Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive165

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:208.127.239.5 reported by User:Andros 1337 (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Delta Air Lines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.127.239.5 (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: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

User keeps on defending his/her edits using random Wikipedia policies to circumvent consensus, a clear violation of WP:GAME and WP:POINT. ANDROS1337TALK 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a purely petty and patently obvious retaliation motivated attempt because User:Andros 1337 was reported by me at the No original research/Noticeboard. The policy is question there is WP:V, which this editor simply refuses to abide by [8], [9]. Not a "random Wikipedia policy" but a "core content" policy. The editor fails to adher to it and when challenged for that failure, resorts to retaliatory and meritless claims here on ANI. If that isn't an obvious WP:GAME violation, and an enormous abuse and time-waster of the resources and people on this forum, then I don't know what is. But definitely the wrong editor is being reviewed here. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you are clearly trying to circumvent consensus, which is on my side. You are overtagging the article with {{citation needed}} tags on statements that are common knowledge and cited in other parts of the same paragraph. You should also read WP:CK and WP:BLUE. ANDROS1337TALK 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, admins, please read all of the IP's comments at WP:NORN. He/she is obviously disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. ANDROS1337TALK 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing. The IP has engaged in long-term edit warring on the tags at Delta Air Lines in a campaign which has no support from others. The editor was also involved in a revert war on a BLP article, Doug Lamborn, which led to its being fully protected on August 5. This is an IP who arrived on August 1 and immediately plunged into controversy, knowing many acronyms. I am not clear on whether he is here to help the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:75.10.108.94 reported by User:Robotam (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.10.108.94 (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: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] [16]

Comments:
Possible sockpuppet of User:Brilliantstring, used to circumvent 3RR -RoBoTamice 04:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This wasn't a 3RR violation, but the editor was clearly edit warring after being asked to stop doing so. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mirwais Hotak (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Faisal Shahzad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

Mar4d is POV pushing and distorting information. He's been here for a long time it seems but is disregarding the 3RR rule. I'm not into edit-warring but this issue about Faisal Shahzad made me very frustrated because the Government of Pakistan explained that he is Kashmiri based on official government records but Mar4d comes and says no that's not true, and asserts that Faisal Shazad should be labelled a Pashtun. It's very frustrating when you are confronted by such an editor, especially during Ramadan.

In his blind and aggresive reverts he did the following:

  • Changed Melik Kaylan reported in Forbes magazine --to--> Forbes reported that he is of Pashtun extraction. - I say that this article should mention "Melik Kaylan" instead of Forbes because that's how true investigative reports are written and Forbes is not making the claim but Melik Kaylan is. Mar4d write "Fores" instead of M. Kaylan, because it makes the claim more trustworthy.
  • He added "Kifayat Ali, a man who said he is a cousin of Shahzad's father, insisted that Shahzad's family had no political affiliations, adding that the arrest appeared as a "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns." ... he used this dead link as proof. - I say this is not even relevant for the article because that guy will say anything in order to defend his relative.
  • He removed this valid and useful sourced information "She and her parents have roots in the Pakistani city of Mardan [24]"
  • He added "Pashtun" after Huma Asif Mian, but there is no source provided. - I say what if she is not really a Pashtun by ethnicity but just happens to speak Pashto as one of her languages and lived in a Pashtun territory? It is established however that she speaks Urdu, Pashto, English and I think other languages.

I think you can see that he has some kind of agenda going on.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The user above is engaged in a consistent WP:POV-pushing agenda on Pashtun related topics. He has been removing the reference of Mir Aimal Kansi being a Pashtun from his article despite sources to back the subject's ethnicity. Now, he has been consistently removing, changing and modifying sourced information in the Faisal Shahzad article - information that is not only covered in reliable sources, but has also been in the article for over a year. No one has challenged Faisal Shahzad's Pashtun ethnicity, and it is rather clear and well substantiated based on various references. Please see my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts where I have shown some links. This user does not seem to understand the concept of WP:RS - that if there are reliable sources verifying a claim, then the content stays in the article. Yet, Mirwais Hotak keeps removing referenced content based on a weak and not even well-covered argument (according to most internet sources) of Shahzad being a Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The one engaged in POV-pushing is you because you want readers to follow your ideas and thoughts, and you blindly and aggressively revert all my edits. Stop labelling terrorists as ethnic Pashtuns with non-existing or fake sources[25]. Labelling terrorists as Pashtuns alone is provocation and that usually leads to edit-warring as you have done so here. This here is not the place to argue over the content in articles, but you have clearly and intentionally violated the 3RR. I know about the W:RS, you need to go here from there, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and try to understand what source is more acceptable and what is not.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Asteckley reported by User:Steven J. Anderson (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Signature in the Cell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asteckley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Here are all of the user's edits to the article in the last 24 hours in reverse chronological order:

Edits 1, 2 and 3 are all reverts of the same material. 4 and 5, taken together, constitute a single revert identical to 1, 2 and 3 (1, 2, 3 and 4+5 are four identical reverts in less than 24 hours.) 6 and 7 are identical reverts to different material. 8 and 9 are harmless edits. 10 is an identical revert to the 6 and 7 reverts, continuing a separate edit war initiated yesterday.

While I was preparing this, the editor continued his edit warring with this revert (for his fifth revert of the same material):

Diff of edit warring notice placed on user's talk page:

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:99.181.144.107, User:99.181.132.122, User:99.35.14.74 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Inside Job (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

  1. 99.181.144.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (perhaps not, but it's the same editor)
  2. 99.181.132.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 99.35.14.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All edits (except possibly the first) revert to add WP:OVERLINKs. Reverts 2, 3, and 4 are explicit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:59, August 8, 2011 as IP#2, about a different page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page edits of July 21-23; Bbb23 (talk · contribs) removed most of the links and gave most of the arguments; I actually supported one of the links by this IP-jumping editor, and Bbb23 rewrote the sentence to avoid the need for the link.

Comments:
Note that IP#2 stopped and IP#3 started just after the warning. Other pages with edit warring, without attempting to justify the edits, include Talk:Climate Audit and Climate change mitigation scenarios ‎. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The IPs are too dynamic for blocking to be much use, it's probably best to report issues at other articles to WP:RFPP. I suppose a rangeblock could be considered if the issue gets worse. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rawalpindi Express and User:Alamsherkhan reported by User:Palltrast (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Awan (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Rawalpindi Express (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Alamsherkhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awan_(Pakistan)&oldid=442977802

etc.

etc.


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor. I came across this page at Recent Changes. These two editors have been carrying on a simmering revert war for the last four days, persistently altering the article back and forth to their preferred version. This morning it has escalated into a full out edit war. Please see the article's history for the full picture. I don't have the expertise in the subject to know which version is "correct" but the edit war they are pursuing is not doing the article any good and I believe admin intervention is required. Palltrast (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Whilst I am tempted to block both editors as well, at least they're actually discussing it on the talkpage now, where I have left a warning. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h )[edit]

Page: Medes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bokan995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:15, 7 August 2011 (edit summary: "Removing POV by Tabande by giving the article a two sided viewpoint about the Kurds and Medes")
  2. 00:03, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Cleaned the article")
  3. 12:01, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Tabande, you are giving it a negative view about the Kurds being the ancient Medes in article. Stop it!")
  4. 16:58, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Removing vandalism by Tabande")
  5. 17:02, 8 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443708022 by Tabande (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

This editor was blocked for 31 hours on the 4th for editwarring. Note the 'vandalism' comment also. —Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed his redaction of other editors' comments on the talk page. [38]

User:71.226.23.207 reported by Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]] (Result: Semi-protected for 1 month)[edit]

Page: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.226.23.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:

For several months, this anonymous and single-purpose editor (who fails to sign his posts) has been operating under several IP addresses (71.203.85.14 and possibly 99.103.174.55 for example)while taking the position that he is the sole person who will determine what is appropriate to this article and what is not. He threatens and attempts to intimidate this editor to promote his POV. He stated, "In short, I'll just bury the criticism with the opposite effect to bring balance....and we can make the article ridiculously long.", and "....unless you can drum up a consensus for keeping the material I will be deleting all entries- sourced or otherwise- that deal with mere individual acts that do not affect the agency as a whole." In my opinion, making these statements have no place on Wikipedia.

This editor has refused to register and sign his posts. Further, he seems unable to properly post citations and simply embeds links.

Certainly, ATF as an agency is under severe criticism at the current time (see Fast and Furious). Inappropriate actions of individual agents and the agency reaction to these incidents directly reflect on the agency as a whole.

