Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive167

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:Mtking (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:09, 1 September 2011 (edit summary: "modified wording and added sources so that statements were not OR")
    04:53, 1 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* School of Nursing */ modified citation")
  2. 16:20, 1 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Student life */ modifying wording and adding citations")
  3. 18:43, 1 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447893940 by Orlady (talk) these are third party sources")
  4. 03:40, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447975762 by Orlady (talk) site is not promotional and trail site can also have news link sources added")
    03:46, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Student life */ added citations from reliable sources")

Mtking (edits) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments:


Fountainviewkid has been blocked before for 3RR on this article. Mtking (edits) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I was adding and modifying sources. I made only 2 reverts making sure not to violate the 3RR rule. The IP tried to attack me on this for the same and an admin pointed out to him that this was a content dispute not an edit war.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I might also add that "consecutive edits" are seen as one. This summary is misleading.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You will see that the two sets of "consecutive edits" have the second edit indented and not numbered, between 04:09 on 1 September 2011 and 03:46 on 2 September 2011 (23 hrs 33 mins) you made a total of 6 edits, in 4 batches. Mtking (edits) 04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I was modifying citations. I could have easily done them together in 2 batches. Notice I was trying to improve the article and find appropriate sources. I only made 2 reverts.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So which of the edits was not a revert then ? as from what I can see they all reversed an action of another editor ? Mtking (edits) 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The additions of the citations. I was adding information in order to modify sections of the article so that it would be based off the sources.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I am assuming that you mean the Number 2 edit in the list above, well as with this edit Orlady had already removed information relating to Lookout Mountain, your re-insertion was a revert of her action. Mtking (edits) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't "reinserting" so much as adding sources. Also where did I specifically make more than 3 reverts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
to quote WP:3RR :
A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word
each of the four sets of edits in the above list, in one way or another reversed the actions of another editor. If you disagree then please point out which edits you think do not and why they do not. In the case of the Number 2 edit, Orlady had already removed information relating to Lookout Mountain and your adding it back was reversing that action. Mtking (edits) 04:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant talk page about these edits is here Talk:Southern_Adventist_University#Student_Life but from my prospective I didn't see it as an edit war, FVK if anything was just maybe not understanding fully the reason why the material shouldn't be in the article. At least from this editor's prospective I didn't take these series of edits as an edit war... — raekyt 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But Fountainviewkid's block log shows Five blocks for 3RR, two of which are at Southern Adventist University, along with this edit I find it hard to conclude anything other than he knew what he was doing. Mtking (edits) 05:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should inform those reading this that I contact my mentor every time I am accused of something serious like this. that posting was meant to ask his help as to how I should proceed in this matter. I take it very seriously when my username shows up on this board. Also the blocks at SAU are from a past situation with an editor/user is now banned for socking, major edit warring, 3RR, etc named BelloWello. There are quite a few editors including his former mentors who could testify as to the hell that BelloWello put me (and a whole lot of others) through.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He should at this point know exactly what 3RR is at this point, no doubt. I think he gets a bit caught up with trying to keep information in the article and doesn't want to wait for the discussion to take place to find out what the consensus on it was. There is nothing wrong with allowing something to remain or be deleted and stay deleted until AFTER a thorough discussion has been had about the content, and I think that's where FVK gets hung up. I just know that another ban for 3RR for him will result in a VERY lengthy ban, and I don't think this editor is a bad editor, just needs more guidance. Putting him on a 1-revert restriction for all (or at least anything connected to SDA) articles might be more prudent then an extremely lengthy ban, IMHO. — raekyt 05:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am minded to agree, my only hesitation, is relating to way he has behaved here, the "it was others defence", the denying the issue and not just saying "Opps my bad, how can I fix this", perhaps FVK should make that offer for the admin who reviews this to consider. Mtking (edits) 05:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid's last regular edit warring block was for one month. He gets little credit for being puzzled about the revert count now, when he's been through the process so many times. I think it's time for a two-month block. If he actually wanted to stop and discuss, I'm sure he could have figured out how to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to acceded to the suggestions given by Raeky. I also would like to remind those considering that the "one month" block was shortened to one week and was going to be shorted to 48 hours by various admins. The "one month" was in response to one revert with a stupidly titled summary. Review the details and read the response of the several admins. I would note, just as side information, that I've been considering leaving Wiki due to all the stress and WP: BATTLEGROUND. A significant block would make that decision easier, though I still do want to try and continue to contribute. I await the verdict from the community.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My "verdict" is that you need to grow up. Threatening to take your toys and go home if you aren't allowed to edit war is extremely childish. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you threatening to leave if your disruptive behavior isn't ignored, Fountainviewkid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support long block. Previous to this incident, I politely requested that the user change their approach and discussed reasonable alternatives. Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than a block, a topic ban might be better - the user is telling us he both wants to edit, but that the WP: BATTLEGROUND causes him stress. A block, seems to me, is bordering on the punitive - since the user is engaging us and pleading with us to have editing privileges, we should provide a hearing. I say we take this editor at his word, and institute a broadly construed topic ban on all Christianity and Religion topics, of say, 6 months, and then let him edit. If the topic ban is violated or similar issues as those leading to the ban emerge in other areas, then revisiting the idea of a block might be in order.--Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • First, your solution has no chance of passing. Second, there are many Christianity and religion topics that the user can edit without running into problems, so that solution doesn't address the problem. The problem now, is that the user is obsessed with the article on Southern Adventist University. In addition to a long block, a 1RR should also be handed down for when they return. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Sanctions are not in order. Revert #1 on the report is not a revert. He added sourced content. Fountain did not violate 3RR. – Lionel (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually it was a revert, he was restoring content removed with this edit. Mtking (edits) 08:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a tip, in the future when doing a report, always include the previous version of a diff like that. A little known secret is we noticeboarders don't generally look very deep...--Cerejota (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


