Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive168

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Yobol (Result:No action in this venue, users counseled)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Note that although 3RR has not been broken in one day, this has been an ongoing issue since April 2011 (this dispute actually goes back to October 2010, but I got tired of going through the history, you should get the point from this sampling):

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]
  • 6th revert: [7]
  • 7th revert: [8]
  • 8th revert: [9]
  • 9th revert: [10]

Note reverts #3 and #9 are made by the same IP, presumably BruceGrubb while inadvertently logged out (see edit histories, they edit the same articles).

Also note, that I have been the main one to restore consensus after Bruce's changes, though Ronz and BullRangifer have also restored the consensus version in the past as well.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Numerous attempts at discussion dating back to October of 2010, all coming to the conclusion against his use of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion about Price's change in stance:

See Archive #2 and Archive #3 of the Weston Price talk page, including this section and this section, where Griswaldo and Ocaasi, respectively, tried in vain to ask him to find secondary sources before he overwhelmed everyone with a wall of text.

This section notes the exasperation of the other editors on this page with Ludwigs2 saying that a RFC/U may be necessary due to Bruce's persistent violation of policy, and Ocaasi noting his additions violated WP:OR, a position [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYobol&action=historysubmit&diff=415430733&oldid=415256283 Ocaasi repeated on my talk page, "encouraged Bruce, seriously, to publish his research independently. It's really good stuff, interesting perspective, completely OR.".

Note that this has also gone to multiple noticeboards, including: the ORN, RSN, NPOVN not once, but twice. Of note, BruceGrubb even brought this up at ANI.

Note that despite significant opposition by Griswaldo, Ronz, myself, Ocaasi, and Ludwigs2 about the state of the WP:OR violations dating back almost a year now, he has continued to add similar material back, and used walls of text as noted in the above links to basically overwhelm any discussion.

This disruptive reverts against consensus really needs to stop.

Additional comment: I would take the lack of continued commentary from other participants as a direct result of the tendentious editing and the inability of Bruce to drop the stick - there is only so much of one behavior done over, and over, and over ad nauseum before you just throw your hands up and leave. Note that BruceGrubb didn't say that others agreed with him; just that they haven't responded, and he has made no effort whatsoever to contact them to establish if consensus has changed. Indeed, multiple of his reverts have been blind reverts, spaced out a month apart, with no additional commentary on the talk page; this isn't consensus building, this is wearing down other editors. That he thinks others didn't understand the "nuances" of the discussion despite months of discussion on the talk pages and multiple noticeboard postings exemplifies the WP:IDHT behavior. If something is not done, it is clear Bruce will continue to edit war this same content forever. Yobol (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Yobol is leaving out important details. Mainly there is NO OR in what want I put into the article itself. Take a good look at [[12]] and Endodontics and focal infection

The first section part has Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9

The second part (By 1930 Price had "shifted his interest from focal infection to calcium metabolism") is referenced to Grossman, Louis (1940), "Pulpless teeth and focal infection", Root Canal Therapy, Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, pp. 16–17

The final section uses Price's own EXACT words from a work published by a the medical division of a publisher.

Ludwigs2 stopped doing anything with the article itself back November 6, 2010 and argued in Weston Price introduction that FIT had no place in the Weston Price article (even through that is why people know him today and that fact was WP:RS out the wazoo), Griswaldo's was January 19, 2011, and Ocaasi's last edit was on April 10, 2011. As for Ronz that editor WP:CRYBLPed (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard for that piece of joy) and only came back when The Founders Intent returned to try and edit the article.

The point is all that is Yobal's supposed supporters have NOT done anything with the article itself in months and given some of their comments might have not understood the nuances of some of the polices they were citing especially in the light of WP:NOTOR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb appears to have great difficulty understanding and applying many of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines - to himself and others. He ignores consensus, attacks editors that disagree with him, and holds grudges. He's been at this for a year now. Let's just get him banned from this article to stop the disruptions. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Result:Given that this content dispute has continued over a period of months, I am not sure that "edit-warring" is the best characterization of the disputed edits, or that this noticeboard (which is generally reserved for allegedly clear-cut violations) is the best venue for addressing it. Therefore, I am procedurally closing this report without action in this venue. If problems continue, a report may be made to the incidents noticeboard or dispute resolution procedures may be invoked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iraqisth reported by User:Hohum (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [13]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

User not taking part in discussion on talk page despite being asked to.