I've attempted to compromise with this editor, but to no avail. Reverting postings not backed up by the citation is met with immediate reverts.

If I'm editing inappropriately, then please let me know and I'll back off. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement for a user to register to edit. There is, however, a requirement for all editors to abide by Wikipedia policies when editing. Looking at the edit history for the article, the IP editor appears to be keeping just outside the strict limits of WP:3RR, but to me, that's WP:GAMING the system. And the commentaries are certainly not consistent with collaboration or collegial editing. So while possibly not violating the letter of 3RR, there's definitely a violation in its spirit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So, where do we go from here? Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems the edit war is continuing - this time with some other editor (possible sock puppet?). The undersigned revised the paragraph to reflect a more NPOV, since it was being turned into a cluttered narrative about the shooting and trial. It has now been reverted multiple times by User:AceD. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've issued 3RR warnings to AceD & Computer Guy 2 as both are involved. I have reverted the page back to the state it was in before the edit war broke out. Computer Guy, you should make sure to give warnings on the user's talk pages before posting here. As AceD appears to be a new user, he must be warned of our policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems a most unusual coincidence that User:AceD, who previously posted only once back on 5 February 2006, decided to post today after being silent for over 5 years, to continue an edit war begun by User:71.203.85.14 and earlier by User:99.103.174.55. Most unusual - but we should assume Good Faith. However, "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bge20 reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: No Violation)[edit]

Page: Left–right politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bge20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


  • 1st revert: [44] 10:26, 8 August 2011
  • 2nd revert: [45] 14:15, 8 August 2011
  • 3rd revert: [46] 17:02, 8 August 2011
  • 4th revert: [47] 21:33, 8 August 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] 18:24, 8 August 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

The first revert included removing an entire section (Political parties in the political spectrum). The first three reverts were reversed by three different editors. TFD (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


The "first revert" was of older material in the article - not properly counted as a "revert." The "third revert" (actually second) etc. appear if anything to properly seek to reach a compromise from what I can see. Hits 2RR for sure. The 3RR is a maybe. The 4RR claimed is not there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I also note the editor in question did, in fact, use the article talk page each time. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.

So, I removed a lot of un-sourced and poorly sourced POV, riddled with basic factual errors (like mis-dating a party's foundation by a century) on an article with no discussion since 2009, accompanied by a detailed talk post.

I got reverted without comment or engagement. That's, well, rude, and I've not seen that in in 5 or so years on wiki. So I reverted back. Frankly, it looked as much like vandalism as editing.

OK, maybe I was hasty. No talk since 2009, but some recent edit activity. Sorry. But very odd to see no discussion at all.

Then I made some largely new, small, specific, annotated changes with discussion, and they were bulk reverted without comment or discussion - just an assertion for needing sources on edits that are either sourced or unsourcable. At that point I start to lose respect for this.

Next, I fixed some blatant factual errors (with sourcing) and frankly bizarre unsourced POV, with comment and source, and got reported here.

At no point has anyone actually tried to claim that there's anything wrong with the stuff I added, or defend the junk I removed.

I've talked on the article page, my talk page and the talk page of the guy who's decided that saying the Whigs were founded in the 18th century and linking to the Whig article is unacceptable. The discussion is entirely one way - I make points about the article and i get bot-like quoting of the wiki rule book - which my edits are complying with - and bot-like deletion by editors who refuse to discuss the issues that need fixing in the article or even, it would seem, actually read my edits.

Or, do you think the line "The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class" is non-POV, uncontroversial and doesn't require a source?

I love discussion. Can we have some?

Frankly, this article would get a fail in an exam - it is riddled with childish errors. And I was probably a little hasty in wading in to zap some really egregious nonsense. But my interest in fixing it is less than my desire to learn the secret rule book. I've had zero edit problems on wiki - I just seem to have run into a few ... difficult editors. Bge20 (talk)

  • 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. If User:Bge20 makes another revert, leave a message on my talk and I'll block them. --FASTILY (TALK) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Beatthecyberhate reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Comments:
Article appears to be under siege by a COI editor intent on scrubbing bad press. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Srimalleswara reported by User:Jsorens (Result: No Violation)[edit]

Page: Administrative divisions of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srimalleswara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [61]


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] [67]

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

Comments:

  • 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. Courcelles 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:92.28.244.21/User:92.28.254.151 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.28.244.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)(latest), 92.28.254.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)(previous)


