Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive178

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Neolloa999 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neolloa999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ant smusher and User: Knotedatitud reported by User:Abhijay (Result: No demonstrated violation)[edit]

Page: 2012 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:


Previous version reverted to: [7]

  • 1st revert: [8]
  • 2nd revert: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:


  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --Chris (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jer5150 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Situs inversus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jer5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion

Comments:
Continues to edit war on Primary ciliary dyskinesia and Dextrocardia as well, ignoring multiple attempts to get the user to provide any sort of explanation. I left this message on the editor's talk page to try to get him to discuss instead of revert, but there hasn't been so much as an edit summary from the editor. - SudoGhost 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) 2 (Result: One month)[edit]

Sorry for redoing this. The old one appears to have gone stale or unnoticed. And now there is new, conclusive evidence of 3RR

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")
  2. 05:21, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473799561 by Jack Bornholm (talk) - see talk page; there has not been a single editor with any rationale for putting this table up again and again; stop edit warring")
  3. 05:29, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473807466 by Rxguy (talk) - complete BS; information needs to be discussed without editwarring; the idea that it was there first so it must stay is insane and hypocritical")
  • Diff of warning: here

User has been ignoring Wikipedia conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 6 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 4 or 5 (possibly sockpuppets) are opposed. User did not even allow time for discussion, the first time waiting only nine minutes before removing content. User has repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]
  5. [22]
  6. [23]
  7. [24]
  8. [25]
  9. [26]
  10. [27]
  11. [28]
  12. [29]
  13. [30]
  14. [31]
  15. [32]
  16. [33]

User is also under sockpuppet investigation.—Metallurgist (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:97.73.64.155 reported by User:Sumanch (Result: 3 hours)[edit]

Page: Textile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.73.64.155 (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: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Blatant removal of content.

Comments: I have come across this user over recent changes page. I saw that this user is blatantly removing content and others are trying to restore it. I think the user knows the policy very well and he/she is doing it for giggles.


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 hours for vandalism. Please use WP:AIV in the future when reporting vandals; this noticeboard is intended for edit warring over content, not simple vandalism. --Chris (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner and User:Cali4529 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Cali4529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]

  • 1st revert (by Cali4529): [40] (this diff shows undoing nearly two dozen edits by another editor, almost all with the same short, vague edit summary: "no")
  • 2nd revert (by Bobrayner): [41] (restoring links to destinations, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports)
  • 3rd revert (by Cali4529): [42] (Undid revision 474110767 by Bobrayner (talk) NO CONSENSUS MADE, all my ideas, not right to use them)
  • 4th revert (by Bobrayner): [43] (What do you mean, "all my ideas"? You don't own the article, and you don't own the discussion over on the project page...)
  • 5th revert (by Cali4529): [44] (user reverts a number of intermediate edits, with final edit summary: Undid revision 474115751 by Bobrayner (talk) UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS MADE YOU CAN NOT DO THIS)
  • 6th revert (by Bobrayner): [45] (There was an agreement. It was on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports thread which you tried blanking. Did you read the thread? I am restoring the wikilinks in line with that consensus.)
  • 7th revert: (by Cali4529): [46] (Undid revision 474123286 by Bobrayner (talk) There is no consensus, expect being blocked within the next few hours)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Bobrayner, for Cali4529

Reporting editor has made no edits in this article during this time frame. Article has been protected by User:Courcelles as shown here.

Comments:
After seeing the SHOUTING in the recent edit summaries for this article, I took a look and found a full-scale edit war between Bobrayner and Cali4529. Another editor, User:Chaswmsday, has been working in the article at the same time but does not appear to have been engaged in the content dispute directly. The apparent issue revolves around how the various destinations served out of the Atlanta airport are to be linked, with one editor claiming consensus by WikiProject Airports that the destinations are to be linked to the arrival airports, and another disagreeing. Both are undoing each others' edits as indicated by the diff summary above. Both were warned about edit-warring and appeared to have stopped now that the article has been protected. --McDoobAU93 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:68.113.25.188 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )[edit]

Page: Arne Duncan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.113.25.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]


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

Comments:Blatant, BLP-violating edit warring with 4 editors.