User Hohum:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

11 September 2011.
1) [21],
2) [22],
3) [23],
4) [24]
Iraqisth (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. That is two reverts each on two different articles, at which point I stopped pending consensus on the talk page(s) / administrative action. (Hohum @) 12:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it'll help much. I'm guessing he's probably the same sock as User:Noda297.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe; maybe not. Take it to SPI if it escalates. I'm watching the page.Wifione Message 13:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:K.yusifov reported by User:Movses (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Sari Gelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K.yusifov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

--Movses (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Warned once before, apparently didn't take. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:David9991 reported by User:Asad112 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ariel University Center of Samaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David9991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Classic violations of the 1RR subject to all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict as set forth by WP:ARBPIA

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of hours Clearly warned of the 1RR; clear reverts. Kuru (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result:No action, users counseled)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [29] I am assuming this means the version before IGNY edited?

  • 1st revert: [30]
  • 2nd revert: [31]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:
The article is on a one revert restriction, I have no idea why Igny has decided to remove reference to Douglas Pike being an historian from the article, I pointed out on the talk page he was first and foremost an historian. 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain why is the first edit a revert? (Igny (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Of course, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Says that right here The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The first diff, to me, shows Igny correcting some grammar. TLAM, I would suggest that you withdraw this complaint because WP:BOOMERANG often has a way of coming back to hit one. I would suggest withdrawing the complaint in its entireity and getting back to editing, otherwise admins will look at you too. And threats like this do not do anything towards creating a collegial environment. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
He did not make grammatical changes at all, he changed text, see [34] And I wil point out again I showed on talk that Pike is an historian, yet Igny again changed the text. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A notice to admin. Consider

  1. TLAM has been indefinitely banned based on behavioral evidence. Because he exhibited the same disruptive editing as Marknutley, he was suspected to be Marknutley's sockpuppet.
  2. TLAM has been recently unbanned with an unambigious warning to stay away from articles on Communism.
  3. As soon as TLAM came back, he started making controversial edits on articles on Communism, or their associated talk pages, making threats like this.
  4. TLAM continued disruptive editing avoiding the 1rr rule by making 1 revert per day on Communist terrorism.
  5. TLAM filed a frivolous complaint here falsely interpreting the 1RR rule as a restriction to make 1 edit per day.

Considering all that, I am sure that WP:BOOMERANG applies here. (Igny (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

And I was unblocked as there was in fact no evidence to support the allegation. Please do not try to derail this discussion with guilt by association. Why do you not just revert and this can be closed? I have not misinterpreted the 1r rule, it is quote clear that any change to existing text in an article is a revert. I have made no threats nor have I made controversial edits. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
And I will also point out I have not made one revert per day, look at the article history. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I see two reverts by Igny in 24h, removing "historian" and inserting "US Foreign Service Officer "
  1. 13:35, 11 September 2011
  2. 18:23, 11 September 2011
He has been previously blocked for violating 1RR on a related communist article[35]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, you are again coming to a defense of suspected sockpuppets of Marknutley. Apparently you did not learn much from this. You forgot to point out the previous version the first edit was a revert to. (Igny (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

And he is now doing the same thing on the Douglas Pike article, 1r 2r 3r I have no idea what Igny has against Pike being described as an historian but this is beyond the joke. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Now on 4 reverts on the Pike article [36] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Again you are miscalculating the reverts. The first edit is not a revert because there was no simply no version of the article it was a revert to. And I do not understand why you keep removing the correct title of Pike. Are you ashamed by this fact? It is a sourced fact, you know. (Igny (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Please self revert, and any change to existing content is a revert , as has been pointed out to you. Also, please remove your attack on myself, I am not a sockpuppet and your trying to smear me in this manner is a personal attack. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not say you were a sockpuppet, I said you have been suspected of being one, see here. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