  • On the contrary, sanctions are most certainly in order, and our policy on edit warring is clear and the user is familiar with it. Please familiarize yourself with that policy and with WP:3RR: "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption...any edit warring may lead to sanctions..." Lionel, was Fountainviewkid edit warring? Yes or no? Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Edit warring doesn't need 3RR, although you are correct, diff 1 was an expansion, without any reversion. My position still stands: a topic ban with continued mentoring is best.--Cerejota (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit #1 restored content that had previously been removed as WP:OR. However, the first sentence of the restored content is still WP:OR using the same source. Although undoubtedly well-meaning, FVK is overzealous in trying to add content to the article, where there are evidently major problems in locating secondary sources. He currently has a mentor, namely Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). On the other he surely knows that ElKevbo (talk · contribs) has expertise in editing articles connected with higher education institutions and that his identification of OR was made in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It also needs to be said that the article is in the GAN queue, and stability is required to pass. Fountainviewkid's edit warring in the article while it is waiting for a review tells me he is more interested in POV pushing that he is in improving Wikipedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's POV-pushing just poor sourcing. Once the sourcing has been questioned, FVK should really be more careful and look for other sources, instead of trying to reuse the same poor sources. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That's one interpretation, but in this instance it can also be argued he is advocating for Southern Adventist University, with the poor sources promoting the attractions of the university. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Since I have never been blocked it may appear that I am unfamiliar with edit warring, but that is not the case. Was Fountain edit warring? If we go by the letter of the policy then his 2RR would qualify as yes. However, and this is a big however, (1) Fountain was actively engaged in discussion on the talk page, (2) he was diligent to add sources for his changes, and (3) he left well reasoned edit summaries. Thus if we go by the spirit of the policy, he was not edit warring. I would not describe his behavior as disruptive, but overly bold, and acting in good faith. One last thing: we need to proceed with prudence when handling out a 1 month block, particularly to new editors.– Lionel (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring is a type of behavior. You can edit war with only 1RR. The talk page discussion you refer to shows Fountainviewkid arguing against consensus and edit warring his version into the article, a version which uses poor promotional sources. Fountainviewkid created his account in 2008. This is not a "new account". Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Have you reviewed FVK's block log ? he has had 5 for 3RR already and his first edit was on Mar 14, 2008. Mtking (edits) 09:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I count a total of 6, not 5 blocks. Are you discarding one for some reason? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Nevermind. I see you are discarding the BLP block. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus on the talk page. I was there. Those blocks must be put into perspective. Fountain went head-to-head against an extremely disruptive banned editor. That editor caused the current 1RR on all abortion articles, and protection of many SDA articles. The editor, BelloWello/WikiManOne continues to this day socking at SDA articles as unregistered IPs. In essence, Fountain took the bullet for many editors at these articles. Those blocks must be put into context. – Lionel (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
No, there was a consensus and the consensus was clear. 4 editors making good arguments against inclusion vs. 2 editors ignoring those arguments. If you don't see that, then there's a problem. I would also like to point out that this account has a history of promotion, from using the user name "Fountainviewkid" to refer to Fountainview Academy, to edit warring over promoting Southern Adventist University, a school they appear to attend. If the user isn't here for anything other than promotion, we have another problem. Instead of a topic ban from all Christianity and religion articles, I would like to propose a topic ban on all Seventh-day Adventist articles instead, as well as a block. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no history of promotion. Fountain was taken to COIN (by BelloWello btw) but promotion was never established. He said he does not attend Southern Adventist Univ. A ban on all SDA articles? For 2RR on one article? Seems draconian.– Lionel (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong: he was blocked 6 times, 5 times for disrupting SDA articles and once for disrupting a liberal BLP article. All six blocks occurred within less than a year. I've discussed the problem with the user on his talk page. He says that he will either be blocked or he will leave, and refuses to simply change his behavior or recognize that there is a problem. Perhaps a topic ban and block will help him? Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Were those blocks at SDA articles the result of battling with BelloWello? A POV warrior who wreaked havok for 6 mos? And who finally was indef blocked and banned. And who has continued to sock puppet at SDA articles hiding as anon IPs like the coward he is? – Lionel (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I could say the same thing about my block log. However, I won't, because at the end of the day, I was the one who made the decision to revert or act like a dick. It doesn't matter what the other person did, even if they displayed cretinous, Neanderthal behavior that made a trailer park BBQ look like a Mensa meeting. That's the difference here. Fountainview won't take responsibility for his actions, and we're going to be back here sooner rather than later if something isn't done. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict) I am sorry, but I fail to see how the behaver of one editor can be used to excuse the behaver of another editor, save maybe for the first breach of 3RR. But after that you know the bright line if another editor goads you into an edit war you simply rise above it and take it to talk pages or the relevant noticeboard. Mtking (edits) 10:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The last blocking admin in July recommended an escalating block,[1] so we should go with the two month block per EJ up above. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There might be extenuating circumstances here because BelloWello has been ipsocking on the talk page of the article (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello) which almost certainly creates a toxic editing environment, He even reported FVK above. I think that the first step to be taken is to request semiprotection for the talk page, just to restore a little normality to the article and its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You're missing the point. The blocks were the result of interations with BelloWello. No Bello---No blocks. And the thing is... Bello is still here...

