Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Redtigerxyz reported by User:GoldRock23(Result: no violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to:

Revision as of 12:05, 8 October 2011 (edit) (undo)

GoldRock23(talk | contribs)

  • All of these edits are either reverts or edits that conflicted and deleted information from my edits

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

  1. 12:08, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by GoldRock23 (talk): Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Venkateshvara are not avatars, can't understand why avatar word was used. (TW)")
  2. 15:51, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "revert removal of references")
  3. 15:57, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ they are considered "aspects" of Brahman, not avatars (a term used for earthly descent)")
  • These edits are under 5 hours outside the 24 hour time period:
  1. 16:53, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "move para to 330 million gods")
  2. 16:54, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* 330 Million Gods */ remove POV pushing and state other theory")
  3. 16:56, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ avatar of Brahman is WP:OR")
  4. 16:59, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "remove WP:UNDUE weight")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Popular deities

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Popular deities

Comments:

First, I made edits telling Redtigerxyz to please stop editing the article until we had resolved the matter on the talk page. This failed to work, and so I made an edit that incorporated both sides of our argument (see article history). Redtigerxyz changed this, too. After warning him, he has explained this away as WP:BOLD,Revert,discuss cycle, but on no occasion has he discussed his edits with me before performing them. He has failed to provide references that state I am wrong in performing my edits, and I have referenced the fact that the usage of two different words we have argued about using can be interchangeable (both can be correctly used as the majority wiew of Hindus). I'm stuck on how to reason with him, as he is refusing acknoledgement of my references. Thanks, GoldRock23(talk - my page - contribs) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Consecutive edits without any intervening edits count as one. Kuru (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

His edits are POV pushing and he continuously removes {{citationneeded}} in accordance with only his POV. As we can understand from Talk:Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict, his prejudice against users who try to stop his POV pushing edits and try to prevent his attempt starting needless edit wars, is very serious. He is not open to discussion, because he ignores sources and explanation of other users. This inclination can be detected not only in this talk page, but also for other talk pages. For example, he didn't participate in discussion on Van Province, and shouted vandalism, even he put wrong information (Êlih is Kurdish alternative name of the city of Batman, not of the Van Province). Moreover, he obstructs constructive discussion by accusing other users with POV pushing wording such as "Kemalist", "pro-regime", "Ataturk lovers" etc. Takabeg (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)



Comments:

  • Here is an example, I tried to cite sources for a POV clarification, but the user consistently denied my sources and called such as "despite what your government may want to call them.", "I will not let your anti-Kurdish biases affect the article.", "I do not need any such sources" etc. while I tried to reason with the user. Reasoning with this user is not possible, even after stating all the facts with reliable sources, he jst reverts them. Khutuck (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 10:12, 10:05, 09:40, 21:15. He's been warned clearely about 3RR before on his talk page. Even though the block log is lengthy, I do not see any for 3RR in the past, so 24 hours for first offense. Kuru (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Penom (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Abdullah Ibn Saba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiqi55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6], [7], [8]

Comments:
Wiqqi did 5 revert in last 24 hours. It is not a new issues. I have already raised the issue 2 times on the talk page and addressed the article problems but he does not participate in discussionsPenom (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Protected it's either block neither, or block both, because both have violated 3RR. Protecting for 3 days. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not broke 3rr, on the other hand he reverted 5 times in 24 hours. What can I do when I raised the issue on article talkpage 2 times and he does not participate in those discussionPenom (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Your edits at 15:03 and 23:40 October 10, and 01:28 and 02:09 October 11, were all reverts. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandon reported by User:TEHodson (Result: no action)[edit]

Page: Running Up that Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


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

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

Comments:

I can't understand this form, I'm sorry. User:Brandon is insisting that a band member Tweeting that it was his band's version of Running Up that Hill playing over a TV show is a reliable source, and won't grasp that someone Tweeting "that was my band!" isn't a reliable source. I've left him messages, and discussed it on the Talk page, but it's not helping. We need someone to explain this to him. And he's been rude. Please help. --TEHodson 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - TEHodson was well-intentioned but misguided in this edit war. Although they've violated 3RR, I would ask that they be spared a block for this incident so that I can work with them. Thank you, Swarm 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for not blocking me. I read carefully the 3RR rule, and I understood it to say that there was an exception made if one party was reverting because of removing improperly sourced material. I therefore continued to revert. If that was a misreading of the exception clause, I apologize. I also followed all Talk procedures and even took to the web to try to find a reliable source for User: Brandon. I don't usually revert more than 3 times specifically because of the rule.--TEHodson 05:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed a misreading of the policy; this does not appear to be a BLP related issue. I don't see that Brandon has reverted four times, but you have. If you will cease any edits to the article for a while and resolve the issue on the article's talk page (as you seem to be indicating you will), then there is no need to block, or in this case protect the article (my first choice). Please note that any other article edits will require a less passive result. Kuru (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Tstanton009 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Daniel Mark Fogel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tstanton009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:56, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "Agenda, Nomo? These sources are perfectly acceptable. You seem to be promoting a one-sided perspective by consistently removing sources supporting a balanced story on this subject.")
  2. 13:26, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  3. 16:38, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "I have read. And you aren't allowed to define consensus on this topic unilaterally. Please try addressing any issues you have individually. Otherwise, there is a strong case of vandalism here. We can always call for assistance from an administrator.")
  4. 17:13, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "Removing references to Shumlin again. Nomoskedasticity, let's work on achieving consensus here rather than having an editing war. See you in talk.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
Note that the editor has now found the talk page and is contributing (though his/her edits are making a hash of threading, as the current state of the talk page shows [now fixed]) -- but he/she continues to implement the desired edits and is unwilling to wait for discussion to actually achieve consensus. In any event, the diffs above clearly show four distinct reverts in the last 24 hours, with #s 1 and 3 substantially overlapping an earlier edit (soon rejected) by another newbie editor (here -- it's harder to see the overlaps in the diffs, but it's the same attempt to add about "grandstanding" by Peter Shumlin). —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:88.207.0.167 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: House of Kotromanić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.207.0.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of proof that any attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page would be futile: [15]

What we're dealing here is nationalistic POV. Attempting to discuss anything with such an editor is a waste of time. This is not the only article vandalised by the same editor: [16], [17]. The edits/reverts were done by two IPs who I strongly suspect and believe to be one person. Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhproofer reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [18]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

  • Result: 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:John Torn reported by User:OneLittleMouse (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Spam (cross-wiki spam), edit warring:

PS And again: [31] (by other account, SPI). OneLittleMouse (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
Discussion, attempts to resolve took place on Talk:Sex, User talk:Dia^/Archive 1 (see contributions of John Torn). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Torn - there is a strong probability that there is evading of blocks by cross-wiki spammer. And check, please, legality of this warning. OneLittleMouse (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 3 days by User:Favonian - Additional suspected sockpuppet has been issued with a 3RR warning, see [32] + Crashdoom Talk 10:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can another editor review and agree/invalidate the warning posted on my talk page from this hyprocrite user? Thanks. + Crashdoom Talk 10:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    I am uninvolved in this and have done so. I cannot find any evidence of edit warring on your part, and due to the circumstances I'd say that the warning is invalid. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nochoje reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: see below

  • 1st revert: [33] reverts my removal of an image [34]
  • 2nd revert: [35] identical to the above revert
  • 3rd revert: [36] reverts the image I removed, as above, and also reverts another image removal by another user [37]
  • 4th revert: [38] does not revert my edit but reverts the image removal y User:Alexikoua

Goes like this: I remove an image I find unnecessary and uninteresting, which is reverted by Nochoje (1st revert). I revert him, he reverts back (2nd revert). Since he insists, rather than revert back, I replace the image with a better image, and moreover move it to the right so that it doesn't mess up the article formatting. Then another user, Alexikoua, removes another images. Both edits are reverted by Nochoje (3rd revert, in two steps). Alexikoua reverts Nochoje. Nochoje then partially reverts, keeping my edit, but reverting Alexikoua, thereby breaking 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40], user has tried discussing, but is aggressive and calls me "fascist" [41].

Comments:

  • Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:207.64.149.50 reported by User:Vensatry (Result: 1 Week)[edit]

Page: Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.64.149.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [42]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I'm not a major contributor to the article. I tried resolving the issue on the IP's talk page. As I could see no response from the IP, I felt it wont make any difference by starting a discussion in the article talk page.)

Comments:

The IP is a sort of a POV pusher constantly edit-warring with three editors. --Commander (Ping Me) 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:JudgeDred1975 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Walid Phares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JudgeDred1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted From September 2011.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (a minute later he made his 5th revert).