@Igny - it is time you simply admit to "a fair cop" here on the Pike article. And attacking messengers, Russavia, does not always make the boomerang go in their direction - it is as likly to hit you still. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair cop? I do not understand you here. (Igny (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Collect for some reason is using London slang. It means the accusation (of 3RR) is fair, as in the "you got me bang to rights, guv. Awright?" TFD (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, why is he thinking so, I wonder. Again my first edit could not be a revert because I was a second editor to edit Douglas Pike. What was the version I was reverting the article to? I was merely being bold per WP:BRD. Admittedly I reverted TLAM's revert of my edit, but that is a sign to bring it to a discussion not to ANI. (Igny (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
What part of Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert do you not understand? Changing any text is undoing another editors work. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
"Changing any text is undoing another editors work." This interpretation is not exactly correct. Otherwise, almost every edit any editor makes would be a revert. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors. For example, if an editor inserts new information, and I then come along and update that information (thereby changing the edit, but without undoing it), that is not a revert. - SudoGhost 00:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
What like this you mean? 1r 2r 3r 4r As you can see, every edit changed the content of the article, those are reverts. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I simply wanted to clarify that your statement was not correct. Whether those edits are reverts or not is immaterial to that. However, simply showing edits without showing the edit they are claimed to have reverted doesn't show anything. You'd be much better off making your case if you were able to show which edits their edits were undoing. Simply changing content is not a revert, unless it is undoing an edit. - SudoGhost 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
TLAM: Is there something in this series of edits that is changing something that has been the source of contention before? Igny: to remove all doubt, it appears you can still simply self-revert your last edit. Kuru (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No, there has been no contention before regarding Pikes status as a historian, it is beyond me why Igny insists on removing it. I have asked him to self revert on both articles but he refuses, my guess is he has now logged out and will not bother. The Last Angry Man (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: It is not clear that the first edit in question was a "revert"; it was obviously a change, but no one has cited a specific previous version of the article it was a reversion to, and as important, there is no evidence that Igny knew he was reverting at the time he made the edit. (The assertion by The Last Angry Man that every change to an article is considered a revert is not correct.} Hence, we have only one clear revert, which is not enough for a violation. Everyone is counseled to use the talkpage, and if necessary dispute resolution procedures, to resolve the content dispute, rather than continuing to revert back and forth, and to do so with appropriate decorum. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion (will not change the result of the report) on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AzureCitizen reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Jose Baez (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AzureCitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps reverting without discussing on talk page nor awaiting decision by Third Party page. Refuses to accept numerous facts that subject was born in Puerto Rico and continues to omit this fact on all previous edits. I have asked user to kindly dispute this on third party resolution, which I am awaiting a link from user Carol (see talk page) as I can't locate the link. For now, simply discuss on talk page until a request can be made for third party decision.

Previous version reverted to: [37]

  • 1st revert: [38]
  • 2nd revert: [39]
  • 3rd revert: [40]
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Need four reverts, not three. Kuru (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Beaulosagne reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [41]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

Single-purpose account trying to promote their micronation: searches provide a single hit, to their website. I'd block them myself for promotion and insertion of non-notable content, but I've reverted twice. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Just for the clear 3RR; probably needs an indef as promotion only if he resumes. I'll watch the page. Kuru (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Planet of the Symbiotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Darkwarriorblake: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I made an edit to clean up the Planet of the Symbiotes page. This was followed by Dwb's first revert. I made my first revert trying to explain what I was fixing. His second revert was the start of his aggressive/inappropriate language. I made a second revert with further explanation coincidentally with starting a discussion. His THIRD revert made accusations of me having a personal agenda despite his violation of the 3RR making it obvious he has a personal agenda here. Spidey104 20:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Um, you do know that you were also edit-warring, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I stopped at two reverts and started a discussion. I realize my reverts were part of starting an edit war, which is why I started the discussion to hopefully end it. He didn't let the discussion temporarily end the edit war to seek a resolution and he violated the three reverts rule. As past history has shown, he still should be given a warning for violating the three revert rule. That's all I'm asking for, because his edit summaries obviously show he will not listen to a warning from me. (Mediation in the discussion would probably be helpful as well.) Spidey104 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:3RR puts the baseline at reverting more than three times, not reverting just three times. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I sometimes forget that it should be called the Four revert rule instead (like how we call it a three strike rule for repeat criminals). Can we at least get some mediation? Spidey104 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Your personal agenda was the referencing style, see "Moving the references where they are supposed to be", which implies they were in an incorrect place to start with. I started the article and as the major contributor at the time used the referencing style most suitable to me while still using an acceptable referencing style. As the major contributor I continued to use that style as it was most useful to me. You altered that style without any reason other than it is "supposed to be" which infringes my ability to continue working with the article while using an acceptable referencing style. Despite this, I took onboard part of your edit to alter the visual appearance of the references as they did not look right with so few. Continuing, you altered the referencing style again claiming that "all" other articles employ this method, later citing GAs to back this up, though where the references are doesn't have any bearing on this as one of my major contributions Scream (film) can attest. I sent another contribution List of Scream characters up for FL, one of their many complaints did not include the fact that the references are not in the main body. Thus I can only assume that it is a personal preference of yours, something you admitted on my Talk page. So I don't see why mediation is required, this is not a contentious issue, you wish to change the referencing style, you are unable to provide an adequate reason for why your style is preferable over the current style. Without providing a reason beyond 'because', there should be no cause for further edits or reverts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The editors are now discussing the matter at User talk:Darkwarriorblake. The placement of references needs consensus like anything else. A two-party revert war could lead to sanctions against *both* parties if it resumes. The submitter claimed that Darkwarrior used inappropriate language but I did not see any. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "aggressive/inappropriate language" and I probably should have specified rude as well. My comments on his language were because of his lack of civility. You cannot deny that about how he phrased his edit summaries. Spidey104 13:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.35.202.156 and User:WarriorsPride6565 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Cantonese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.35.202.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and WarriorsPride6565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