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
He or she returned to the exact same behavior once the block expired. Longer block this time, please! ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions)[edit]

Page: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gregory Goble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In Talk:Cold_fusion#Remove_Sentence_from_Conferences_Section this talk page section Gregory Goble has objected to a sentence that has been in the article for quite some time. The section includes responses indicating that other editors are not in agreement with (or even understanding) the point Gregory is trying to make. Note IRWolfie-'s comment that "Your comment here seems like a stream of conciousness, can you please state what text or sources you have issue with. Then can you show what changes you propose and based on which reliable sources." which is a reasonable request. This comment was echoed here by Binksternet who said (after giving the 3RR warning and before the fourth revert was made that "Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing." – perhaps blunt, but certainly indicating an area where Gregory's editing is problematic.

Gregory has been reverted by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv restored sourced information", by IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "no consensus, you talk page section looks like a stream of conciousness rather than making a particular point, I suggest you refactor your comment there so your points can be discussed", by Binksternet (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "restore cited text", and by IRWolfie a second time with the edit summary "stop removing this sourced section, get some concensus first". Despite these comments, Gregory's talk page post just before his fourth revert included "The sentence I will delete again ..." indicating a clear intention to continue edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My notification: [60] and the earlier uw-3rr warning from Binksternet: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the talk page section mentioned above plus warning and comments at user talk.

Comments:

Gregory Goble is a fairly new editor, as his user talk page shows, but he is also pushing a perspective on cold fusion that is a minority / fringe view. Even if he is not blocked, I would ask for a warning and formal notification of the cold fusion arb case and discretionary sanctions. EdChem (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I only count three reverts. Thus, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I have formally notified him of the discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Firstly, I appreciate you giving a formal notification, but I would appreciate it if you would please explain which of the reverts I noted was not a revert, in your view? The text each removed was long-standing in the article. I ask because I want to understand how I might have erred in my counting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:24.235.70.242 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.235.70.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]. Also see Wikipedia:RSN#Nasim Yousaf.

Comments:
IP geolocates to Utica, NY with an Earthlink ISP. This and related articles appear to be subject to COI edits and both registered user and IP meatpuppetry or socking, eg: recent 24h block of User:68.174.108.113, who locates to New York using Roadrunner ISP. Might have to request semi-pp. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:110.87.123.151 reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Xiamen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.87.123.151 (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: [73]

Comments: This user completely refuses to communicate, either through edit summaries or on his/her talk page. Previously, this user engaged in continued insertion of uncited GDP figures, and now it seems that (s)he may be Shevapippo. GotR Talk 07:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by Eleassar my talk (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Republic of Prekmurje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 08:21, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474116103 by ArnoldPlaton (talk)")
  2. 12:03, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474190826 by Eleassar (talk) This was provocation")
  3. 12:15, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474199086 by Eleassar (talk) Eleassar, you not know the Prekmurje")

Persistent edit warring, as evidenced on the user's talk page. —Eleassar my talk 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians! The graffitys in Murska Sobota in May, 2009 was themselves were provocations. Several people noted that this provocation. The Murska republika-insanity is a false dream, the Mura republic was not well known in 1919, neither in Sobota, neither in Prekmurje! In the forums in May 29, 2009 was few incendiary declarations, call for revolt againts Slovenia. Doncsecztalk 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Whaledad (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Jewish Defense League (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81], [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Whaledad#Talk:Jewish_Defense_League

Comments:

Does Whaledad realize he is on five reverts here? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to block the both of them, since protecting a talk page makes no sense. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.219.2 reported by User:GHcool (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.219.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [83]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Comments: This is a violation of 3RR and 1RR.

--GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe not [88] It says the IP undid his edit but it was still a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I am working within the exemption per the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, that "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism." I have left a warning on the IP's talk page, and several notations in the edit summaries, such as here and here. The IP has made an additional revert, the fourth within a six-hour period:
Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You are now on 3RR, who decides what a "certain edit" to be reverted is? That seems rather ambiguous to me, anyone could claim that. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I have not exceeded three. As for who decides, I trust the notice. If you feel it is ambiguous, there is probably a talk page somewhere to discuss rewording it. In the present case, reliably-sourced content was repeatedly removed by the IP. Shouldn't we be concentrating on stopping that disruptiveness? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per the arbcom remedy referenced above. Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · count) did not breach the arbcom remedy as anonymous IPs are exempt, but did brush up against 3RR. I suggest that Hertz1888 exercise caution in similar cases in the future. --Chris (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: User talk:Noformation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: N/A