And with all due respect, you can't say the same thing about your block log because you didn't have Bello hounding you. – Lionel (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bello had nothing to do with the BLP block and he had nothing to do with the circumstances behind this report. Further, he had nothing to do with Fountainview's choice to edit war. Please stay on topic. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article is semi'ed so no IP has been editing the article since July, so I fail to see how that is relevant. Mtking (edits) 10:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A 2 month block for 2RR when the editor was adding sourced content, engaging on the talk page and leaving explanatory edit summaries is punitive.– Lionel (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note: As pointed out above he made 4 sets of reverting edits in 24 hrs. Mtking (edits) 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotecting the talk page will stop the disruption that BelloWello is causing there at the moment, IP-hopping in a crazy way. I don't see that there can be any question about that. BW is BAITING FVK, that is his style. Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (ecX5) Comment and sane/rational proposal As always, edit wars involve multiple people, and this one is no different. Why does FVK's block log have any weight, other than the argument that he should damn well know by now that even 1 or 2 reverts can be considered an edit war. If there are any blocks to be handed out today, there's 2 primary edit-warriors on this article at the moment. This is all in all a content dispute - and it appears to me to not be solvable by a topic ban, as the info being added/cited seems to be wholly unrelated to SDA or Christianity as a whole. Can I suggest that FVK voluntarily not edit anything until he has heard back from his mentor. If his mentor can confirm that FVK has the appropriate understanding of WP:EW and WP:REVERT, then we can move forward as normal. If not, I propose that FVK be placed on a sitewide WP:1RR restriction for a minimum of 6 months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BAITING is no excuse for WP:3RR Mtking (edits) 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not condone in any way FVK's conduct. I agree with the proposal of Bwilkins and have requested temporary semiprotection of Talk:Southern Adventist University. Mathsci (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
BWilkins' proposal will prevent disruption to the encyclopedia while providing for the development of the editor.– Lionel (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I would add to BWilkins' proposal an article (and Talk page) ban form Southern Adventist University for six months as well. Mtking (edits) 11:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Banning FVK from this article and talk page seems punitive. It will not help this article or wikipedia in General. Semi-protection against unregistered users should be the main remedy. I suggest that FVK announce a time-limited self-imposed ban on reverting edits to the article page. He should continue discussing issues. It is good for all of us to have his input of concern. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • DonaldRichardSands, could you address my point above, where I point out that the article is currently nominated for GA, and that Fountainview's edit warring amounts to a quick-fail on the criteria for stability? In other words, a block and/or ban will help the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Disagree that it would be punitive, he has already had 2 3RR blocks relating to this article. Mtking (edits) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
A proposed block would be preventative, as the article has been nominated for GA for several weeks and is awaiting a reviewer. Good Article criterion 5 stipulates that there must not be any ongoing edit war or content dispute, otherwise a reviewer can fail the GAN. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I note there has been a certain amount of WP:BAIT going on, with an IP goading FVK on the talk page. I would suggest semi-protection is extended to the talk page to stop this. Not that baiting is an excuse for edit warring but it certainly doesn't help with an immature editor trying to learn the ropes and is difficult even for an experienced editor to cope with. I've observed FVK responding well to User:Atama's mentorship, it seems a shame to rush to judgement when he has been trying hard to conform to policy.

A block at this stage would be punitive. FVK isn't edit warring any more and there has been more than one edit warrior in action today. After reviewing the diffs I'm not convinved FVK has actually breached the line of more than 3 revisions either, since at least one of the diffs is FVK modifying his own edit. Having worked with User:Atama in the past, I would suggest that he be allowed to mentor FVK. GA5 is not a good reason for blocking an editor that is punitive and seeking a block for that reason is specious IMHO. Just my 2c. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I read his talk page and review the edits before I noticed the discussion here. I had offered a 0RR in lieu of a page ban. Since he seems open to the ban (which was suggested above) and has made no further problematic edits, a block would seem to counterproductive at this point. Bwilkins/Viriditas: are you comfortable with 0RR in this instance? Again, apologies for stepping in before I had reviewed all of the discussion. Kuru (talk)
Maybe someone will tell me I'm wrong, but I just responded to what I saw as a disruptive edit by FVK on the article talk page:
"Fountainviewkid, please stop edit warring to include a fluffy promotional article published by the Youth Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which owns Southern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.110.68 (talk) 7:57 am, Today (UTC+1)
The Youth Department owns Southern? That's news to me. Please show me a reliable source that says such a thing.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 4:02 pm, Today (UTC+1)"
Whether the IP is baiting or not, that sort of response is unconstructive. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I responded above to the IP's report of 3RR, because I didn't realize that there was a bigger discussion here. Everything I said above still applies.
FVK violated 3RR, I can't dispute that. I showed in the above report in diffs how FVK made 4 reverts just barely within a 24 hour period (the last revert was inside the 24 hour window by about 30 minutes). Per our bright line rule at WP:3RR a block is warranted. But there are extenuating circumstances that I'd like to point out. FVK clearly didn't realize that he was violating 3RR. I had in the past recommended that he set a maximum of 2RR, which is something I do personally, and he thought he'd done this. Once someone actually pointed out that he was edit-warring, he stopped. And his behavior occurred when there was apparently a total breakdown of discussion at the page, and at least 4 other editors were also engaged in reverting each other to a degree.
I think he screwed up, yes. But this comes at the end of a period where he has done a pretty good job of restraining his edits and spending a lot more time engaging people in talk pages rather than edit summaries. For a while he would get into an edit war, get blocked, and then start that same behavior again as soon as his block is removed. He has come a long way since then, and despite his spotty block history I don't think it shows a solid and unbreakable pattern of behavior.
I can't say that a sanction at this point would be unfair, since 3RR was breached. I also don't think it's necessary, he stopped his edit-warring and I think he'll be more careful now. But I really can't support a topic ban, I think that he has misbehaved on specific articles just because those are the topics he is interested in, and that is where he spends his time, and that if topic-banned he's still either going to learn how to no longer get into edit wars or continue the same behavior somewhere else. I also suspect that a topic ban would be a de facto site ban for him.
As his mentor, I can't claim to be 100% impartial, but I do honestly think that it's not necessary to block him at this point. -- Atama 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) 75.192.110.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an ipsock of banned user BelloWello, The sooner either Talk:Southern Adventist University is temporarily semiprotected or the additions by BelloWello are scored through/deleted the better. Community banned means community banned. Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We almost never semi-protect or put any other kind of protection on article talk pages, because that completely shuts out editors. It's not difficult to justify semi-protecting an article because any IP with a legitimate concern can still make a request on the talk page. Semi-protection eliminates that. Having said that, it seems that the only person taking advantage of the talk page to make requests or engage in discussion is BelloWello. So we might have to make an exception here. -- Atama 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I know it happened to Talk:Race (classification of humans) when a single banned user was making disruptive edits through ipsocks (Mikemikev). In that case the page was semiprotected twice as an emergency measure.[2] Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Some discussion is taking place at User talk:Atama and User talk:Fountainviewkid. I suggest that if an admin is thinking of closing this, they should wait until it is clear that FVK will agree to some restrictions that might handle the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Concur; I'd like to see three or four minds in alignment and an explicit agreement from FVK before we move on. Kuru (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

From my POV (and I'm sure from FVK's), 0RR is quite a valid compromise - as long as FVK understands and accepts the full meaning of WP:REVERT, especially that re-inserting the same material through a separate edit is still considered to be reverting. I don't want there to be grey areas, and "I didn't understand that" from anyone. I fully disagree with a topic ban from SAU, however, if limiting his access to that specific article talkpage for 6 months is so important, then so be it - after all, the latest 3RR violation appears to be trying to add information that has so little requirement to be in the article in the first place.

