Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive176

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Good Sumaritan (No violation: )[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User Matsci going to create an SPI

Page: IPCC Summary for Policymakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None given but this user is fully aware that CC pages are 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute and wish to remain that way.

Comments:

The page in question is clearly covered by the CC general sanctions. WMC is fully aware of the restrictions being highlighted here and should not need to be warned not to edit war. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The article is not under a one revert restriction that I can see? The reporter has also created a page [3] in William M. Connolley userspace? This looks a little pointy. The reporter has also never edited the article in question?[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that the CC arbitration case imposed general sanctions and a 1RR restriction for CC articles. Upon further review I appear to be mistaken on that point. This complaint can be closed. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Rast5 reported by User:Andriabenia (blocked 2 weeks, 1RR indef)[edit]

Page: Tumanishvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:
He refuses to explain himself and keeps reverting, even after being informed by an administrator - whom he berated - that the Armenian side of the family in question was not princely. He left a comment on my page that talked about Joseph Stalin of all things he could have explained in the time he wasted writing nonsense.

User clearly hasn't taken a hint. Has been blocked twice for EW, I suggest a indef block. (Uninvolved) PaoloNapolitano 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks In addition, I will place an indefinite 1RR for AA articles per WP:ARBAA2. Kuru (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Sean30405 reported by User:Barek (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

User being reported: Sean30405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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


—- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Kermanshahi (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Camp Ashraf raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Plot Spoiler has broken the 3RR on this page.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Both editors Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — Neither side gets much credit for trying to create a neutral article. If the topic is going to be so contentious you might consider an RfC to bring in other opinions. I see that Kermanshahi and Plot Spoiler are continuing the same fight at another article, List of massacres in Iraq. If we were to add together the reverts at the two articles you might both be over 3RR. Not satisfied with only filing a complaint at the 3RR board, Kermanshahi has also opened an WP:ANI in which both he restates his position and one at WP:AN. Each of you has been blocked previously for edit warring, so please try to use your diplomacy on this one. Admins will not decide who is right about the content, you need to persuade the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: No violation - and warning to filer)[edit]

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William S. Saturn (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: [diff]

Comments:

The user Screwball continues to remove the notable candidate Stewart Greenleaf ahead of the New Hampshire Primary. He is the one that should be blocked for disruption. Please read the talk page of the article for more information. Three editors have tried to explain to him that he is wrong--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Screwball, you're fortunate that the WP:BOOMERANG didn't swing around. The definition of "candidate" is "someone on the ballot". If you remove the candidate even one more time, you will find the boomerang (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This is absolute nonsense. He is not a declared candidate. Did you look at the talk page discussion or did you side with Saturn within the first 10 seconds? Because I don't see any rationale that supports the idea that he is a national candidate. If anything, he belongs on the NH primary page and that's it. There is no reason to put him on the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page because he is not a national figure for president of the United States running a national campaign. He is not significant or notable to the page in question. I want an unbiased editor, because you clearly have not taken enough time to get both sides here.--Screwball23 talk 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much more "unbiased" I can be. We go by WP:CONSENSUS here - got it? Move along. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I want an admin that is not sarcastic and actually understands both sides. You quoting WP:Consensus with wikilinks around it is not responsible due diligence; I want an admin who will read and understand both sides here. Where can I request a second hearing on this?--Screwball23 talk 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mmann1988 reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

User being reported: Mmann1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:22, 1 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Restored paragraph to one appropriate for a lead. All that demographic info and intense detail is unnecessary. One sentence summarizing demographics is sufficient.")
  2. 15:34, 1 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Race and ethnicity */ Added intense detail from lead into the demographics section (may even want to add all this detail to the Demographics of Atlanta page).")
  3. 01:57, 2 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Cleaned up and removed POV, made it more encylopedic.")
  4. 14:33, 2 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Cleaned up and removed POV, made it more encylopedic.")
  • Diff of warning: here

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

Comments
He was blocked for 72 hours in December already for the same reverts. He refuses to allow the well-sourced phrase "Black Mecca" to be used in the lead at Atlanta, and has removed it four more times in the last day. There is a huge string of sources backing up "Black Mecca", which I recently removed from the lead where they were very distracting; they are still cited in the body of the article.

Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two diffs are sequential, which to my understanding makes it a single "revert", in which they moved content from one section and placed it in another. - SudoGhost 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, but can we agree that his edit warring over this must stop, under penalty of another block, even if it's not technically a 3RR violation? Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Dicklyon is confusing consensus-building with edit-warring. Just because I take out a particular word as I edit to reach consensus does not mean that it's automatically a revert. It's not edit-warring.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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


Revert comparison ("compare"): [20]

  1. [21] (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mmann1988 (talk): M, your repeated removal of "black mecca" from the lead needs to stop NOW.")
  2. [22] (edit summary: "put back "Black Mecca" that only one editor seems to have an objection to.")


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

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

Comments: This user is simply trying to get me in trouble as I try to reach consensus with another editor.

--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — Two weeks for abuse of multiple accounts in an edit war, indef for RodewayInn. This is the third block for Mmann1988. His last block was for warring on this same article on 22 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.150.198 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Nominative determinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Sorry if this isn't formatted correctly, I have a problem reading Courier and just can't understand everything between the <>s (Seriously.) I know I am to blame for not stopping, but this IP has been abusive to other editors (as seen in the edit history). I have misunderstood the rule, because I thought they were only for literal same reversions three times. Some of these in the history were for different versions of the article, which this IP just kept reverting on principle. Also notice how many other different editors had reverted this IP's edits, yet they still continue to stick to their guns and edit war with everyone for this article. Maybe a warning will let them know this is serious. Again, I acknowledge my part, but out of misunderstanding the rule. JesseRafe (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been abusive to other editors. I was abusive to you after you were abusive to me. I did not revert anything "on principle". I merely reverted the OR that you continually added to the article. 2 Other editors reverted me (once each) after you lied in an edit summary and identified my edits as vandalism. I assume they believed that you were telling the truth about my "vandalism", and reverted me because of this. If I was edit warring, so were you, and I was only removing the OR you insisted on adding into the article claiming that it didn't need to be referenced. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 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:

  • - note - I have requested full protection of this article at WP:RFPP - this issue is at WP:ANI also - both users have been edit warring. Suggest closing as page protected and retire to your corners to have a cup of tea and start a discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW I agree with Youreallycan, and am about to post at the ANI discussion that JesseRafe needs to stop following 89.100.150.198 because the IP's edits are fine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq, are you serious? I need to stop following the IP? I have YEARS of edit history on these articles and have been watching them ever since, and the IP wikistalks me and you think I need to stop following him? Absurd.JesseRafe (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected — One week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe reported by User:89.100.150.198 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [23]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Comments:

User:JesseRafe continually re-adds OR material that has been removed, claiming that it does not require a reference because it's "self-evident" that his edits are correct. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected — One week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:86.162.251.51 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Steve Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.162.251.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:33, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
  2. 15:38, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "yes it is")
  3. 16:26, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early career */ is not Original Research, the article says 'he was taken through, page by page, drill by drill, How I Play Snooker by Joe Davis'")
  4. 16:32, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "No,but it does reflect that he taught him using that book")
  5. 16:37, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "it is in the reference")
  6. 16:42, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "")
  7. 16:48, 3 January 2012 (edit summary: "no its not")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment He also edit warred on User talk:Armbrust, even after he was made aware of WP:BLANKING. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.240.69.24 reported by User:IllaZilla (Result: )[edit]

Page: Gallows (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.240.69.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the IP is static, I have engaged them directly on their talk page [35]. The IP has not responded there nor taken the topic to the article's talk page as requested.

Comments:

The issue at hand is the IP's continued removal of a sourced music video from Gallows (band)#Music videos. The video is sourced to the band's official Youtube channel [36] (which is linked to from their official website [37]) and premiered the same day as the song, yet the IP insists it is a "viral video" and not actually one of the band's music videos (despite all evidence to the contrary). In any case, the IP's decision to edit-war rather than discuss the issue, even when specifically asked to do so on their talk page, is the central issue. The only responses I've gotten are a couple of terse edit summaries [38]. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fictio-cedit-veritati reported by User:Roscelese (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: (Other changes in the article make it difficult to see what reverts were made; explained below.)