Not posting diffs as this is an abnormal edit war regarding my talk page. This user contacted me on my talk page regarding me making personal attacks. As far as I know I haven't made any but if this user wants to take me to AN/I that's perfectly fine. With that said, I hatted the conversation and asked that they stop posting regarding this topic on my talk page but they continue to do so. I've reverted their additions three times and mentioned in an edit summary that the next edit would go to 3RR but they apparently don't care. I've been involved with this user in the past on AN/I where I reported them for edit warring over a talk page previously as well. They have narrowly escaped two topic bans, you can read the most recent AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#EW if you require more back story. Thanks.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] - note that user is well aware of 3RR, there is another notification above mine and they have been told multiple times in the past as well.

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

Comments:


Noformation Talk 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned to discontinue the discussion. I will monitor the user's behavior for a few days and ensure that this warning is followed. --Chris (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I came here to post the same notice. User has consistently been warned about edit warring and 3rr, and his response has always been to remove the warning and continue the behavior. Between his multiple blocks, multiple ANI cases, and repeated problematic behavior (including edit warring), I believe the first step to a resolution is a preventative block to stop further disruption. A few recent diffs of previous EW warnings removed by Zenkai are below:

  — Jess· Δ 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: User also just hit 3 reverts on Genesis creation narrative. Diffs below:

  — Jess· Δ 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I actually just came back here to amend my report to include edit warring on Genesis Creation Narrative as Jess has already pointed out. I think I might have made a mistake coming here anyway as with the user's history it seems that the complexity of the case might require another trip to AN/I. Still, your eyes are appreciated. Noformation Talk 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Roux reported by User:Danielthekid971 (Result: no violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [94]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
This user keeps adding a non-genre repeatedly to the stylistic origins list on the page for the musical genre "trance music". Not once has this user provided a citation in edit conflict and s/he has been very offensive (especially on the trance music talk page, and past history shows that this user has been like this before on numerous occasions), making several personal attacks and abusing their ability to lock the entire page. I tried to warn the user but it appears that their user and talk page are causing errors. (To add my reasoning for my edit: there are many genres of dance/danceable music, adding non-arbitrary tags would be highly inconsistent (and incorrect since the subjected genre hasn't always been tagged) -- there are subgenres of the genre in the origins list which is extremely chronologically incorrect, this is not what's disputed here, however) Danielthekid971 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The article was protected; I see no edits since then and none in the last nine days. Perhaps you can complete the conversation you are having on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )[edit]

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [100] 01:47, 1 February 2012
  • 2nd revert: [101] 02:01, 1 February 2012
  • 3rd revert: [102] 02:46, 1 February 2012
  • 4th revert: [103] 04:53, 1 February 2012
  • 5th revert: [104] 05:55, 1 February 2012


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105] 15:38, 29 January 2012; [106] 04:58, 1 February 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107] (and following discussion threads)

Comments:
Edit summaries are not collegial:

  • 02:05, 1 February 2012‎ (Jesus Christ I am removing DUPLICATION)
  • 04:48, 1 February 2012 (Restoring (the usual) vandalism by The Four Deuces (All changes discussed on the talk page))
  • 05:40, 1 February 2012‎ (Stop vandalising the article The Four Deuces (See Talk Page))

Comment: It is evident that User:ERIDU-DREAMING is an absolute newbie, he should have been given a templated warning, as the one given by TFD was not clear on the consequences of exceeding 3RR. Therefore a warning rather than a block should be given per WP:BITE. --Nug (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Newbies should be given protection from bites. For sure E-D is not a sock or the like. Collect (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
ERIDU-DREAMING has been active for a year and before that edited as a dynamic IP, two of which were blocked for edit-warring on Right-wing politics.[108][109] The article was semi-protected following this,[110] after which the editor registered an account. ERIDU-DREAMING admitted that the IPs were his at SPI a year ago.[111] Collect even participated in that. Ironically, one editor wrongly accused Collect of being the sockmaster of ERIDU-DREAMING, TFD (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Um -- in what way is that remotely relevant here? Is OhioStandard's inane "accusation" relevant to this one iota? Absent any rationale of any value at all, I find your post insulting to say the least. Collect (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING actually had a 3RR-warning on the talk page on 29 January, informing about the consequences of edit warring [112]. It was removed by the user 3 minutes later ([113]), so obviously ERIDU-DREAMING has taken notice of it. --RJFF (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now added the first warning to the report. TFD (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems this report is stale now. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:174.49.84.214 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:Both editors blocked; 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Solar cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.49.84.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [114]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119] (note: precedes 4th revert, as does [120].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Solar_cycle#LOSU, a bit.