Formal proposal: User:Fountainviewkid is restricted to WP:0RR on all articles and their talkpages across Wikipedia for a period of 6 months. User:Fountainviewkid is also hereby restricted to talkpage discussion only on the Southern Adventist University article for a period of 6 months. Violations of either restriction will result in an immediate 1 month block from editing Wikipedia.

FVK, do you accept this restriction, and understand all aspects and meanings around these restrictions? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Okay, this has gone on for hours, and although FVK has clearly seen it and discussed it, and has had it clarified, he's not accepting but is wikilawyering. Someone else can please implement the 1 month block, as proposed, because I don't have the fricking heart to do it, because 3RR reports cannot stay unresolved this long (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I made a final plea to FVK to respond to your suggestion. If he chooses not to, then he has to take the consequences. The IP ranges used by BelloWello have now been blocked for a period by HelloAnnyong. HJ Mitchell turned down semiprotection the talk page of SAU but has fully protected the article for one week. Mathsci (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that FVK got himself in this situation again. It's bad judgment on his part, though I see that there were some mitigating circumstances. I think BWilkins offer is pretty fair, though six months is a long time to be barred from editing an article that is obviously very dear to his heart. How about a one month restriction from editing the SAU article, except for the talk page - this would be the same length of time as he would be blocked - with a six month 0RR on all articles?--Kubigula (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one month. Due to the time element I've gone ahead but this does not rule out further discussion. User:Bwilkins has stated, 'Someone else can please implement the 1 month block, as proposed..' It is clear that Fountainviewkid edit warred on this article, and the discussion here is about what block or other arrangement might be sufficient to keep the problem from recurring. FVK has been on Wikipedia since 2008. This is a long-running problem (as shown by his block log) so any allowances for being a new or inexperienced editor should have run out by now. Mentorship has not succeeded in changing his behavior. Given the continued disruption at Southern Adventist University the editor should either have a long block or agree to an ironclad deal. A deal has been offered at User talk:Fountainviewkid that would avoid a block if he would accept a voluntary restriction. At the end of a 3.5-hour discussion he had not formally accepted the deal. Negotiations may continue and there might still be some progress. It may be that Kubigula's proposal will be accepted by the parties. Any admin who believes they have consensus can modify this result. Thanks to Atama, BWilkins and others who have attempted to find a solution and to explain matters to Fountainviewkid. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 reported by User:ItsZippy (Result: Protected, warnings)[edit]

Page: W.E (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link link

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

Comments:
Both users seem to be engaged in the war; that is the reported user and User:69.237.119.134. I'm only making the one report, though. I hold no stance one way or the other as to who is in the right. ItsZippy (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm I reverted three times. Restoring content removed by vandalism doesnot come under WP:3RR. If the reviewing admin feels like I should face a block, so be it. But please link proper urls ItzZippy. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems discussion is taking place, I don't think this is a problem any more; I'll leave it up to the admin who sees this. ItsZippy (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Fully protected 3 days. Legolas2186 does not need a block at this time, though he is warned against more personal attacks. Something strange is going on with the IP edits; a lot of blanking. I am warning User talk:Popaficionado against removing material without explaining his actions on the article talk. I hope the editors will discuss on the talk page whether there should be any concern about copyright violations. They should also try to reach consensus on what material to include. If unexplained blanking continues in the future, blocks or semiprotection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iluvkolkata and other IP users reported by User:Yunshui (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: St. Patrick's Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iluvkolkata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) plus multiple IPs (presumed to be same user)


Previous version reverted to: [3]

  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 4th revert: [7]

Most recent diffs provided; this edit war has been going on for several months. See the article history.


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] discussion opened by Asit Madeka, no responses.

Comments: I am not involved in this dispute, but notice that the same information has been added and reverted over 100 times now, often breaking WP:3RR. Suggest administrator warning to all involved users, and potential article protection (although whose version gets kept could be a bit of a bugger to decide). Yunshui (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Yunshui is right - protection might be warranted. It can be a 'bugger to decide' which version as he says, so here's some info. I am not familiar with the earlier 'edit wars', but am an alumnus who was given some background by the leaders and I support the bigger alumni group being listed as the default one as opposed to a city chapter - to cause less confusion to alumni. I've recently tried to prevent vandalism by the 59.93 person - talking on the article page logically with a fuzzy set of IPs, as the comments in the edits indicate, are unlikely to work against this kind of vandalism. From what I've seen the two worldviews are completely at odds with each other. The larger group has a website (http://www.spsalumni.org) which although looking like still a work in progress is more current than the smaller chapter (http://www.spoba.org) which was last updated over a year ago. The meeting reported on the home page doesn't have a report, and the leadership list has changed a couple of times since from what I see in Facebook posts. The logo even mentions the name of the city its a chapter of - Asansol - we shouldn't be listing alumni chapters of individual cities in Wikipedia! SPAI is a proper alumni body that has representation from all over the world, including the home country, India: http://spsalumni.org/node/21. The chapter, SPOBA Asansol, has a leadership all drawn from one city - Asansol: http://www.spoba.org/office_bearers.php. The support for the 1,300 number comes from this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patricks/. An alumni org is supposed to best represent alumni, more than the school itself. In India, alumni affairs are not handled by the schools themselves. The link to SPOBA from the school's website (both SPAI and SPOBA used to be linked there) suggests some temporary influence on an individual basis at the school, but still not outweighing the credibility that a body of thousands of alumni have - not even SPOBA would be able to deny that SPAI is the largest. It makes little sense to suggest SPAI is not related to SPS, and remove it from under "Related Links". Would prefer it's protected by itself. If you admins decide otherwise, you could list both bodies, including only factual data comparing them that would be useful to alumni who find this article. Here's a suggested version:

  • SPAI, or St. Patrick's Alumni International, is the largest organisation of SPS Asansol alumni. Its membership is over 1,300 from India and around the world. Those who have studied at SPS are eligible. Joining is free; donations are optional. The website is spsalumni.org.
  • SPOBA, or St. Patrick's Old Boys Association, is an Asansol-based chapter of SPS alumni. It was founded in the late 1980s. One can join for a membership fee. Those who passed out of SPS are eligible. The website is spoba.org.