Previous version reverted to: [69]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:

User above mischaracterized criticism as personal attacks. They have been told by no less than 7 other people that the edits were not personal attacks, including people who reverted him, and people who commented at WT:RD over the matter. --Jayron32 20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Jayron, could we have some diffs, instead of 6 links to the full article history?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops. I will fix this. I must've miscopied the link I wanted into my clipboard each time...  Done. Sorry about that. --Jayron32 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is my diff of putting the comment back in after the IP removed it the sixth time. He probably removed it again by now. -- kainaw 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ohnoitsjamie did the honors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo reported by   — Jess· Δ (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Warring on Objections to evolution
  1. 15:45, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
  2. 16:14, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
  3. 16:29, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443890501 by Apokryltaros (talk)user failing to explain his undo")
Warring on User_talk:Apokryltaros
  1. 16:09, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
  2. 16:23, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443894370 by Apokryltaros (talk) Because it is not talk page that did undo but you")
  3. 16:27, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 443895123 by Apokryltaros (talk)")
  4. 16:45, 9 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Comments: No violation of 3rr. However, the user was blocked July 18th for edit warring on this same page, and since then he's done nothing but add inappropriate content to the article, and edit war when it gets reverted. Looking at the talk page, he's worn out the patience of the community with his warring and aggressive, battleground behavior. I believe the crux of this problem is a violation of WP:EW, so I'm taking it here instead of ANI. (Note, I'm not actually involved in the dispute, except to the extent that I've posted the EW warnings and brought the issue here.)

—  — Jess· Δ 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week I've also left a warning on the editor's talk page against continuing this behaviour when the block expires. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ConcernedVancouverite reported by User:Nemonoman (Result: Not an AN3 issue)[edit]

Can someone please have a look at at several dozen article revisions made today by this editor? Here's the [Contributions Page].

The editor has inserted the words "Cult Leader", and a set of references, preceding the name Meher Baba into the lead paragraph of numerous articles associated with Meher Baba.

It is entirely reasonable that the Meher Baba article include this information and these references, assuming they are reliable sources that identify Meher Baba as cult leader -- which apparently is NOT the case for all of them. But such an addition would be consistent with an NPOV policy, and as one of the article's more active editors, I would support it.

The insertion of "Cult Leader" virtually every time the name appears is, in my opinion, more than disruptive, but vandalism.

Attempts to discuss have been met with little success, and reverting just leads to more reverts.

Dozens of articles are being affected, and the situation is unlike any I have seen before.

I invite your help. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note I blocked Dragonbooster4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) today for edit warring for removing the "cult leader" passage from the intro to the Meher Baba article. However, the warning came after that user was repeatedly advised to discuss the matter on the talk page and refused to. ConcernedVancouverite, by contrast, has participated in the discussions at the related articles' talk pages and has not, per my inspection, violated 3RR. I did not see any reason to block CV then, nor do I see a reason to now. I do think that discussion should continue at Talk:Meher Baba on whether to include the phrase in that article; it's probably best to err on the side of caution and omit the phrase for the time being.
I'm not going to close the report, because it probably wouldn't hurt for an administrator new to the situation to review it and make sure I haven't overlooked anything. However, I don't see where any action is necessary now, and if discussion proceeds at the talk pages, I don't think any further action will be needed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