Comments:

I'm ok with accepting the change to LOW. However, the person making the change needs to update the reference that they are using so that the reference also points to a LOW citation. When I follow the reference they provide the graph clearly shows VERY LOW. There is another link to a massive website and buried somewhere in there it reads LOW, however, the reader shouldn't have to go DIG for the fact. Why can't they just update the reference? Instead they resort to reporting me on some 3R rule? That's not collaboration. Let's just collaborate and make it better. I suggest William M. Connolley update the site to LOW but also update the citation. He's the one who wants it to read that way. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Secondarily, I was the one who opened up the LOSU Talk on the page in an attempt to resolve so I've been trying here. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What is self Revert anyway? I just want the site to be accurate. It won't be if we keep LOW with a citation that reads VERY LOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The statement is completely uncited William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of edit warring going on here. I strongly suggest that all parties immediately cease editing the disputed content and discuss their dispute on the article talk page. --Chris (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree Chris thank you. William M. Connolley, see you on the talk page? :-). 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Note the anon actually has >4R; [121], earlier, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Wifione Message 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What is the purpose of both protecting the page and blocking the edit warriors? --Chris (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The issue in contention has other editors reverting too. Once discussions have started off on the talk page, that would be the appropriate time to unprotect. Wifione Message 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Wifione blocked WMC for deleting the word "very". I suggest Wifione reread his RfA and finally "take on board" the concerns raised by the opposers, as urged by NewYorkBrad.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
          • To be fair, edit warring over one word is still edit warring. If they were edit warring over whitespace, blocks might have still been required. --Chris (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Chris, are you claiming that the word "very" was removed in his other 3 edits?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean these three? [122] [123] [124] --Chris (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:IggyAU reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IggyAU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [125]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:User keeps imposing his POV on the matter despite being asked to provide sources on the talk page, discussing the matter with him on the talk page, and warning him of his behavior on his user talk. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Now the user is ignoring both this discussion and the one regarding the repaso in the article's talk page. Despite being warned not to use the article's talk page as a WP:FORUM, he is now both personally attacking other users and making rants ([132]). Can somebody please take care of this matter already? (24 hour block won't do the trick here either; this user knows that what he is doing is wrong, and ignores all warnings and advices provided to him [133]. Disruptive editors should not be tolerated).--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This user also seems to have a sockpuppet, as can be seen in User:IggyAU and User:IggyAu. Notice the difference is in the letter "u" (one is in capital format and the other in regular format). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 03:06,03:00,02:18,02:00, was warned. 24 hours is the most I'll go on a first offense. The sock looks like a newbie mistake; should be picked up by the auto-block, but let me know if he uses it during the next 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ljuboni reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:User keeps imposing his POV despite being asked to provide reliable sources on the talk page, discussing the matter with him on the talk page, and warning him of his behavior on his user talk. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that this user is simply imposing his personal opinion on other articles as well ([143]; [144]) also by editing under various IP addresses ([145]; [146]; [147]) - which are his edits also. This editor was banned before for edit warring, and whenever he "reappears" he creates disruption. Adrian (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 16:39,12:25,11:41,01:26. Prior warning was removed from his talk page, but not needed since he's been blocked for edit warring before. If you think this is an editor that has been banned previously, you may want to file something at WP:SPI with more evidence. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete and misleading report by User:Jingiby (Result: Closed)[edit]

This is not mine:

Also, I provided reliable sources on the talk page, as well as in the article, but Jingiby did not want to show here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