But I hope that including a city alumni chapter is seen as unnecessary and excessive - we may end up seeing a whole list of them eventually, tailing this article. A school should have a single alumni body representing most alumni, since the school is not handling alumni relations - and not confuse alumni. Would request this article be protected so that admins have to review changes before they are accepted. Am not very familiar with more complex things in wikipedia like protection. Thanks for all your hard work!

Iluvkolkata (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Iluvkolkata, the place for these comments was the article's talk page, but as far as I can tell you have never participated there, not once. As noted, this edit war has been going on for months. The most recent flare-up started immediately after the expiry of a protection precipitated by it. I count 55 reverts in the last 100 hours or so. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will post a variation of this on the talk page if it will make any difference. I do not see any resolution possible without 3rd party involvement from wikipedia. I have never participated there before because I wasn't sure how I'd argue against one guy masquerading as a variety of IPs (just disconnecting the Internet in India gives him a fresh IP). I am new to this even if this battle has been going on for months between the two sides. Other than changing his edits as frequently as wikipedia would allow, I wasn't sure of what else I could do. This article needs protection, and I'm ok with the content being decided by a neutral 3rd party. Iluvkolkata (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected by User:HJ Mitchell to stop the IP-hopper who was making dozens of reverts. I hope the remaining editors can reach a consensus on the disputed points. I suggest that a much longer semiprotection be considered if the IP's campaign resumes later. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cleaghyre reported by User:HerkusMonte (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Johann Dzierzon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:41, 23 August 2011 (edit summary: "German version mentioned also in correct place")
  2. 15:10, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "HerkusMonte lead by strong nationalistic POV. Probably by Prussian revisionism (see his home page)")
  3. 17:48, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "Kotinski, Please support historical facts and justice instead private "Wikipedia" issues. One who is Pole knows what I say.")
  4. 15:55, 26 August 2011 (edit summary: "Firzt is first. Polish name for Polish person")
  5. 20:16, 26 August 2011 (edit summary: "OK. Titke of article is Johhan - it should be Jan (Johhan) Dzierzon. We need not repeat Johhan ... Johhan what satisffy revisonists, and Kotinski why you pretend to be part of POlish poject?")
  6. 15:59, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "It has perfect sense. Jan Dzierzon consider hi9mself a Pole, and at his time Prussian forced using German names. Kotniski start to read the article and my notes on your page. Do not start editor war.")
  7. 16:17, 31 August 2011 (edit summary: "Consensus was never reached, and the discussion was about article title. Beside you start editor war in defence of Kulturkampf and you idol action Bismarck. Wikipedia is not the place to root or defend aggressive primitive ideas. Just stop the revisi")
  8. 18:40, 31 August 2011 (edit summary: "I think taking for consideration you revisionism and rooting old nationalistic German politic views you will be blocked first. I am not going to accept result of Kulturkampf on history of most revered Polish beekeeper. Start you arguments if you can")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:
Johann Dzierzon had a long history of nationalist editwarring (it's still semi-protected), however "Johann Dzierzon" is the consensus article's title after a WP:RMdiscussion (see: Talk:Johann Dzierzon). Cleaghyre now tries to push the Polish spelling in the lead-section contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and the usual MOS. Please also note the aggressive and insulting edit summaries. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Yes this is long story of editing wars and they are started by German revisionisms. This kind of people do not know Polish language but attempt to discuss subjects mostly described in Polish litelature. The example is the history and personality of Dr. Jan Dzierzon. However the issue of such revisionisms is not scientific or historic discussion. It is to enforce that the areas which are historical belonging to other nations are/were Germanized. Meantime they attempt to forgot that the Germanization politic in most cases was forced. One of the example was forcing native Polish people of Silesia to have German names. (in this case instead Jan name Johann etc.) Regarding user HerkusMonte, he is definitely POV in to revisionism ideas. Instead enforcing doubtful rules and "consensus" he should start argue on facts. Why a person like Dr. Dzierzon whose live and activity should prove his Polishness should be still offended by German first name. Regards, PS. HerkusMonte you have no scientific arguments thus you start accuse me for some "offensive" language. Where it is?

All this has been discussed at length, the result (WP:CONSENSUS) was to use "Johann". Per MOS the lead mentions the different variants of the name, but it would be up to you to substantiate your reasons to push "Jan" in the first place (against consensus). BTW: I think accusing editors of defending "agressive primitive ideas" is offensive. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Cleaghyre continues diff (edit summary: "Kotniski !!! you started editor war. You ignore my notice to you, you ignore historical arguments and doing you edits just to satisfy you ego. Stop it!!!") HerkusMonte (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 72 hours for long-term edit warring. Consensus can change, but it does not change by unilateral reverting. Due to the nationalist element of these reverts, I am notifying Cleaghyre of the discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Emeritahistorian reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Harvey Ellis was an US architect, designer and furniture designer(disputed) around 1900. He is most popularly known (IMHO) for a short time he spent working for Gustav Stickley, a far better-known furniture maker, famous for his "Craftsman" style. It is very widely claimed in popular coffee table books on furniture design that (simplistically) "Ellis designed all the good stuff for Stickley" and that after Ellis' sudden death (only a few months after starting) Stickley's work never achieved the heights it had previously done.

There is (AFAIK) one source that claims otherwise. A 2004 self-published[10] book Reconfiguring Harvey Ellis supported by a blogspot site [11] puts forward an opposing view.

Yesterday a new SPA editor, Emeritahistorian (talk · contribs), was removing content from the Harvey Ellis article that supports the "Ellis designed for Stickley" viewpoint:

After the third reversion, I decided to expand the controversial section and add a few more references. They're not hard to find - this "Ellis designed for Stickley" view is found in pretty much any history of this popular and well-studied style. As someone who makes furniture in this style, I already have most of the well-known modern books and a small quantity of contemporarty catalogues etc.