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

Comments:
Although the removal of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" is accepted, the WP:3RRNO states that users should "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption [Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)]." The main words here are "[Any] contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", which is not the case. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: both 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked on October 10, 2011 by same abuse at same article. But user declatered Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on., and considers later blocking as trap and tries to legitimate his/her own abuses. Furthermore, user doesn't stop shout "vandalism" to other users (Daily revert of Kemalist vandalism, undo vandalism by unknown user) and continues his /her "daily revert". Takabeg (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You started this edit war, not me, and you also started the personal attacks by consistently accusing me of POV while all I wanted to do was keep the infobox clean. Since user:Takabeg started both the edit war and the personal attacks, and rejected every time I reached out to him and proposed to start dialouge, if anyone should be banned it is him. However, in recent hours I have more or less come to agreement with user:Khutuck who was also involved in the edit war and a compromise has been reached in which most of the changes have been kept into the infobox with some amendments to keep it clean and short. So unless Takabeg decides to re-start the edit war, it is practicaly over.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Tznkai As below. + Crashdoom Talk 21:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Takabeg reported by User:Kermanshahi (Result: both 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Takabeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user started an edit war on this article and refused to negotiate with me, although I continuously allowed his changes to take place and merely tried to keep the infobox neat, he immedietly turned the conversation hostile by accusing me of POV pushing edits. He has numerous times tried to get me banned merely so that he can have his way and doesn't need to discuss the changes he makes with other editors, he has used this tactic before. I also suspect he has been using IP-edits to get aroudn the 3RR rule, which he used to get me banned the first time. The edit war has however, despite Takabeg's complete unwillingness to act reasonable or compromise, been ended before even he reported me. Kermanshahi (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocking both for 72 hours. Can't sort out all the nuances, but there is an edit war, and its spilling into a personal dispute, the underlying issue is an ideological dispute, which Wikipedia is no place for.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Tznkai + Crashdoom Talk 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Revision history of Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict does not show that User:Takabeg participated in edit war here. He only made only one edit in the article (during past three days) which seems quite reasonable explained. His other todays edits (five of them) are made on the article's talkpage during discussion. Discussion is exactly the way how to resolve disagreement.

Wikipedia:Edit warring says:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Therefore I believe Takabeg did not participate in edit war and should not be blocked because of it. I think this block should be reassessed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • From my own viewing both editors have been reverting each other's contributions multiple times over the past week or so on the article. Since they couldn't resolve it by attempting a discussion on the talk page, the reverts should have ceased between the involved editors and one of them should have attempted to get an impartial editor (or editors) for dispute resolution. However, since the block is only 72 hours, it's a time for both to try and stand back for a little while and let uninvolved editors attempt to help resolve the issue. If the block had been longer, I would have agreed in the fact that the block should have been shorter. (This is only my opinion on the matter, an administrator may see differently) + Crashdoom Talk 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:91.122.1.39 reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result: 31 hours )[edit]

Page: Planck constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.122.1.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:33, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "The nonsense is in your head")
  2. 03:40, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Hayward says h is the constant of areal momentum")
  3. 03:46, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "You need to articulate your objections ("Nonsense" is not a properly formulated objection). Otherwise, there is no point in talking to you")
  4. 04:16, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "The cited source contains extended quotations from books by trustworthy authors (Wiener and Hayward), with direct Google Books links")
  • Diff of warning: here

This very confused editor keeps adding material from his recently published knol article. Same junk added 5 times today there, and 4 times in Mass–energy equivalence. I've removed it from each three times, my limit. — Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Ironholds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has semi protected the article. Tiptoety talk 05:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
But he has done it twice more at Mass–energy equivalence, so the problem is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tiptoety talk 05:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I also protected the page. FYI, if he comes back again -- it's this banned editor, who has been active in this particular area before. Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Southern Baptist Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [48]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] also in the edit summary in [54] and this editor was recently warned in another article [55].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention#Images

Comments:

Four times in the last 24 hours User:StAnselm has reinserted File:Saddleback3.jpg despite an ongoing discussion at the article's talk page. I have offered to withdraw entirely from the dispute and let other eds go either way. I also gave StAnselm a chance to self-revert before posting here. Novaseminary (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I do note that you have also been edit warring on that page, along with the reported editor in your report. Note the second part of the edit warring/3RR warning template: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.", I believe that both editors are at fault, and should have resorted to dispute resolution at an earlier stage to get a proper form of consensus. + Crashdoom Talk 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I made clear I would not violate 3RR and tried to discuss (on this article's talk page and elsewhere). I also suggested DR. But this ed has now clearly violated 3RR twice since August. That behavior should not be rewarded. I would be fine if another ed reverted StAnselm's violating edit, gave StAnselm a short block (or a super super final warning), and sent it to DR.Novaseminary (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • StAnselm never noted on the talk page that he requested 3O. And still no excuse for violating 3RR, which he doesn't dispute (or self-revert). Novaseminary (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not an excuse for either editors to have violated 3RR or engaged in an edit war. Also, I don't believe there is a compulsory note that WP:3O being requested must be noted to the talk page, from the wording, it seems only to be to help the third opinion editor. + Crashdoom Talk 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to imply 3O requires a notice (though it is good form). I just noted it to make clear I was not hiding the fact, but didn't know StAnselm had done this. And as for an excuse, I didn't violate 3RR and have noted I will not revert again and have engaged in much discussion. And my reverts were only to keep things as they were until consensus couild be reached. Novaseminary (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but even if you think something is right, you shouldn't edit war to keep it that way. + Crashdoom Talk 02:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. That is why I stopped. And went to talk. And reported here. StAnselm's version is the current version despite it being the result of a 3RR violation. Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I hate sullying the clean block log of a contributor in good standing, but it has to be done here. A clear-as-day 3RR breach, editor was warned about another 3RR breach in August, no take-up on the opportunity to self-revert here. Cannot possibly go without a block. A warning to Novaseminary that 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts and should he/she take it as such in the future it may very well result in a block. Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Ckatz (Result: 3 days)[edit]

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

Kwamikagami has been repeatedly editing the dwarf planet article, and numerous articles related to that topic, to reflect a perspective that he favours. The pages have used a convention for the past five years (since the IAU conference in late August 2006) that uses the IAU as the basis for what is categorized as a dwarf planet and what is a candidate for that category. There is currently an active RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet discussing the matter, an RfC that was brought about in large part due to Kwamikagami's repeated changes. While the RfC is by no means complete, there is clearly no consensus on the talk page for the changes that he is proposing, and specifically there is no consensus for him to repeatedly make his changes while the RfC is under way. Tonight, his newest tactic has been to delete a core section of the page in protest. While I am certain that Kwamikagami is operating with good intentions, his tactics are inappropriate and his arguments have been described as "speculation and synthesis".

For my part, I'll certainly admit to having been involved in trying to undo his changes. However, please note that I was not the first editor to remove his changes, nor have I been the only one since then. Furthermore, I'm not looking for a block at this time as I would really prefer it if Kwamikagami would indeed heed the concerns that have been raised about his actions. He has been repeatedly asked by myself and other editors to respect the spirit RfC and avoid pushing through his changes without a proper consensus to do so. I am hoping that a warning from a party unconnected with the dispute can get through to him where I and others have not been successful. --Ckatzchatspy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (dif)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

and a request for input on the repeated changes enacted by Kwamikagami while the RfC is under way:


Comments: Given that Kwamikagami is an active contributor to the project, with many useful edits, and a sysop to boot, I have been reluctant to bring these actions to this forum. I have tried to reason with Kwami, but he has repeatedly rejected the opinions of others in continuing to change the articles in question. He is actively participating in the RfC, which is good; the problem lies in the repeated attempts to change the page to his preferred version during the RfC, and despite objections from others. --Ckatzchatspy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated 13 13 October 2011:

Kwamikagami has subsequently deleted material from the dwarf planet page twice more, with both deletions being rejected by other editors:

--Ckatzchatspy 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Ckatz is edit warring despite repeated objections from several other editors that his desire to restrict sources on a scientific FA to what he considers "official" is non-scientific. I have removed the section to the talk page (only to be reverted), as no matter which direction I try to edit it, or which editors' opinions I use as the basis for those edits, Ckatz reverts to to an out-dated version which does not reflect current RS's. I suppose we could rescind FA status, but I hate to do that. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami continues his edit warring by disruptively removing content (which has been there for a few years) from a featured article. The only way to stop this is a block. Ruslik_Zero 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not disruptive to move dated material to the talk page until we can agree on how to update it, especially when we have editors such as yourself insisting on using nonsensical definitions of concepts they don't understand. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion on it, both editors should step back and refrain from editing the article while non-involved editors try to reach a consensual decision on the issue. It just seems like this will end up going badly, especially considering both users are sysops and should know better than to squabble over content and consequently violate 3RR in the process. Maybe try WP:DR? + Crashdoom Talk 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Kwami has twisted the facts to support his point of view. I am also growing tired of him intentionally misquoting my statements and insisting that he knows better than the rest of us. I also find edits like this to be unproductive. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it needs to be stopped. If a block is the only way to do that, then that seems the only way to resolve this, there is still edit warring and a violation of 3RR now from the reported user. 3RR warning posted to user due to another revert since the submission of this report. + Crashdoom Talk 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked Kwamikagami for 3 days due to extensive edit warring. (X! · talk)  · @933  ·  21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (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: Warned on user talkpage about reaching 5RR (prior to the 6th revert) here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this whole section here and this section here are the most recent examples. It's been bubbling along for a while.

Comments:
Martinvl has persistently ignored the fact that his interpretation of sources (and thus the content he bases them on) is disputed by other users - by three others in this past 24 hours or so. This comment is probably the clearest indication of OWNership behaviour. He was warned at 5RR (but not reported - perhaps an indication that those in dispute with him would rather use the talkpage), but he went onto 6RR anyway. I appreciate I went to 3RR these past 24 hours, which isn't the best behaviour - but at least I was trying to get him to discuss things on the talkpage.

  • I'm in support of the reporter with this, but retain that the reporter should also be careful not to exceed 3RR. The reported user does appear to have a case of WP:OWN and if an attempt with dispute resolution hasn't worked, the only option may be to prevent the user editing the article. Other editors do seem to have a consensus with other users on the talk page. + Crashdoom Talk 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree care should always be taken. I normally stop at one revert where I can. I was a little caught out by someone suddenly kicking off like this (and the dispute straddling two calendar days where I live). As soon as I realised I was at three I stopped.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note, I've left the user a friendly message explaining what he should do - this seems to have been omitted. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Response by Martinvl:
User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:DeFacto have been blantanly pushing a WP:POV by willfully misrepresenting a WP:RS. In particular, Asda did an in-house survey which was called into question by a report in Which? magazine (Details here). VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto have persisted in reporting the Asda survey (a self-published primary source) but have supressed by addition of the Which? analysis of the survey. They claim that I am putting my own interpretation on the Which? report. However, any reasonable person, on reading the Which? article will see that these two editors have either have no clue about the meaning of secondary sources ort have been blinded by their own pushing of POV. The two versions can be seen here: [56].

I have also exhausted other avenues of negotiation, including

I request therefore:

  • The Which? source article be read
  • The two entries in Wikipedia be read
  • My assertion of POV pushing be the two editors be noted
  • Both editors be issued with warnings that by failing to note the very clear criticism that Which? made of the Asda survey, they are pushing a PoV.

I wish also to place on record that there was a different issue concerning education on the same page initiated by DeFacto in which User:Pfainuk participated. This particular issue is still being discussed.

Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that point on the National Curriculum is still being discussed. It is. But given that you bring it up, I think it's worth mentioning that you didn't actually make any kind of argument or even substantive point in that discussion until after you had reached 3 reverts on that specific point (and 5 on the article as a whole), and after I had warned you about edit warring on your talk page. On the rest, I would simply suggest that this is not the place to bring up the details of the content dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
(Response to Pfainuk) I was highlighting that there were two separate activities going on at the same time. The discussion regarding the curriculum yesterday was initiated by DeFacto as a wind-up - he has been WP:HOUNDing me and he was trying to make a WP:POINT. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Martinvl, those are absurd and unjust allegations. There has been no wind-up, no hounding and no 'point' editing on my part. I would advise you to defend your own actions, or apologise for them, not attack the actions of others and not to be so complacent. -- de Facto (talk). 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators
Things are getting messy. User DeFacto has demanded an appology which I am not willing to give - I am however willing to justify my case. I see a number of alternatives:

  • The administrators recommend that User:VsevolodKrolikov withdraws his report. In this case things will stand as they are.
  • The administrators insist that I justify my accusations against User:DeFacto, (which will also involve acusations against User:VsevolodKrolikov, though of a lesser nature). If this is the case, then I must insist that they both face sanctions if my accusations are justified.

