch.

It may sound trivial 'generally' but in fact Pmanderson and blueboar seem to be trying to remove the policy by equivocating it out of existence, and without bothering to get consensus to do that. It went from a 'should be a noun' to 'preferred to be a noun' to 'generally preferred to be a noun' which probably doesn't mean anything at all any more. There's no way you could argue with a title not being a noun.Rememberway (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Quoting Rememberway: I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus!. That should not too much to ask but is a sentiment that far too many editors have whenever they must interact with PMA. I suggest consideration be given to identifying particular types of venues on Wikipedia in which PMA simply gets himself into too much trouble and ban him from them for six months. He may be too much of a pain in WP-space such as MOSNUM and policy pages. Greg L (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is, of course, raking up irrelevant past grievances, something the instructions of this page frown upon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a report of six different edits, over a period of twelve days; all of them are alternatives - not always the same alternative - to an edit by the complaintant, who has always made the same one; he has therefore reverted more often than I have. No dates or times are given (this list begins and ends with edits on the same day, but they do not even resemble chronological order), nor did Rememberway bother to inform me himself. (Thanks for installing a bot.)

The "effort to resolve on the talk page" consists of this section in which three or four editors tell Rememberway that his preferred text doesn't belong in the nutshell, depends on a non-consensus view of what article titles are, and is factually incorrect.

In short, this is a pretended conduct offence, invented to get a fringe view into Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Jack11111 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: DerbyCountyinNZ (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:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Reported user does not exist. -=- Adam Walker -=- 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    Note, I fixed the link to the user. It's still malformed, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg CommentWe of course would also have to block the reporter, and I note that the reported editor is not the only editor reverting Jack1111q at what I presume is the article, 2011 nor did he notify DerbyCountyinNZ. Another editor has warned Jack11111 Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:24.128.247.159 reported by User:Tired time (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: The Great Mom Swap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.128.247.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:
I know my actions were not perfect either, because I was too lazy to find out how I should behave in these kind of situations. I apologize for that. File:The poster of the movie The Great Mom Swap.jpg was a good poster of the film which since got automatically deleted because it was not used in the article for 7 days.--tired time (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that this is not the first time user makes edits claiming that a movie or a show won an award which it did not win: [151], [152]. Also, it is not the first time he participates in edit warring. However you can not see that in his talk page because he always blanks it: [153], [154], [155], [156] --tired time (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No 3RR vio, but a block is probably needed to get this user's attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:OptimusPrimeRibs reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [157]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]


Comments:

User only has edits to the John Edward article, no others. Apparent disruptive WP:SPA account. User has indicated that he will continue edit warring until banned.[159] Dreadstar 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Sidebar comment: You pointed us to a clear cut edit war between you two. You at 3, them at 4. Them trying to scale back a controversial statement. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not necessarily an SPA;so don't use such words Dreadstar. User has indicated he will continue edit warring; and I agree; therefore, the block. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gerardw reported by User:Pangurban1 (Result: No Vio)[edit]

Page: Los Angeles Unified School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gerardw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [160]

  • 1st revert: [161]
  • 2nd revert: [162]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163]

Comments:

  • This is now at a RFC and it takes two to edit war. You seem to be editing against the consensus so you should step carefully yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dcupdates11 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: So Random! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcupdates11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

New version being reverted to: [167]

  • 3rd revert: [168]
  • 4th revert: [169] - with addition of reference that does not support the claim

New version being reverted to: [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. There have been numerous posts at User talk:Dcupdates11 trying to resolve various issues, including those related to this report, with this editor.

Comments:

Dcupdates11 has been editing disruptively at several articles virtually since he first started editing on 8 May 2011. Attempts to resolve numerous issues on his talk page have been fruitless so I started an ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively. However, Dcupdates11 has since breached 3RR at So Random!.

First and second reverts restored factual error and a previously removed uncited claim to the article. I'm unwilling to get into an edit-war so the content is still in the article. Dcupdates11 then added more unsourced claims to the article resulting in the third and fourth reverts. After this I warned the editor.[174] The fourth revert included the use of a citation that does not in any way support the claims made so I tagged it with {{failed verification}} rat