Today the same author deleted the old and new content, removing an added image too:

Note that this is strictly 8 minutes after the bright-line 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned after 3rd deletion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Harvey_Ellis#Correcteed information

Comments:
I suspect that the recent Emeritahistorian (talk · contribs) might be the same editor as Ellishistorian (talk · contribs) who wrote most of this article. I also suspect that there may be WP:COI issues and a possible connection with the authorship of Reconfiguring Harvey Ellis - they may even be Eileen Manning Michels, its author.

I'm also (at risk of sounding like whining) far from happy that an effectively anonymous editor can look down on my scholarly credentials here for being an unknown furniture makier(sic) whilst themselves remaining either anonymous, or actually being an isolated self-published author with a serious WP:COI issue in their contributions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Editor is replacing statements in our article (presumably drawn from reliable sources) with those based on her own research, which appears to be self-published. I hope that some negotiation is possible, but this user has not shown a collaborative attitude or any respect for our policies. Though some facts can't be known with certainty, no justification has been provided for simply removing published references from the article. She seems to do so because she disagrees with their conclusions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:75.243.26.188 (Result: Moot)[edit]

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



User has history of edit warring. This is not a 3RR report-this is a report for edit warring against consensus in order to achieve one's own ends in a content dispute, coming from a user with a long history of such shenanigans.

Comments:

  • This is NOT an edit war. If there's any kind of an issue here, it would be called a "content dispute", and should be resolved through those channels. Fountainviewkid appears to be adding properly sourced and cited material in an honest effort to improve the article. There's nothing for an admin to do here, other than direct the parties involved to discuss the matter on the article Talk page, or seek assistance at WP:DRN, as far as I can see. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It is a content dispute, but it is also an edit war. From the above, it appears that Alan did not bother to look at the talk page-Fountainviewkid is edit warring to undo changes that were made based on consensus on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.139.107 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm commenting here not in any admin capacity, I'm mentoring FVK and so I don't consider myself uninvolved. So I just wanted to make that disclosure first.
FVK hasn't violated 3RR, as even the IP above admitted. He did reach 3RR and avoided a violation by about 2 hours. So there was some significant edit war behavior.
On the other hand, FVK did stop reverting once warned about it. And although multiple wrongs don't make a right, FVK isn't alone, there are a number of people reverting each other. Orlady also reached 3RR (see here, here, and here) as she and FVK reverted each other. In addition, ElKevbo and Simbagraphix also made 2 reverts each against one another on the page while disputing a different issue, and Binksternet made a single revert. My point is that this looks to be less of an issue with FVK's behavior, and more of a general problem with the article itself and the way that editors at the article have stopped talking to each other. I would personally recommend a temporary full page protection if any further reverts occur that aren't the direct result of a proper consensus reached on the article's talk page.
As to the IP, yes it's almost surely BelloWello again, evading his site ban once more. The article is semi-protected so he had no part in the edit wars. I suspect that FVK was singled out in this 3RR report because of the bad history between the two editors. Although this report was probably filed in violation of a ban, I think the report itself is legitimate and the article's issues do need to be resolved. -- Atama 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually I need to correct myself... FVK actually did violate 3RR. This was the first revert, which restored information that was just removed by ElKevbo; although it did tweak the wording and added sources (which was in response to ElKevbo's stated reason for removing it) it still would be considered a revert. That was followed by this revert of Orlady, and then these two reverts which were simply undoing Orlady's attempts to remove the information. That first revert against ElKevbo occurred at 04:09 September 1 (UTC) and the last revert occurred at 03:40 September 2 (UTC), which is just barely within a 24 hour period. I stand by everything else I said before about the article, and my recommendations, but I have to admit that 3RR was actually violated. -- Atama 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Moot. Fountainviewkid is already blocked per a report below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Boot3414 reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: GNewSense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boot3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [15]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:By consensus, Linux is "Linux", not "GNU/Linux" here on WP, the latter being considered to be a non-neutral POV. This editor appears to edit warring using 2 different IDs, Boot3414 (talk · contribs) and Turbo95 (talk · contribs), and as 74.126.33.214 (talk) to insist it should be "GNU/Linux". Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turbo95.

Msnicki (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Boot3414 (talk · contribs) and 74.126.33.214 (talk) have been blocked as socks of Turbo95 (talk · contribs). Msnicki (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: Boot3414 has been blocked indef as a sock by User:HelloAnnyong. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by Mtking (edits) (Result: 4 days)[edit]

Page: University College London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:48, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "Rv - unexplained deletions")
  2. 18:59, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "Rv - one image of Gandhi is sufficient")
  3. 19:29, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni, faculty and staff */ Partial rv - too many images for section, and existing image of Gandhi is better")
  4. 19:48, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "Rv - per previous there are too many images in the section")
  5. 20:00, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "Rv - better before")

Mtking (edits) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

  • Result: Blocked 4 days. User has an extensive block log. He accused the person notifying him of this EW case of harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarzan1986 reported by Mtking (edits) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: University College London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tarzan1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:04, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "After considering recent member's activity, just changing around alumni photos")
    19:05, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni, faculty and staff */")
    19:05, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:07, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:09, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:11, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:12, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:16, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:20, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:21, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:22, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:23, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
    19:24, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:26, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:28, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  2. 19:30, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:34, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:36, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:38, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:39, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:40, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:41, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:43, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:45, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    19:46, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
  3. 19:51, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
  4. 19:58, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")
    19:59, 2 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Heads of State and Government */")

Mtking (edits) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Result: Warned. I'm not sure if 3RR was broken, since many of the edits listed above are consecutive. I am warning Tarzan1986 to be more careful. If this continues, a block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:Aprock (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(recent report: [24])


  • 18:44, 28 August 2011 - 16:34, 2 September 2011: [25] Talk page attempt to resolve dispute
  • 00:16, 30 August 2011 - 14:54, 2 September 2011: [26] Notice board attempt to resolve dispute
  • 21:04, 2 September 2011: [27] 1st restores content cited to online catalog
  • 22:17, 2 September 2011: [28] 2nd restores content cited to online catalog
  • 22:21, 2 September 2011: [29] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • 22:32, 2 September 2011: [30] 3rd restores content to another article

After being blocked 8 times for violations of 3rr in 2006-2007 [31], one infers that Rjensen has learned not to walk over the bright line of 3rr. Unfortunately, this may have only changed his edit warring tactics.