  • 1st revert: [39] removes material added in this edit two days previous by Pseudo-Richard, citing (on talk page) various unreliable partisan sources
  • 2nd revert: [40] removes it again
  • 3rd revert: n/a, article is under 1RR per ArbCom and per previously existing community sanctions
  • 4th revert: n/a



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] This is a link to a warning about abortion general sanctions given to the user one day after he started editing, for the exact same reason: edit-warring in favor of an unreliable agenda source (the same one) for historical statements, and claiming that an imprimatur of doctrinal accuracy is an acceptable substitute for reliable-source, historical accuracy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], [43], [44]

Comments:
I'm not sure what, if any, productive edits the user has made on other topics, but every edit I've come across by him has been dedicated to pushing an agenda. At any rate, edit-warring is not acceptable even if one is right.

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't edit here much and am not very clear as to how this all works. I'll certainty be reading up on things, but as of right now I do not know what I've done that is wrong. As I see it I made an edit that I supported with what I deemed to be an acceptable source. A user (Roscelese) undid my edit because she thought that my source was biased because it was from a somewhat religious source. I responded on the talk page, and ultimately provided a secular source that supported my edit, and thusly reverted back to my original edit. Roscelese has not taken issue with this new source, so I thought everything was alright.

I don't have anything against Roscelese, and thought that we were working things through on the talk page, and was given no warning of this. Again, if I've violated a rule it was due to my ignorance and I will be reading up on how often you can edit, etc. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do take issue with the claim that I push an agenda. I do not push an agenda. I happen to know a fair amount about the Catholic Church and try to expand Wikipedia by adding to and editing articles about it. I don't think this should constitute pushing an agenda. I have encountered Roscelese before about sources. She thinks that some sources that I have used are biased and I (along with other users here) don't. I have always tried to talk to her on the talk page and have no idea why this has wound up here. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, from what I've gathered, I got reported her because I edited a page twice in 24 hours that you should only edit once in the that time frame. I didn't know that at the time, but now I do, so I have undone my edit and will continue to work things out with the other user on the talk page. I would have appreciated it if the user had simply told me about this edit policy before reporting me as I was happy to undo my edit once I realized what I did that was in violation of a Wikipedia rule. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You did know that at the time. That's why you've been reported, instead of simply warned. The link to the warning is right up above. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see, I must have missed that. As I said above, I'm not on often so I had completely forgotten about that as it was nearly a year ago. I'm still learning here, please remind me on the talk page in the future. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:DocOfSoc reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Montebello, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DocOfSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:


After doing a lot of clean-up at the article, I left a note on the article talk page regarding the edits made (see here). When the editor being reported continued to revert a particular section, I attempted to start a discussion on why I felt the section being added back in repeatedly did not belong in the article (see here). Even when I placed the 3RR warning template on the editor's talk page, I added the following message as an attempt to encourage her to discuss: "I don't like to template the regulars, but you've been around long enough to know better than to edit war. Please stop, take a breath, go to the article's talk page, and discuss - don't edit war." The editor responded by saying essentially that she wasn't edit warring, rather, I was (response can be seen here). It was after this that the editor being reported went back to the article and reverted more of what had been removed previously (as seen in the 4th diff listed above). Even after her fourth revert, the editor did not try to discuss the changes on the article talk page or why she felt what she restored needed to be restored. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Update: Nearly a half-hour after making the last revert (#4 diff listed above), the editor being reported has responded to my attempts at getting a discussion going at the article talk page with a scathing post here. For some reason, the editor seems to be taking my copyediting and changes to the article rather personally (based the talk page entry); I'm not seeing a whole lot of objectivity there. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 05:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    Those diffs don't look like a 3RR breach to me. And that last post was hardly scathing. No violation, IMO. Doc talk 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe the above edits qualify for edit warring. And this is Lhb's attempt to "start a discussion" on the Montebello talk page:
This article is/was an unbelieveable mess. I have done a good amount of ce on it, removed a bunch of blah-blah that really didn't belong in the article to begin with along with plenty of undue weight, and some WP:CRYSTAL. Also moved some sections/subsections around, created some subsections, and removed a whole bunch of unnecessary WP:NOTNEWS. Not to mention there was also way too much verbatim stealing of wording directly from online sources. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Unfriendly, unfounded and highly insulting. Have attempted to communicate with Lhb previously to no avail. DocOfSocTalk 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"Have attempted to communicate with Lhb previously to no avail". When? Where? Diffs? My talk page communication as quoted above was directed at no one in particular. Saying it was "unfriendly" and "highly insulting" only proves my point above that DOS is personalizing my edits there. Unless her choice to personalize my edits has something to do with her choosing to edit war and breach 3RR at the article, I don't see how what I wrote originally at the talk page has any bearing on this report. I asked the editor on her talk page to discuss rather than edit war AFTER I tried to started still another discussion on the article talk page (diff is listed above). With the warning I placed on her talk page, she knew she was in danger of 3RR, yet chose to make that 4th revert anyway (diff also listed above). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. v/r - TP 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:70.109.177.113 reported by User:Clusternote (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Additive synthesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.109.177.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.109.177.113&action=history


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.109.177.113&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAdditive_synthesis&action=historysubmit&diff=469464622&oldid=469268650

Comments:
On one years ago, this article had completely lacked any sources, therefore, since then, I've added almost all citations for verification. Especially one of the most important problem of this article is lack of notion of "realtime additive synthesis" (time-varying timbre by realtime processing), thus I'm trying to add the notion. On yesterday, I added categorization for existing implementations (also half of these were written by me with precise references). However, this user want to delete the categorization without any reliable source nor alternative plans. I already show several sources supporting my categorization, however, this user repeatedly reverted without any sources. It may be obvious vandalism. --Clusternote (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected — furthermore, Clusternote (talk · contribs): there is no requirement for a user to create an account in order to participate in discussions. --slakrtalk / 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support and kindly advice. (Yes, in general, IP user is equivalent to account user, especially on the article's talk page.

      However in this case, the behavior of corresponding IP user seems similar to a specific banned user (who added obvious personal opinions and uncertainly description without any sources in the past, and as a result, disrupted the normal evolution of article), so I request the creation of account. Without account, responsible long-lasting discussion is hard to achieve.

      If my behavior was inappropriate, of course, I want to change it.) --Clusternote (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Seamus48 reported by Fmph (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Climate of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Seamus48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:33, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469314317 by Fmph (talk) repeated attack on Climate of Northern Ireland page")
  2. 12:52, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469499862 by Fmph (talk) restoring Northern Ireland page after repeated sabbotage by user Fmph")
  3. 13:40, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469505347 by William M. Connolley (talk)")
  4. 13:51, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 469507557 by Fmph (talk) Restoring climate for Northern Ireland after sabbotage")
  5. 13:51, 4 January 2012 (edit summary: "Providing a link to the Climate of (Republic of) Ireland page")
  • Diff of warning: here

Fmph (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked for 24 hours by someone else --slakrtalk / 02:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhokara reported by 119.73.13.158 (Result: not blocked )[edit]

Page: Afghan National Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bhokara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Using ISP based in Ankara, Turkey: 85.97.3.231

  • 1st revert: [53]
  • 2nd revert: [54]
  • 3rd revert: [55]
  • 4th revert: [56]
  • 5th revert: [57]
    • Creates the name Bokhara to continue with edit-warring, vandalism, and putting personal unsourced POV (WP:OR) into the article.
  • 6th revert: [58]
  • 7th revert: [59]
  • 8th revert: [60]
  • 9th revert: [61]
  • 10th revert: [62]
  • 11th revert: [63]
  • 12th revert: [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