I wasn't banned before for edit warring. Actually, I do not make edits, but only reverted references deleted by users: Jingiby and Adrian to protected version by user/adminstrator Elen of the Roads. They are just removing reference to support their own point of view, and that's not allowed, as I know. Ljuboni (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is; this is a content dispute and subject to 3RR. You may not simply revert to get your way. Kuru (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21 reported by User:Gilderien (Result: indef)[edit]

Page: Talk:Homeopathy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sleuth21 (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: [153]

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

Comments:User:Sleuth21 has deleted much content from the active discussion on redrafting the article lede, including deleting other's suggestions, and a draft lede compiled by several editors. Has also used offensive edit summaries.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • He has also continued to edit after being topic-banned, and has been offensive to several other editors.


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Kuru (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jer5150 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Situs inversus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jer5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [154]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Situs inversus#Image regarding situs inversus and KS

Comments:
Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring one. Despite recently being blocked for the same exact thing, the user has been repeatedly reinserting an image on Situs inversus, Primary ciliary dyskinesia, and Dextrocardia, refusing to make any explanation for their edits, despite numerous requests for some sort of explanation on a talk page or edit summary. - SudoGhost 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruption. --Chris (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Amalthea reported by User:Sallynice (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: John Coleman (news weathercaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amalthea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [158]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Education_and_Expertise

Comments:

Amalthea tried to edit multi times and not go to Talk. I posted in talk and had to undo twice before they came in and then said they were "exempt from WP:3RR" even though they never went to talk before the major changes and never tried to reach consensus at all. I have told others, including John Coleman himself, to go to talk to get consensus so this is not new and if Amalthea even tried to be netural this would not have happened. I did look at what Amalthea said, after they went to talk, and removed a bad REF, added a new one, and was looking at others before they ran off to get the page locked. --Sallynice (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Well ... it's a BLP. Both times I reverted Sallynice I made clear that it is a BLP and that I'm reverting because the material was violating it. Details of why I think so were posted on the talk page, and are now at WP:BLP/N#John Coleman (news weathercaster). Amalthea 15:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG and BLP vios by Sallynice. This 3RR report came to my attention because I'm in an unrelated conversation with Amalthea right now, Amalthea hasn't responded, so I checked contribs and saw this. Clear BLP violation by Sallynice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) already. --Chris (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reporter also notified about discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shuki reported by User: Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [159][160], both these two edits removes that the Israeli settlers are "settlers"

  • The Golan Heights article is under a "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks. "

the warning pops up anytime anyone edits the article: [162]

Shuki has not discussed his revert on the talk page.

This article appears to now be fully protected; not sure what a block would be preventing, but I'll leave this to someone more experienced in the topic area. Why does the edit notice differ from the arb restrictions on the article's talk page? Should that be updated? Kuru (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be punishing a non neutral editor who through edit warring is pushing a non neutral pov at a Wikipedia article, and he isn't discussing the edit at the talkpage as he must do, and he is doing this after just having returned from a 1 year topic ban for sockpuppeting in the same topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive and are not handed out as a punishment. --Chris (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, if this is being put forth as a violation of an arbitration ruling, arbitration enforcement would be a better venue than here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ckatz reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [163]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]

Comments:


We've been here before. Ckatz and Ruslik0, both admins, have a habit of deleting tags during ongoing disputs. (Ruslik0 also reverted the tag here; I have brought him to AN before for such behaviour, where it was described as unacceptable.) I made an edit to the lead of the article, one which covered information already in the text, Ckatz reverted it, told me to take it to talk, and I did so, tagging the article for POV. He then started deleting the POV tag despite the ongoing discussion, which he has not many any substantive contribution to. (I'm sure he'll have plenty of reasons why he shouldn't have to follow the rules, but he's involved in the dispute, and a POV tag for an NPOV dispute is routine.) — kwami (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I welcome any and all input as to your behaviour with respect to this ongoing matter. You have repeatedly and disruptively tagged multiple articles with "POV" banners simply because you have not been successful in convincing numerous other editors to accept your text. You have already been advised, warned, and even blocked with respect to this matter. You have repeatedly insulted and maligned good, solid, long-contributing editors in the Astronomy section with your tendentious and disruptive pursuit of your desires, to the point where you have ignored the outcome of RfC and strongly worded opinions from your peers. Frankly, this is not the proper forum - it should instead be some form of conduct review with respect to your behaviour. --Ckatzchatspy 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You are once again being careless with the facts. I was blocked for edit warring with you, not for posting POV tags. This is also not related to the previous dispute, which was over whether we should accept objects as DPs based on sources other than your preferred one, but on whether we should reflect varying definitions astronomers have of 'planet'—which are already in the article—in the lead. I have not had a dispute with anyone but you over this, there are no "numerous other editors" I have not convinced. There is a discussion on the talk page to resolve this, and as an admin you should know how that works. You don't edit war over removing POV tags just because you don't like the POV. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If an independent, uninvolved editor feels the tag should stay, I'd of course self-revert. However, you are clearly playing a game here and elsewhere and I again welcome any opportunity to shine a light on your behaviour at dwarf planet, planet, their talk pages, and any of the related articles. --Ckatzchatspy 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have taken a look at this dispute, and I have to agree with Ckatz. If an editor has to edit war to keep a "neutrality disputed" tag in an article, that's a sign that placing it there is probably not a good idea anyway. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If they were uninvolved, I would agree with you. I thought we were not supposed to remove tags until the dispute was resolved. Does this mean that if I disagree with someone and they tag the article because of our dispute, I'm free to remove it, and that if the other editor objects, they have no recourse? — kwami (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the article existed in approximately the same form for several years. And you have been well aware of its content. That you suddenly decided that it was so bad to warrant NPOV tag has no rational explanation except that you are trying to make a point. NPOV tags are very unusual for astronomical articles. Ruslik_Zero 10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I only recently became aware of Stern's position. I knew that he wanted to continue calling Pluto a planet, but didn't know the details. I obviously would not edit an article to reflect a POV I wasn't aware existed. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I am entirely uninvolved in this particular dispute, and as noted, agree completely with Ckatz that Kwamikagami's behavior is a problem. I have had a previous dispute with Kwamikagami at Astrology, in which he and I were both guilty of edit warring (to the exact same extent), and were both threatened with being blocked by Jayron32. Kwamikagami attempted to make certain changes to the lead of Astrology, and the resulting dispute revealed that he wasn't familiar with how astronomers use the term "planetary object" (see Talk:Astrology). Trying to impose one's preferred version of an article through edit warring is always bad, but it is especially bad when one isn't especially well informed about the subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Kwami, from reading the discussion on the talk page, there does not seem to be a consensus that a POV problem exists after several editors have commented. Removal of an NPOV tag at that point is not uncalled for. Since 3RR wasn't breached here (according to what you reported at least), your assertion seems to be that these edits were just unacceptable in general, and that's not the case. I'd advise you continue the conversation rather than worrying about the tag. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Seraph, please review the page history. The tag was not removed when other editors concluded that there was no POV problem. I do that myself. Rather, Ckatz removed the it as soon as I posted it, simply because he did not agree with it. That is unacceptable, and an admin should know better.
However, if you maintain that it is acceptable, I will know that if I ever revert someone's edits, and they tag the article POV instead of edit warring over it, I am free to delete the POV tag as well, simply because I don't feel it is justified. I trust you'll apply the same standard if they then bring me before AN? — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Radboner reported by User:DoriSmith (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None as yet—has moved too quickly.

Comments:

User:Pernoctator reported by User:RicardoKlement (Result: No action)[edit]

Comments:

I've consistently asked User:Pernoctator to use the Talk Page to discuss rather than removing scripts from that page. User:Pernoctator has also resorted to name-calling.... calling me a 'newbie' several times despite warnings on his Talk page about being civil. RicardoKlement (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

please see this user's previous edits he is a langauge warrior.there is a somewhat a consensus on not using scripts as per recent rfc on india related articles because of lot of langauge wars happening.also deepika padukone native tongue is not hindi.what is the rationale behind using hindi script.and newbie is not a abuse.he is a newbie.needs to learn.we all were newbies once upon a time.also the this user likes to issue bogus warnings.Pernoctator (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

All I was asking of the user in question is to discuss on the talk page before editing/removing content. A link to the RFC on the talk page would have avoided all this mess. I am no language warrior, if there indeed is a RFC, I will abide by it.