The specific issue in question is whether or not content sourced to an advert for an Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure was appropriate for the section "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet. On the article talk page [32], and at the reliable sources notice board [33] there were several problems with this content as discussed by at least four editors:

  • WP:RS: online catalogs are not generally reliable sources
  • WP:UNDUE: no secondary sources referring to the action figure
  • WP:OR: the doll does not use the word liberal as an epithet
  • WP:CITESPAM: promotion of the doll seems the only reason for the cite

During the entire discussion, Rjensen has been the only one advocating inclusion of the action figure content sourced only to the online catalog, with unconvincing arguments like:

  • [34]: "The OR rule is that statements have to be based on a published source, and all statements are indeed sourced."
  • [35]: "Coulter was and remains very active in attacking liberals. She uses many media from lectures to books to dolls."
  • [36]: "the primary source is the doll itself. the secondary source is the web page describing the doll"
  • [37]: "It's not original research because OR is not cited to a published source."
  • [38]: "the doll is not any doll it's Ann Coulter's voice"

After this extended discussion DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) removed source and related content. Rjensen then reverted him and then myself. Finally, after being warned for potential edit warring by me, he added the content to the lead section of Ann Coulter, where it was summarily reverted by an uninvolved editor for lacking significance: [39].

Despite avoiding the bright line of 3RR on a single article, Rjensen has effectively demonstrated that when discussion does not favor his perspective, he is willing to edit war against consensus across multiple articles to preserve content which violates multiple wikipedia policies, restoring deleted content three times in less than 90 minutes. aprock (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Aprock
Aprock invents new rules for Wikipedia and tries to enforce them. he appealed this case to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and did not get much support (Rick Norwood opposed him and John Shandy agreed with him) so he imposed his opinions in any case and now appeals here.... Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned. This looks to me like tendentious editing. Rjensen must be checking to see how close he can get to being blocked, without falling over the edge. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Metalvayne reported by User:Gunmetal Angel (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


A version from before all the reverting took place



Diff of edit warring: here (and gave him a comment that he would be getting in trouble if he kept up his edit warring here)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here


Comments: Another user and I reverted this guy's edits since they went against the perspective of the WP:NPOV guideline but he one-by-one edit warred with us. I tried reasoning with him, I told him he's gonna get in trouble if he keeps this up but he still did it. I even made a talk page thread after his very first revert to try to settle this, but he didn't participate in that and edit warred some more. Finally, his most recent revert (the one that crosses the 4th line), he says that I and the other experienced user are "trolling" and that we should "find some place like last.fm or similar,because this is not a place for trolls." of which qualifies as a personal attack. • GunMetal Angel 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are close to violating 3RR yourself as well though, and User:Metalvayne did try to discuss your changes on 3 different occasions (fyi, "heavy metal" has been the status quo for several years, including when it was promoted to FA status). Furthermore, it is "bold, revert, discuss". I don't see you replying to MrMoustacheMM on the talk page. Might want to start there. Nymf hideliho! 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. The personal attack about 'trolls' in his last edit summary did not help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:60.226.96.48 reported by User:Camw (Result: )[edit]

Page: Brisbane Roar FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.226.96.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane_Roar_FC&diff=prev&oldid=447756567


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A60.226.96.48&action=historysubmit&diff=447858881&oldid=447855973


Comments: User has not responded to warnings on talk page, has only continued to edit war against two established editors to introduce an inappropriate non-neutral term into the article on 6 occasions with this particular IP address. I have not taken any administrator action as I am definitely considered involved. Camw (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


User:Cerejota reported by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Result: Facepalm)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Editor review/Cerejota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cerejota (talk · contribs)


Previous version reverted to: [40]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]; previously I listed the first three reversals, noting that each was a (prohibited) edit of my comments, each a blockable offense (14:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [46]