CFred -- As mentioned above, I agree that a Cult-leader section could reasonably be included in Meher Baba. ConcernedVancouverite, however, has added the phrase to the lede of dozens of articles, without discussion in all but a few instances, and it is not clear that identifying Meher Baba as a cult-leader is relevant at all to the body of the dozens of articles in question. Certainly including the term, with six refernces, in the lede, suggests that it is not only relevant, but also that the article will discuss its relevance to the article's subject. This is not the case. To place an adjective as loaded as "Cult Leader" in front of anyone's name, without further discussion, is highly POV, in my opinion, and the validity of the term in relation to Meher Baba is certainly arguable. Its use in these articles in this way suggests that the matter is completely settled -- not the case -- and that the subjects of these articles are somehow misguided automatons.
My concern is not about the Meher Baba article but the dozens of others currently being, in my opinion, vandalized. If not vandalism, it is very bad editing not consistent with WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, or WP:LEDE. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've spent a good deal of time reading the reliable secondary sources on this topic prior to making the edits, and have realized that they have not been adequately represented in the dozens of articles related to Meher Baba. The additional citations I have added are to both academic articles written exclusively about the topic, as well as popular press in major newspapers. One example of the sources includes, Robbins, Thomas. 1969. "Eastern Mysticism and the Resocialization of Drug Users: The Meher Baba Cult", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8,2:308-317. The Journal_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Religion is a peer reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. Articles on Wikipedia need to represent a neutral point of view, and the current tone of the writings about Baba have all been ignoring the cult angle, which is well cited, and as such I believe needs to be included to balance out the coverage. A reader of Wikipedia coming to the various articles may otherwise be presented with a POV that misses one angle of the history each of the subject's activities with and related to Meher Baba. I posted the same to the talk pages, but instead it being discussed, it was reverted multiple times to the point of one of the reverting editors being blocked for 3RR. Regardless, I'm going to step away from the articles, as it is clear there are some editors who are quite passionate about defending them, and it is not a good use of energy on my part to engage if other editors are just reverting and attempting to make claims about edit warring (which I have not engaged in) without discussing the merits of bringing an alternative view. I do encourage any editors who stumble onto this conversation to read the multiple reliable sources which refer to Meher Baba as a cult, led by Meher Baba. The ones I added are just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally dozens more. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


I very much appreciate CV's respectful tone, but his comments are indicative of why I asked for admin assistance.


  • The peer-reviewed JSTOR article says among other things: "Baba followers tend to shift their emphasis from passive-contemplative to active-service-oriented..." The word "Cult" has both a precise technical definition, and a highly freighted connotative aspect. The article refers to the technical term. "Cult Leader Meher Baba" does not. The explanatory and ameliorating statements in the article are not referenced.


  • The article above is so far as I can tell the only one of the references available on line. I'm rather surprised that CV, who has seemingly had no interest in the subject date has suddenly appeared with numerous references that have not been apparent until now, although many people looked for non-positive references during the peer-review of Meher Baba for good and featured article status. It is not all clear to me that the references cited specifically refer to Meher Baba as Cult Leader (the JSTOR article does not), and while JSTOR is a Reliable Source, newspapers would probably not be regarded as such in this context. Nor would an (apparently) unpublished doctoral dissertation.


  • In any case, is Meher Baba's primary descriptor to be "Cult Leader"? Is that to be a required modifier of the name in every instance where it occurs? CV states "A reader of Wikipedia coming to the various articles may otherwise be presented with a POV that misses one angle of the history each of the subject's activities with and related to Meher Baba." This might be so if these articles even actually referred to Meher Baba's life or activities, which most do not. We might not also learn that he was silent, or a Parsi, or whatever. Once one POV has been added -- why I can't imagine -- must all the rest then follow. There's a link to the Main Article in each case -- let's put the the Cult-Leader stuff there where it belongs. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment – As mentioned above, needs to be discussed elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Idwal2000 reported by Renseim (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Darcus Howe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Idwal2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff=443941852]

  • 1st revert: [diff=443956466]
  • 2nd revert: [diff=443951077]
  • 3rd revert: [diff=443947238]
  • 4th revert: [diff=443943718]


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

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

Comments:
Not on talk page, but clear consensus against obvious POV wording expressed in edit summaries.

  • No previous warnings on talkpage, and account only created at 22:35UTC tonight, but I am unable to conceive that an account which immediately starts tag-bombing an article with completely correct syntax is a new user. Thus - Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper on S.R. Nathan reported by User:La goutte de pluie (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: S.R. Nathan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:


Previous version reverted to: [78]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments: The IPs involved are public IPs, often used in conjunction to edit articles on Singaporean politics, among several other IP ranges. There are long-term problems with this IP.

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Page has been semi-protected by Fastily. Minima© (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Nemonoman reported by User:ConcernedVancouverite (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Don E. Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nemonoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [86]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments: I stepped away from editing any articles related to the edit in question, because the articles related to this topic are being defended by a group of very passionate editors that do not appear to be engaging in discussion and calling my well cited additions vandalism. But this editor continues to edit war with other editors on the page, and has now passed the 3RR mark after being told by an admin that they were at the 3 mark already.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY (TALK) 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by 81.107.150.246 (Result: No action)[edit]