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

Comments: There may not be 12 reverts, but anyway, Bokhara is sockpuppet of Khiva (talk · contribs) [67] and very disruptive. It refuses to accept all sources (western media reports/US military reports/Afghan defense ministry) that the Afghan national army has 180,000 soldiers. Bokhara claims that he is a diplomat and that these sources are all lies, and that he knows the real truth, which is his own estimate of 100,000 Afghan soldiers. In addition, Bokhara / Khiv are single purpose accounts most likely created by a sockmaster and both should be indef blocked. That IP of Turkey should also be blocked for being used by disruptive person. Thank you.--119.73.13.158 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm discussing it with the editor and don't think that a block would be any use at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not a good reason to not indef-block someone who created single purpose sock accounts and edit warring with them. Do you doubt that Khiv (talk · contribs) and Bokhara (talk · contribs) are the same person?--119.73.13.158 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
They've told me that they forgot the password for Khiva so created Bhokara (you spelt both wrong in that post) - there's nothing wrong with that. If any of them continue to be disruptive then they need to be blocked but at the minute, a block wouldn't prevent any disruption, so is unnecessary. FTR, I first became involved with this after seeing Bhokara reported at AIV earlier today. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:109.150.57.127 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: IP Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 1971 Bangladesh atrocities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.150.57.127 (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:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours v/r - TP 19:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fluffymoose reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 9 days)[edit]

Page: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fluffymoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

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

Comments:

The editor keeps inserting what some editors have challeneged as WP:PEACOCK terms, contrary to what many editors view as not supported by the sources. This has been heavily discussed on both the film talk page and the project talk page, and the editor has already been sanctioned twice for inserting these terms: [91]. He hasn't actually violated 3RR, but Fluffy been asked to refrain from making changes until there is consensus for using these terms. I recommend an indefinate block until the issue is resolved, at which point his block can be automatically lifted. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeff Song reported by User:severino (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Dieter Gerhardt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeff Song (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: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:



jeffsong followed me to this page and tries to push his pov by trying to avoid this wikilink in question. i have explained it many times in the discussion, there is a whole section, the difflink above is only one comment. Wikipedia:Consensus states:" "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context." he also ignores Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". i would agree to a 3rd opinion or mediation but this self-righteous edit war should stop. thank you --Severino (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

what is listed as the first revert is from nearly two week ago. Edit #2 also does not fall within the 24 hour window. Severino himself has made as many, if not more revert to push the link to Aparthied, over the objections of editors on the Talk page (myself, and Socrates2008 [98]):

That said, I'll self-revert and avoid this article for a while. Jeff Song (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Marking this Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned for now due to the self-revert; please keep in mind that you can still get blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate the three-revert rule. --slakrtalk / 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:173.55.198.36 reported by User:Akjar13 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Tim Donnelly (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.55.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [104]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:


This user and these users ([112] [113]) who I believe are the same, keep inserting libel about Tim Donnelly. Multiple users, myself including, have tried discussing with them about the problem, however they ignore us and continue inserting libellious POV statements. There are some useful contributions amongst them, however that should not allow them to slander against a living person. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 10:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:82.228.56.15 reported by User:Aruffo (Result: Page protected for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ear training (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.228.56.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: link permitted


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

This editor has been attempting to add an external link. He has left profane messages on the talk pages of myself and an administrator but has not participated in any discussion on the article's discussion page. aruffo (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Roguana reported by User:Mais oui! (Result: stale)[edit]

User:Roguana using ip adress to revert 3 times, then logging in to revert a 4th time.

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


Previous version reverted to: [119]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]

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

Comments:

Not only is the User breaching WP:3RR, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:BRD, but they are also trying to avoid detection by making edits whle not logged in. If the edits were worthy, the User should have the courage to log in to make them. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Duly reported (again) to:
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_Souter
--Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Previous BLP Noticeboard item here. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, User:Mais oui! failed to notify me of this report. Secondly, I have made ONE edit on the Brian Souter article page which was to revert Mais Oui's blatant vandalism (he was removing sourced information from the lead section without just reason or consensus). User:Mais oui! is the one who is edit warring on this article and it appears he has been doing so for several years now. He refuses to engage in discussion (the diff he included above is from five years ago and is not part of the much more recent conversation on the article's talk page which is more on point, and which he has so far ignored). He has received countless warnings on his talk page about edit warring and general disruption, but simply deletes them without even responding to them. He has just done so with a warning I placed on there myself ([121]) but further examination shows that this is a pattern of behaviour for him ([122], [123], [124], [125], [126]. It also seems to me that User:Mais oui! is the actual sockpuppet here as he and User:Cntras have intersecting edits on over 100 extemely far ranging articles (including the one in question in which there was obviously an attempt to tag team today). Action needs to be taken against this troublesome editor, not least of all for his abuse of the warnings and reporting systems. Roguana (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment — realistically, Roguana (talk · contribs) edited while logged out. Whether or not might the user saw the warning while logged out might be a question of WP:AGF, but I think the probability of the user having seen it is extremely high (given this directly after the ip was warned). On top of that, the user hasn't edited the page before using that account. --slakrtalk / 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Realistically, no I did not, and there is not a shred of evidence to confirm otherwise. I had read the Brian Souter article a couple of times the other day because I am researching a project, and I noticed that the intro to the article seemed a lot shorter the second time I read it. A look into the article's edit history showed that certain editors (User:Mais oui! included) were regularly removing sourced information from the article under the pretence of it being against WP:UNDUE, which is not the case. I've come across this kind of blatant misuse of Wikipedia before, and it Wikipedia policy that we do not censor details just because they are unflattering towards a subject. Just because I have not edited this particular article before is not proof of anything. I saw a misuse of Wikipedia, and I corrected it. There is actually more evidence to suggest that User:Mais oui! is actually IP user 86.176.75.182 (who deleted the same information on 31 Dec 2011) as they are both in the same geographic location (Scotland). It is also more than possible that User:Mais oui! and User:Cntras are either the same person or working together considering the quick "response" Mais Oui showed at the time, and also their shared edit histories which have 100 intersecting articles on extremely far ranging subjects. As I have shown in my post above, it is not I who is the troublesome editor here. Roguana (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale --slakrtalk / 04:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bodhidharma7 and User:Tamilan101 reported by User:Yunshui (Result: )[edit]

Page: Peopling of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see also Indo-Aryan migration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Dravidian peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Historical definitions of races in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))
User being reported: Bodhidharma7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Tamilan101 (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: [131], [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Bodhidharma7's discussion of issues

Comments:
Both of these editors have recently been warring repeatedly over the articles listed above - User:Bodhidharma7 has at least attempted to initiate resolution on the talkpages of both Peopling of India and Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia in the past, although not as far as I can see in relation to the current edit war. To date, no technical violation of the three-revert rule has taken place, but the problem appears endemic. Suggest temporary topic ban for both users to allow other editors to establish consensus on the disputed material.

Personally I have no opinion either way as to whose edit are "correct" and which versions of the articles should be retained. Yunshui  14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bodhidharma7 is a POV warrior. He reads a source, interprets it as he likes and ups his new found truth on wikipedia. This is not a content dispute. He's an editor, who needs to start an internet blog. --MThekkumthala (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Also User:Tamilan101 was not warned before he was reported here! Since Yunshui warned him, he didn't engage any edit war! It's only Bodhidarma who violeted against all customs. --MThekkumthala (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See next section also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidarma is at it again, reverting all sections to his false version.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've clearly have told Bodhidharma7 that his edits were POV everytime I have reverted his edits. It is he that insists his POV ideas are correct in an article where all aspects of an issue must be shown.(Tamilan101 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