This could be a violation of 3RR's "gaming the system", because 3 reversions happened in one day and the 4th the next. It also could be edit warring. In any event, the editor review is a public forum and should not be confused with the user's talk page, where he would be free to remove my comments totally, rather than cherry-picking favorites. I would appreciate another editor's restoration of my comments, which were improperly deleted 4 times. (I shall not restore them for at least 48 hours if not restoration has occured before.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You restored your comment and filed this report after admin 28bytes closed the ANI report with the statement "I have reminded Kiefer.Wolfowitz that edit-warring is unwise, especially edit-warring with an someone on their own editor review. I don't believe there's anything else here an admin needs to do here." I don't think that was constructive. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Sean, as you know, I corrected my comments "for the record" (to facilitate my comments' proper restoration (14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cerejota&diff=next&oldid=448210893 before reverting back to avoid even the appearance of edit warring.
This noticeboard has to decide whether you and "admin 28bytes", who disagree with Cullen and LK, are correct that the editor review should be regarded as the editor's property, analogous to the editor's namespace. If so, then the description of Editor Review should be changed, because no such assertion is made.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You left out admin Elen of the Roads who said Indeed. I would have thought that talkpage rules apply - if the user removes it, they are presumed to have read it. but forget to sign the comment. Nevertheless, you were the one who was told that edit warring was unwise and yet you are the one filing the edit warring report. What do you hope to achieve ? You were the one who felt compelled to keep restoring your comments despite the fact that the editor had made it quite clear that they didn't regard them as being within scope of their review. What were you thinking ? It's their review. Why not let it go ? I wouldn't hesitate to remove comments from my editor review if I had one because I regard everyone else's opinion as trivial and uninteresting but surely the right place for this is the talk page of editor review rather than here if it is something you think needs to be addressed by the community in a constructive way. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly. An editor review is meant to be a collegial environment in which editors can receive constructive criticism as to their editing. It is not meant to be a muck-raking exercise. Whilst there's absolutely no way I'm going to be blocking anyone for such silliness, a number of people can take it that a virtual trout is being swiped repeatedly across their heads. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Elen, beyond not identifying herself, clarified that she was not speaking "ex cathedra" but from her own thought. Disregarding you and 28bytes, we still have to decide whether Elen or LK/Cullen have the better understanding of WP policy.
I emphasize that the editor review does not occur in namespace, and that no editor can partially edit another's comments anywhere on WP (apart from violations of WP:NPA, BLP, etc.). Would you address this point, please?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Black Kite, I don't infantilize editors. Wave your trout as much as you want, to impress yourself, but not me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll just note that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has reacted to this close with an attack on myself on my talkpage and when questioned on this, an attack on me on his own talkpage (see edit summary). I think that this summarises the level of this particular report quite well. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply What we see is a repeated, deliberate violation of WP:Civility by an administrator against a plebe, by an administrator who threatens to slap plebes with trouts. Facepalms are used by teenage punks. I made no personal attack.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? After all, making fun of my content contributions by sarcastically linking to my edit-count from my RFA four and a half years ago is clearly a very mature act. The 'facepalm' is not attacking you per se - it's clearly saying this is not the venue to have a silly argument like this. I could have protected the page, I could have blocked you both - I didn't. I attempted to inject a little bit of light heartedness into the heat. Obviously it didn't work. You need to calm down. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not say that your face palm was a personal attack. It was obnoxious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Comment - regardless of whether you agree with Kiefer, the important question is whether a voluntary user review can be treated like a personal Talk page. If I write "Tell me your thoughts about me." and people respond, then the goal of that request is met. As Elen said, by removing it, the user is implying that they've read it, so I agree with the point made there. If the goal is to receive feedback, and feedback was viewed, it doesn't mean it is required to stay there in order to have had an impact on the editor asking for feedback. If the goal of an editor review is more to show the community what the community thinks about another editor, then we need to leave the comments alone, but if it is a tool that is supposed to help a specific editor understand where they might need to improve, then I think the goal is met whether they leave the comments or not. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the most important issue. I have no objection to a change in policy stating that the ER is regarding as being analogous to the reviewed editor's talk page. Of course, partial editing of another's comments is prohibited.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The definition of "editor review" from the page:
Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.
-- Avanu (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue here is whether an Editor review is solely for the purpose of giving feedback to that particular editor. Other editors may look at the review to see how the editor has been viewed by third parties. They would probably not take into account that comments may have been deleted from the review page. Of course, there is nothing on the ER page that explicitly says that other editor may make that assumption when reading the page. To deal with that issue, it would be best if the ER guidelines either explicitly declare that the ER page has the same status as a user talk page, and therefore cannot be used as a reliable source of information about the editor, or, alternatively, that the ER page belong to the project space, and have a status similar to an article talk page. In the latter case, editors may not delete comments unless they are personally insulting etc.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that this request has pointed to a lack of clarity with regard to the status of an Editor review page. While it may well be appropriate to close it as "no action taken", I think that it would not be helpful to close it as "Facepalm". Even for misguided requests (and I don't think this request is misguided), we should choose neutral language for administrative actions.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) -

I've added another bullet point to the set of 'rules' on the Editor Review page for people wanting to be reviewed. It might need a bit of tweaking, but generally it explicitly tells editors who have requested review that they have the right to remove comments, discuss comments, but not refactor them. -- Avanu (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! :)
At least some good came out of this.
Now I join Black Kite in seeking this thread's closure.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Face palm: Talk to the hand[edit]

"Talk to the hand" is a particularly contemptuous form of "shut up".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought facepalm meant like you are slapping your forehead with your open hand like "I can't believe this is really happening". In other words, I think BlackKite is saying, this isn't a big deal, let's move on, and just be more relaxed about things in the future. I do agree with you that it would be helpful to know the guidelines on the page, because it could get confusing about knowing whether User page standards apply or not. -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If that was the intention, then I am very sorry for misunderstanding and reacting inappropriately.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, good. Avanu is correct about what I meant. Can we close this now, please? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
More information is available at our facepalm article, which clearly needs more attention from serious content contributors, since cluebot seems to be valiantly fighting vandalism alone there, and losing (although I've just helped it out a little.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I made further apologies on my talk page and on Black Kite's. Sorry again for turning BK's good faith close into a Jerry Springer episode.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
We even have a template for this: Facepalm Facepalm TMCk (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I left a note about the possible confusion at the template's discussion page. May no other editor make this mistake! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Dessources (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (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 User:Jmh649 talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]


Comments:

User User:Jmh649 bounces back with each revert with the same peremptory argument - "the reference is appropriate", ignoring my argument in favour of its removal, while he himslef, when he inserted the reference, said that it was not really needed (see [56]).

Dessources (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. and this looks like a content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Reporter is lucky that I don't block them, because their behaviour is clearly more disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Runehelmet (Result: no action)[edit]

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

User being reported: Yopie (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: [61] [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

I have noticed on his contribution list: [64], that he revert more then Edit. And he is reverting all my edits, even when I show the sources and related articles. How can I add information on Wikipedia when he reverts everything. Runehelmet (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake. First of all, Yopie has not broken the 3RR rule. Second, you did not try to resolve this problem on the ARTICLE talk page, but on Yopie's USER talk page. Yopie already started discussion on the article talk page, which you have not yet answered. The reasons you should discuss this on the ARTICLE talk page, and not on Yopie's USER talk page, are 1) Yopie asked you to, and if he doesn't want something discussed on his talk page, that's his right, and 2) so that other editors working on the article can have their say. Second of all, the material you added was unsourced and irrelevant, as explained by Yopie. The burden is now on you to 1) source your material (there are STILL no sources), 2) make a convincing case for why the material is relevant, using reliable secondary sources, and 3) get consensus for your change. Instead, you basically kept reverting Yopie, which is just edit-warring. Sorry, but it looks like you're the one to blame for the present situation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Concur generally with Mr. Vobisdu's position, although I take no side in who is 'right' or 'wrong'. I see no bright line violations; both editors should cease reverting, and utilize the article talk pages for discussion. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Toss.er live reported by User:Superbeecat (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Nadine Dorries
User being reported: Toss.er live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

User adding non-notable, emotionally charged blog to article, 3RR versus multiple users. - superβεεcat  21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:68.101.39.143 reported by Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ina Garten (edit | talk | history |