I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I have not demanded anything. I offered you advice as to how I believe you may have been able to ameliorate your situation here, charged as you are with breaking the 3rr. I believed that the best response would have been to either defend the multiple reversions or apologise for them - not to irrationally attack other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that admins may be waiting to see if this all calms down and that no action need to be taken (even in a case of 6RR). However, as you can see from Martinvl's statements above, there appears to be not even a concession that he was edit-warring, despite going to 6RR, and that despite having been warned at 5RR (4RR is the bright line, isn't it?). Dispute resolution has been tried at RSN and identifying reliable sources (the latter seemed to be possibly a forum shop and certainly an attempt to edit relevant sourcing policy to affect the dispute - and without informing us on the page), and it is very difficult to have confidence that Martinvl will heed any of the advice he receives from third parties if it does not suit his particular POV. I strongly suspect that editing has gone quiet on the article page because we're all waiting to see what happens here, not because the problem has gone away. I suspect the rest of us want to keep our noses clean and not be seen to instigate a second round of warring. Some admin attention would be very welcome - Martinvl needs to understand that editing to consensus takes precedence over any conviction that he is right.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment to Martinvl: Personally, although I'm not an administrator, I would like to see your justification for the violation of the 3RR policy so broadly and attempting to mask your edits using false edit summaries. Depending on your answer, it may speed along resolving this report, or hinder the resolution of it, if an administrator is willing to wait to hear this out before making a decision. + Crashdoom Talk 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Response to User:Crashdoom (and anybody else who is interested) - Please refer to my comments at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Let's try to establish consensus. The relevant comment is easy to spot - it has extracts from the source document in a box. Please also see User:VsevolodKrolikov's response to my first comments inTalk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources. My second comment in that section sums up my view of his response. I will leave you to form your own judgement. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Without wishing to bring the dispute here - the section Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources indicates a continuing battleground mentality. We both recommend precisely the same text from a primary source as appropriate for inclusion, yet when I consider this to be agreement (hooray! or so I thought), I'm attacked for misrepresentation. How is an editor supposed to proceed with this? Martinvl has now been asked by three independent editors to address the issue of his edit warring (here is the third, which he will have read by now), but is yet to do so. Instead, he posted what he did above this post - another insistence that his being "right" (as he sees it) forgives all behavioural issues. He needs to understand that abiding by the principles of collegial and consensual editing are paramount. I leave it to admins' experience in how best to get this message across.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Note - he's now apologised for accusing me of misrepresentation in suggesting we were agreeing on something (!). Nevertheless, he still needs to come here to address the issue of edit warring.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Result: Blocked 24 hours for long-term edit warring (six reverts altogether). The last revert was October 13, but User:Martinvl has continued to argue his position in the current 3RR report, blaming others for the situation, while his last revert remains at top of trunk. He has not undone his last edit and insists that he is correct. The bogus edit summaries which disguise his reverts remain as an issue. (Here he claims he is correcting a broken link, while reinserting the disputed material). If he changes his mind and indicates he will wait for a Talk page consensus before reverting again, any admin may unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:58.178.181.234 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.178.181.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [57]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. I'm just watching the page and noticed the edit-warring. Note that the user did two reverts under another IP address but georesolves to the same location, so likely the same user on a dynamic IP.

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks FASTILY (TALK) 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:J3Mrs reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: no action)[edit]

Page: Elizabeth Tyldesley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Poor Clare Monastery (Gravelines) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J3Mrs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

<! I have no idea if this is the right process, but I have found myself in what seems to be an editing war with User J3Mrs (and possibly Administrator Malleus) on these articles. I have found that J3Mrs is the originating author of both articles and pretty systematically goes through and changes most differences from her original text. This is true even though the original articles had a number of factual errors. He or she has even made changes claiming they are due to grammar, when his/her changes are poor grammar. This writer has been been backed up by Administrator Malleus who has been insulting in his comments.