  • 1st revert: [49] reverted user LLTimes' revision
  • 2nd revert: [50] reverted user LLTimes' revision
  • 3rd revert: [51] reverted my revision
  • 4th revert: [52] reverted user STSC's revision (WarriorsPride6565 has the exact editting style of 82.35.202.156, and from the talk page it seems the same user)
  • 5th revert: [53] reverted my revision
  • 6th revert: [54] reverted user STSC's revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
Glancing over the registered account, it seems to be solely dedicated to this edit. A recent edit war also happen at the article Nanyue with several editors and this user, which I wasn't involved in and have stopped at the moment, but may be related. His comments on certain groups of people are rather incivil. Cold Season (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the IP and the named account are the same individual (clearly). No 3RR, but a case could be made for regular edit warring. He seems to be using talk pages now; that's new. I'll leave this for someone else to review as I've already blocked the IP once (his earlier edits were leaving gibberish). Kuru (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand. The talk page discussion seems to be going to the wrong direction, and hasn't stopped the revisions unfortunatly. Cold Season (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale There does not appear to be any active edit warring at this time. If the edit-warring resumes, please make a new report. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Spylab reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: Declined)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 07:17, 10 September 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Spylab was already blocked for a 3RR in the past

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

-- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vision Thing appears to have made 3 reverts, did not not warn Spylab on his talk page and has not really discussed the changes on the talk page. He has not even alerted Spylab to this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
3RR is considered a bright-line rule and Spylab as an experienced editor should know better than to cross it. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I have warned User:Spylab. If they continue edit-warring, please re-report. FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Atsme reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Crayfish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atsme (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: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59] Comments:
User:mgiganteus1 had already told him about promoting his site. [] Many people on various articles reverted him and told him to stop that. He doesn't seem to be willing to stop. At Crayfish in a summary edit I did explain [60] "Stop spamming a link to your own site. If you can't see the information without paying for it, then its not a valid external link". Anyway, he won't stop doing that on multiple pages, with different people on those pages reverting him time and again. Dream Focus 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There's not a 3RR issue here yet; I only see three reverts and none after your 3RR warning on his talk page. I do agree this is a simple spam, however (general links to their site or links to buy a video). I've left him a final warning for that. If he places the link again, let me know or place an entry at WP:AIV. Kuru (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
See also a discussion at User talk:PhilKnight#External links are being deleted without justification. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:178.76.162.16 reported by User:Ferahgo the Assassin (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Orson Scott Card (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.76.162.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

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

Comments:

user:178.76.162.16 has inserted the adjective "homophobe" into the lead sentence of the Orson Scott Card article a total of four times in the past 24 hours. S/he has been reverted by myself and two other editors. Two days ago s/he inserted the same adjective twice and was reverted by other editors. I think this is probably a BLP violation as it is undue and unsourced, especially for the lead. There is a section in the article body for this topic. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Removed the 3RR warning before reverting again, so well aware of the policy. Kuru (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:82.69.46.113 reported by User:Fraggle81 (Result: Page Protected)[edit]

Page: Darlington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.69.46.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

User:192.245.194.254 reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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

User being reported: 192.245.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:18, 12 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 449926505 by Foetusized (talk)")
  2. 16:12, 12 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 450097673 by McGeddon (talk) It's been discussed multiple times. Where have you been?")
  3. 17:12, 12 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 450106271 by Foetusized (talk) Find a reliable source calling them alternative rock that's less than a decade old and I'll drop this.")
  4. 19:30, 12 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 450113899 by Muboshgu (talk) Again, at least cite some source before you delete one you don't like.")