Hello. I am an internationally recognized scholar in the field of comparative religion who has been invited to speak by the United Nations and the International Association for the Study of the History of Religions. I have made many edits to this encyclopedia to the best of my ability particularly in the sphere of interfaith understanding. Unfortunately much of my recent work is being destroyed by someone who seems to be a militant 'atheist activist'. This is User:Mann jess. Some of the articles in question include Theism, Privatio Boni, Idolatry and others in the sphere of Buddhism (an area where my work has been highly praised by leading scholars in the field). The User is making it very difficult for proper good faith edits to remain because he is automatically reverting any work that is done to improve various articles. I would beg someone to look at the recent history of the Theism article and its discussion page there where a consensus has been reached that the current article does not accord with the accepted scholarly definition of theism. This is the definition you will find in the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religion, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and other recognized reliable authorities. Unfortunately, User:Mann jess is reverting all good faith edits for what reason I have no idea. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here are all of the diffs of changes made by 81.107.150.246 (talk) that have been reverted by User:Mann jess:
Peter Power (crisis management specialist)
Privatio Boni
Buddha-nature
  • change 1
  • change 2 - "restored recent edits. User: Mann jess has been vandalising other articles in the religious studies wiki projects."
Idolatry
Theism
Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
81.107.150.246, from what I can tell, Mann jess hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies, such as 3RR in reverting your edits. Also, Man jess has provided rationales in the form of edit summaries for the reversions. It appears that Man jess is attempting to engage you in communication on the article talk pages, as the foundation of contentent on Wikipedia is a consensus among editors. Please remember that even experts do not own the subjects in which they are experts. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes but the rationales do not accord with universally accepted standards of international scholarship and academic consensus. If you have an article whose main body does not contain one iota of information that could be found in any common definiton of any reputable encyclopedia and completely deviates from the topic then you have an article that is in serious need of revision. Hence the templates. The need for revision of this article had already been announced by another user on the discussion page back in April who actually posted information from scholarly sources to show that what he was saying was true. I am simply following up what this editor had tried to draw people's attention to. As it stands this article does not accord with the universally accepted definition that can be found in any reputable source. If you do not want wikipedia to be a reputable source for scholars then so be it but I myself try to do my best to make wikipedia authoritative. I am interested in improving human knowledge. It is to be greatly regretted that you are turning away people who have something of value to offer. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
For starters, the "other user" that you refer to appears to be you based on the IP addresses used and the editing habits. Secondly, as it says right at the top of this page, "do not continue a dispute on this page", which is exactly what you are trying to do; this is not content dispute resolution. Thirdly, please read the definition of edit warring at the top of this page and try to understand that what you have reported here is a content dispute, not an edit war. Finally, please go read WP:OWN as it's quite clear that you do not understand it based on the above diatribe. It says: "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Neo-Victorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Corset (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Already discussed at:

User is performing a bulk removal of all links (across many articles) that reference Weebly, justified on the basis of WP:ELNO re: blogs. User contribs history is the simplest way to see this.

However in this case, the link isn't a blog, it's a publisher's site to a book (the "blog problem" just isn't credible here). The book in question is listed under Further reading from some articles related to neo-Victoriana and corsetry. I've reverted this deletion, seeing it as the collateral damage that arises when such simplistic edits are applied wholesale. The editor has now deleted the same link three times tonight from these two articles, despite there being on-going live discussion relating to it.

Since this, several post facto reasons have been given for the deletion (the original deletion was very obviously for a URL that matched Weebly, no more than this). When raised at RS/N, there was little support for any of these reasons.

The suggestion of spam has been raised. Whilst the book was originally cited on four articles, I would myself see it as tenuous and somewhat excessive to have it on two of these - enough to remove it, but not even enough to issue a spam warning (and I remove a lot of spam). It is highly relevant to Neo-Victorian though, and also relevant to Corset.