<! I raised the issue here: [66]

<! I'm at the point where that person's reversions seem to be nitpicking and are intended more to preserve the original text than allowing for a clear, useful text for those not familiar with the information. Plus I'm sensing a lack of respect for religious usage. Help! This is not a good experience for me of the Wiki world. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • No action I think this is a conflict between a well-meaning new editor who has made a few understandable errors (notably overlinking) and a couple of established editors. I don't see any reason to block anyone here, his would be far better discussed on the talkpage of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.117.127 reported by User:kheider (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

User 76.67.117.127 edit warring on Comet Elenin. The user is posting fringe + weasel [67] I am requesting that the user be BLOCKED! -- Kheider (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear 3RR (actually 4RR) breach after a warning. Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:71.224.207.195 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Viktor Yanukovych (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.224.207.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]

  • 1st revert: [69]
  • 2nd revert: [70]
  • 3rd revert: [71]
  • 4th revert: [72]
  • 5th revert: [73]
  • 6th revert: [74] Asking me if I am Ukrainian in their edit summary.
  • 7th revert: [75]
  • 8th revert: [76]
  • 9th revert: [77] IP warning other editors about 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]


Comments:
Fresh from a 1-week block by Salvio giuliano involving BLP issues, the IP started the edit-warring on Viktor Yanukovych, again involving BLP issues. IP also refuses to engage in talk. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Take note of the Scientology insertions on the Yanukovych article with fake refs, which is why he was banned in the first place for doing so on other political articles. Bad faith vandalism + (maybe good faith) edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 02:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't mean to edit war over content myself, I realize I've 3RRd but since I can only assume bad faith / vandalism, was just trying to help. I'll step back now until an admin steps in.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-Admin Comment I've only checked one of the edits so far, and it is glaringly inaccurate, enough so that any assumption of good faith is sent out the window. The IP editor uses adherents.com to cite Yanukovych's religion as Scientologist; however, actually checking at adherents.com shows that they list him as Eastern Orthodox, which is what the original article material stated. Having seen that, I cannot accept any other edits from the IP as honest and accurate. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one month for disruptive editing. Adding wrong information to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Block-conflict. Good thing we blocked for exactly the same length of time and for exactly the same reasons. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Charmain23 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 5 days)[edit]

Page: Master Cleanse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charmain23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Related accounts

Charmain23 is a WP:SPA whose only edits to date are to Master Cleanse. He uses misleading edit summaries to slow-edit-war to add promotional information [79] [80] [81] [82] and remove other sourced information [83] [84] [85].

The editor has been given multiple warnings on his talk page to no avail.

His editing is almost identical to that of Fenzi12.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 20:02, 14 October 2011

  • Result: Blocked five days. The editor appears to be a spam-only account. If this continues, an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nochoje and sockpuppet User:79.166.249.44 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Peloponnese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Nochoje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and sock 79.166.249.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [86]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments: The user has been edit-warring over a week across multiple Greece-related articles adding images of his own which noone else approves for inclusion in the articles. His latest target is Peloponnese. Note that he was blocked for similar behaviour by Ed Johnston. Also see the sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nochoje. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I second this report. Fresh from a block for edit-warring over images in Greece, Nochoje is doing the same thing in Peloponnese. It is evident the IP is him [92], and thus he has clearly broken 3RR. On top of that he is socking as an IP to circumvent breaking 3RR. In the talkpage discussion he is rather hostile [93]. I think the problem is this user simply isn't getting it. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one week. This editor is ignoring all feedback and is using an IP to disguise his edits. (The IP has been blocked by another admin per SPI). EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ed. Good call. It is sad to see such intransigence. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:H2ppyme reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Page protected, users warned)[edit]

Page: Sergei Pareiko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H2ppyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101] (User:Number_57 approached the user)

Comments:

During the last couple of days two Estonian users, User:H2ppyme and User:Sander Säde, beside an IP Special:Contributions/77.233.72.74, have been massively changing the place of birth from Estonian SSR, Soviet Union to Estonia in numerous biographies. There is a consensus to use the country name at time of birth and both registered users are well aware of that as they both have been called for their attention about this in the past. I noteced the edits at my watchlist and I noteced the intentional missleading arguments Sander Säde used in a discussion about this in both talk pages with User:Oleola. I opened a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Nationalism_in_country_of_birth_.28again.29. H2ppyme has already had this discussed 2 years ago at his talk page, see User_talk:H2ppyme#Place_of_birth_and_contemporary_sovreign_state, so this users are well aware of all consensus regarding this, however they decided in the last couple of days to change over a houndred articles and edit war in order to keep their changes. Perhaps even a stronger action could be applied, as this is clear nationalist POV pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) -->