User was blocked for the same behavior on a related article (The King of Limbs) on September 8. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked by kww. Kuru (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Buddhifer reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result:indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [75]

This is just the last 4 instances, there are more going further back, but I figured this would be sufficient. Heiro 05:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Comments: The user seems to be a disaffected fan or fformer bandmember who insists on setting real world scores here on Wiki. They are adding possible WP:BLP violations, WP:WEASEL wording, and WP:NPOV, are well past 3RR and have not cited any of their claims.
Heiro 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And they have upped the ante with a LEGAL threat at the helpdesk. Heiro 05:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely by another admin for making a legal threat. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Panditejashri reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: DAR motion pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panditejashri (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: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Explained on user's talk page: [87]. See below for more clarification.

Comments:

User has not actually broken 3RR since being warned. However, this is clear edit warring, and, more importantly, the information being re-inserted is a copyright violation and is 100% promotional. Article as created by this user, and actually tagged under G12. I felt that the article was salvageable, and the subject notable, so I stripped out the promotional info and declined the speedy (thus why I'm WP:INVOLVED and not blocking myself). Since this material is clearly harmful (if it stays, the article must instead be deleted), and the user refuses to communicate (or is unaware of how talk pages work), a block is necessary to prevent continued disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Collins432 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked 24h )[edit]

Page: Kenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collins432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:
Also note vandalism at Chipmunkdavis page. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked User:Toddst1 got to it while I was reviewing; I've already declined a nearly immediate unblock request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Truefact1979 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truefact1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [88]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see below

Comments:
Talk:Yadav#yadavs_are_chandravansh_khastriyas is, I think, the original discussion about the insert/revert content. There are numerous subsequent threads - this contributor is persistent and begins a new thread containing more or less the same information on each occasion. The latest are Talk:Yadav#The_introduction_is_wrong._Some_is_trying_deliberately_to_defame_them and Talk:Yadav#evidence_of_yadavs_being_chandravanshi, and there is also evidence of probable editing while logged out, as Special:Contributions/64.105.174.210 and Special:Contributions/8.18.192.2. There are far more reverts than have been listed above. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: 4 days See update below. This is the user's second block for edit warring since their account was created on August 18. Any admin may lift this block if they believe the editor is willing to follow Wikipedia policy. So far the outlook is not good. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This user did not appear to be breaking the 3RR and did not appear to be taking down sourced content to me. Thanks.-MW 19:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If you think that Truefact1979 understands Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, scan down the list of his edit summaries and check his reasoning for removing references from articles. For instance "Its funny jaffrelot is a western scholar. what will a western scholar know about india.." This was his rationale for removing a book by the French political scientist fr:Christophe Jaffrelot from the Yadav article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Although the reason which Truefact1979 gave for deleting that ref were incorrect IMO, that ref was being misrepresented/sythsized (was being used for synthesis) IMO. That source does not say what he was being made to say in the article IMO. So, I would say that that edit might have validity, even if the user did not realize the problem with that material. And I would also question the policy related understanding of those who inserted that misrepresentation/synthesis. Even if the previous edit be wrong, it should not be a reason for the current block. And presently, I see the user's latest edits to be in compliance with WP:V, and the restoring edits being against WP:V. If something has been challenged, it should sport a proper inline cite. It seems improper to block someone for taking down unsourced content and for trying to apply WP:V on unsourced content. It also seems improper to privilege those who restore unsourced & challenged content without providing inline citations. Thanks.-MW 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I would request that the block be reconsidered.MW 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This was simple edit-warring and the block was appropriate. That you are disputing this shows at least a basic misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:3RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Newer result: The block of User:Truefact1979 has been extended to indefinite by User:Kww per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357. Independent of Kww's action, I have now blocked 64.105.174.210 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Truefact1979. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Vabio1 reported by Cameron Scott (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Jeff Frederick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Vabio1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:12, 12 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored to prior valid content and references. Citations in the public domain, even by subject person are valid, such as publicly available quotations as well as generally agreed upon facts. If facts are disputed, move to discussion area.")
  2. 23:46, 12 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Accepted prior edit.")
  3. 02:46, 13 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "See talk page, Edit of User:Tbhotch has been preserved")
  4. 20:29, 13 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Updates to reflect senate race and restored prior content but added citations for that restored content.")
  5. 12:21, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored updated content. Please see discussion area and stop editing until consensus can be achieved, per guidelines.")
  6. 13:03, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 450461323 by Collect (talk)")
  7. 15:53, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision. Mediation has been requested. Wholesale omissions of updates are inappropriate; it seems you don't even know what you are removing anymore.")
  8. 16:31, 14 September 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "We are working on consensus. Please stop violating 3RR. Most restored content, with exception of recent updates regarding Senate campaign, has been here 2 years. That is the appropriate place to hold things until mediation complete.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