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

3rr refers to reverting more than 3 times. I've have removed the link three times from Neo-Victorian, reverting twice; and in a separate article, I have only removed the link from twice, reverting once. That's two reverts at the most in the same page (3rr is applied to one page), and three total (even if 3rr was pan-article). The discussion at RS/N has just found additional reasons, not replacement reasons to remove the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, you've reverted just as much as I have, so if I'm guilty of violating 3rr, so are you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined for now. Feel free to update or re-report if edit warring on either side of the issue continues. --slakrtalk / 03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:FreemanSA reported by User:Objectively (Result: indefblocked as a sock)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 10 August 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 11 August 2011 (→Khamis Gaddafi: keep reverting and it will get you blocked)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:12, 11 August 2011 (→Regarding the latest claims of Khamis' death: lets try to keep it neutral)

Comments:

The user has a clear side in the ongoing Libyan conflict, and is bringing their POV to this and a variety of articles on the subject. Other users have criticized the user with their reverting edits summaries: "Tisk tisk tisk, POV pushing in its rawest form", and "we compromise: keep tenses consistent, militia≠NLA, "hostile" is a contentious term, "totally" is **nowhere** in the source", and "based largely on UNconfirmed loyalists claims, Because most have not been partially confirmed. But then again, what should i expect from the libyan government's official mouthpiece on wikipedia. Go drink some nescafe." Looking for some assistance here!--Objectively (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned While you mentioned the concept of edit warring in one comment, no one ever explicitly explained WP:3RR. I'm going to do so now. If the user continues edit warring after a clear warning, you can let me know on my talk page and I'll block. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope that helps, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:
They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. Additionally, the edit summary (listed below) has the same grammatical style of their previous comments.
  • 6th revert: 17:50, 12 August 2011 (Precedent version more neutral and closer to reality as at the moment the appearance of Khamis show that the rumor was not founded.)
Thanks for your help! Objectively (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Sockpuppetry case filed here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:William Bradshaw reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:07, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "re-adding information on personal life per consensus on talk page and BLP noticeboard")
  2. 21:11, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444332999 by Off2riorob (talk) - you have stated on the talk page that you want someone to add the info other than you.")
  3. 23:33, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "revert attribution of a quote given in 2011 to a source published in 2010. afterelton is a reliable source in general but it is OBVIOUSLY a reliable source for a quote that IT PUBLISHED.")
  4. 23:36, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "added citation to afterelton back to the quote from afterelton")
  5. 23:40, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444352565 by Off2riorob (talk) - reverted disruptive edit")
  6. 00:23, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "given the long and documented history of actors careers suffering because of being gay (start with William Haines and go forward) lack of effect on evans is reasonable to include")
  • Diff of warning: here

Yworo (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • First, adding information to an article based on the consensus that I believed had developed on the talk page should not be held against me. The third edit was to repair an edit that incorrectly attributed a quote made in 2011 to a source published in 2010. I don't see how that can be held against me either. The final edit had nothing to do with the disputed source and was by the way made in violation of the consensus on the talk page. The other edits were related to an editor who has been disrupting this article for days and has been reported for doing so. I've apologized for being a hothead about the article and have voluntarily stepped away from it. I've offered to stop editing the article altogether except for vandalism if another editor agrees to do the same. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I originally blocked here for 24h; however, as has been pointed out and which I didn't realise at the time, the editor was not warned until after the 4th/5th/6th (depending on how many edits you believe are reverts) edit. (At least four are clear reverts). Therefore I have unblocked the user; however I have not declined this report, especially given that the user's reply to the 3RR warning was this ("Bullshit"). I am leaving this open for another admin to look at. I have cleared the autoblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Recommend letting the associated ANI thread take its course and let user off with a warning considering he is new and likely didn't realize (and wasn't warned until late) that he ran afoul.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:ANI#User_dispute_assistance_request -FASTILY (TALK) 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Luckyguyinoh reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [93]

  • 1st revert: [94] 9 August
  • 2nd revert: [95] 9 August
  • 3rd revert: [96] 10 August
  • 4th revert: [97] 12 August
  • 5th revert: [98] 12 August


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY (TALK) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:67.188.201.99 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )[edit]

Page: Barney Glaser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.188.201.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:
IP has not responded to comment on article talk page, their talk page or on discussion on BLPN. All edits without edit summaries and seems purely interested in reverting information about a specific matter. The editor's history is telling. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 h This IP has a long history of removing material without explanation, and thus the next block should be longer. I'm watching the page, but the last drama evolved when I was offline. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:IownKudzu reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Alliance of Yemeni Tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2011 Western Saharan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suzanne Bonamici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brad Avakian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gdeim Izik protest camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IownKudzu (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: There's no point doing the whole diffs thing. There's no good place to start. It's blatantly obvious this user is a sockpuppet created to give me a hard time by reverting my edits and vandalizing a whole ton of pages on which I've been active. If someone can please take care of this, that'd be great. Thanks.

User blocked by Favonian. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)