MThekkumthala, what would you call this if not a warning? He has so been warned.
Simply judging from Indo-Aryan Migration, Tamilian101 is not innocent in this. Here and here Tamilian101 removes information that is supported by the sources given.
I do not mean to say that Tamilian101's edits are all wrong. This would be acceptable if the material was moved to another article, which it does not appear to have been. This edit is correct given the sources present in the article (which connects Dravidians to the Elamites).
Neither user appears to be reverting based on sources but on ideologies. Bodhidharma7's edits are slightly more in line with the sources overall, but neither of them have been posting on the talk pages for the articles they've been edit warring over. Instead, they call each other "newbie" in edit summaries (even though the length of time one spends here means nothing), and tell the other person to quit POV-pushing on their talk page without ever actually demonstrating how they are going against sources.
It would be easiest and fairest if Tamilian101 and Bodhidharma7 received the same treatment, whatever decision is made. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I fully endorse all actions by Tamilan101 against Bodhidarma7. We both know, that Bodhidarma doesn't have the capacity to write well thought and useful sentences for wikipedia. Tamilan didn't engage in an editwar after the warning template, while Bodhidarma continued to editwar even after he was reported here. Still no action against this dirty behaviour! --MThekkumthala (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Once again: Here and here Tamilian101 removes information that is supported by the sources given. That is inappropriate deletion, it is censorship. He engaged in name calling as well, and he has not engaged in any more talk page discussion than Bodhidharma7 has. Your blind support of Tamilian101 and your blind opposition to Bodhidharma101 is making it hard to assume good faith and not file a sockpuppet investigation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak Tamil sadly, but I can understand it. To be proud to be a Dravidian means also being solidary with fellow Dravidians in their fight against darkness in persona of Bodhidarma and his Aryan fellowship. I guess you are a proud Aryan aren't you? --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
My ancestors' ancestors' ancestors were from the Caucuses ultimately, but I come from a culture with just as many Bantu influences as Scots-Irish ones, I worship a Semite, and I'm eating Thai food right now. I'm a citizen of the world, and all peoples are my brothers and sisters. I find it extremely inappropriate how much emphasis you are placing on other editor's ethnic origins. Your last comment borders on racism (and that's only because I'm assuming good faith against good reason). Humanity is humanity, and how humanity is expressed genetically has no bearing on one's ability to follow the site's guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that a Tamil child over 2000 years ago said similar thing? *yaadhum oorae yaavarum kelir* very famous in South India! --MThekkumthala (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Historical definitions of races in India has been fully protected until January 14, 2012. Techman224Talk 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck reported by User:mddkpp[edit]

On the article British Rail Class 395 history (see also Talk:British_Rail_Class_395#British_Rail_Class_395) the editor keeps changing the article contents, and removing a template:disputed title tag. They claim there is consensus at WP:UKRAIL but there doesn't appear to be that consensus.

I have supplied multiple links showing that the name "Hitachi Class 395" is in common use by reliable sources, and have no sources that use the disputed title. The editor hasn't made an attempt to compromise or discuss with me and keeps reverting. The changes the editor is making fail WP:VERIFY (you can google "Hitachi Class 395" and "British Rail Class 395" and see that the second mostly generates wikipedia mirrors, and isn't used by reliable sources)

Editor has also undone my revision 4 times now. [133] [134] [135] [136] Mddkpp (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article name is BR Class 395, and is part of a series of articles including around 100+ other BR Classes, all of which have "British Rail Class X" in the infobox. I accept there is no evidence for this name in use anywhere, because it isn't, this is a naming convention used on en.wp for the purposes of consistency. Otherwise we'd have to deal with some British trains being (eg) "Alstom Class 390 Pendolino", "British Rail Class 321" "Bombardier Class 222 Meridian" (or maybe "Bombardier Class 222 Pioneer"). Perhaps "Class 66 (British locomotive)", "Class 150 (British diesel multiple unit)" and then "Class 395" on the basis of that not needing disambiguation. It would be a mess. Therefore there is a naming convention in place that gives us "British Rail Class X" form for ANY train currently operating on British tracks. It is not in use because it's correct, it's because it's the better of several bad options. As for the consensus I mentioned, it is more a lack of consensus to do anything else - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention. There was a discussion to try and do something else, it came to nothing, and all {{disputed}} tags were removed from articles.
That I did four reverts was a mistake in that I wasn't counting, and for that I'm sorry. However, I was trying to revert it to the way it had been, and the way that is consistent with all the other british railway articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User:estater reported by User:D.Lazard (Result:Both blocked 24hr )[edit]

Pages: Real algebraic geometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and Page: Selman Akbulut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: estater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·