I also gave a 3RR warning - and a chance to self-revert. His response was [94]

These reverts have only been in response to other reverts. Vabio1 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which appears to be about as clear-cut a rejection of the 3RR warning as is possible. Collect (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the complaint you specified and there is no justification listed except for the fact that we have been reverting the content. But, why is okay for him to revert content continuously and us not. We have made a mediation request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick) where our arguments about the content of the subject page have been made. However, even if we were in a posture of reverting the content to a prior point, that point should be the content that remained on the subject page for two years, rather than the content edited by Zeamays. If our updated content should be reversed while the dispute gets worked out, so should Zeamays content as well.Vabio1 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are the only editor that violated WP:3RR, and the warning you were given regarding that policy violation clearly states, "do not edit war even if you are right." Taking the matter to mediation doesn't give you a license to continue reverting. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 48 hours for edit warring. Vabio1 gets credit for attempting mediation, but it is surprising that he declined to self-revert, which would have been sufficient to avoid this block. My concern is: either he does not understand or he does not intend to follow the WP:Edit warring policy. This is a BLP article about a politician, so we are not about to tolerate edit wars there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Emotional Freedom Technique (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 13 September 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned at 20:24, 13 September 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:
FWIW, not only is this user edit-warring, but the material they're reinserting contains clearly inappropriate original research. And their interactions with other editors leave something to be desired ("are you too stupid to notice the discussion (try scrolling up)", "You are blathering...", "Wow, could you be any more pompous and hypocritical?", etc etc). MastCell Talk 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY (TALK) 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:24.156.245.235 reported by User:VA6DK (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: The Hardy Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.156.245.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&oldid=444270603[diff preferred, link permitted]

Which returned material that was deleted once already because it was unsourced, so I added a {weasel} to the section which was reverted:

The maintenance tag was put back by Seduisant and then removed again by 24.156.245.235:

And then removed again, with a cite to an open wiki page which has no relevant sources cited.

The section was deleted by Mangoe "(remove "canon" section: this is all uncited fannishness and the Conelly statement earlier is the only solid citation)" and then reverted again

Which started a revert war:

6th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&action=historysubmit&diff=450570287&oldid=450569048

7th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&diff=next&oldid=450571224

8th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Boys&diff=next&oldid=450572904



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.156.245.235[link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Not done; I felt Edit Summary and warnings on Talk Page was self explanitory.


Comments:

VA6DK (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY (TALK) 03:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:124.184.231.111 reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: G. K.'s Weekly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.184.231.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [97]

  • 1st revert: [98] 6 September
  • 2nd revert: [99] 7 September
  • 3rd revert: [100] 14 September
  • 4th revert: [101] 15 September


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] 7 September

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103] 7 September

Comments:
WP:SEMI may solve this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined No Edit warring warning given. I think it's safe to call this IP's edits simple vandalism. I've given them a final warning. If the continue vandalizing, please report them to WP:AIV FASTILY (TALK) 06:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Megaluck reported by User:Kusunose (Result: 31h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [104]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111][112][113]

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

Comments:

This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. The user keeps edit warring against established concensus without any rationale. --Kusunose 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Vitaly N. reported by User:Voyevoda (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vitaly N. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [115]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

  • User reverts sourced information and even expresses hidden threats: [121], [122] Voyevoda (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is a related discussion: User_talk:Greyhood#Ukrainians. Strange accusations in sabotaging and propaganda instead of discussing the matter of the edit and sources. I'd say the editor should be at least warned not to break WP:3RR and follow civil discussion rules instead of heating the atmosphere. GreyHood Talk 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Checkusers may also see this. --Glebchik (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: Two Weeks)[edit]

Page: Paul Klebnikov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deepdish7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

User is at multiple noticeboards for a fair while for issues related to these reverts. Please consider in relation to these reverts - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_or_topic_ban_for_two_users - Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ranjanravie reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ranjanravie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·