Actually, the above is pretty much all not true. There is no "consensus to use the country name at time of birth" anywhere at all. "Massively changing" is a handful football biographies, which were all recently edited by an anon (130.226.249.238 (talk · contribs)) to include Soviet Union. How those few articles became "over a houndred articles" and "numerous biographies"... your guess is as good as mine. "Missleading" arguments... that from a user who wants to legitimize puppet states?!
Also, I see that FkpCascais doesn't report Oleola (talk · contribs) for edit warring for some reason. Why is that, Oleola broke 3RR before H2ppyme as it is plain to see for everyone? It might be worthwhile to run a checkuser here, as all Oleola, FkpCascais and Number 57 (talk · contribs) not only hold identical revisionist views, but do plenty of very similar typos - and at least in the case of Oleola and Number 57, daily edit pattern is identical.
--Sander Säde 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I don´t care about users, and I don´t have preferences. The difference is that Oleola restored the previous stable versions, and, as you can well see, all users defend historical acuracy over nationalist reviosionism... We can like it, or not, but people born in Estonia between 1945 and 1991 were actually born in a country named Soviet Union, and not modern day Estonia. This was often explained to you and to the other user, and you both continue making massive changes and edit-warring without consensus basically vandalising place of birth in houndreds of articles. I just want this to end, and not using historical acuracy is not encyclopedic. And btw, Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union, and not a recent edit as you want to make it seem. Even if some bio didn´t include it, that IP you mention rightfully added it... (PS: And don´t even dare to try to portray me as USSR simpatizer or anything remotely similar, as I just came out from a long mediation about the monarchic leader Draža Mihailović and Chetniks where I was exactly defending monarchists and oposing the communist POV there, so as all can see, and many know, I have no special simpaties at all for Soviets, but I do defend historical acuracy, even if I may dislike it.) FkpCascais (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
From where comes this "houndreds of articles" nonsense? Anon added Soviet Union to a bare handful of articles. I reverted that - as I saw and still see it as vandalism; such changes without any explanation or basis are vandalism. Number 57 disagreed and reverted me, again without any explanation. Most of those H2ppyme reverted just once, besides Sergei Pareiko - and all that over three days. I haven't made a single edit in any of the footballer bios since my initial vandalism revert. So where exactly are we "continue making massive changes and edit-warring"? What are those massive changes?
Is there some kind of problem with telling just the truth - both H2ppyme and Oleola broke 3RR in Sergei Pareiko article, but unlike Oleola, H2ppyme started to discuss the edits, which may allow him to escape with just warning, while Oleola will probably face a block. Both of them have been warned from edit warring before, Oleola as recently as this May and H2ppyme in 2009.
There is nothing like consensus, guideline or even an essay which supports "Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union" - or if there is, no one has managed to link it so far.
If you like historical accuracy, why haven't you clicked a link provided before? Occupation of the Baltic States was almost universally not recognized de jure - but this really isn't the place to discuss international law.
--Sander Säde 06:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. According to a quick check, at least many of those biographies have never had "Soviet Union" attached to them. In case of Pareiko, Estonian SSR hasn't existed in the article since April 2009, so it was H2ppme, who reverted to a stable version, not Oleola. --Sander Säde 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This "country of birth" issue was discussed for months back in 2008 and we were unable to achieve consensus back then for a globally applicable guideline, (see: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth). In the years since then the default defacto style was to list Estonia rather than Soviet Union as place of birth, since the view of the majority of people editing Estonia related topics is that the geographical location is more useful to a reader than listing a defunct state that ceased to exist over twenty years ago for a BLP of a young twenty-something year old football player. Since User:Oleola appears to have started edit warring earlier against this informal consensus that has existed for some years in Estonia related BLP articles:
  1. 16:34, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455551657 by Sander Säde (talk) Estonia was under Soviet occupation")
  2. 18:30, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455568090 by Sander Säde (talk) discussed, where?")
  3. 23:38, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455608928 by Pelmeen10 (talk) unexplainted revert")
  4. 19:34, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455888213 by H2ppyme (talk)")
  5. 19:55, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455895698 by H2ppyme (talk) link to the discussion?")