Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive182

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:70.66.196.240 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: April Fools' Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.66.196.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


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

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

Comments:

User persists in adding link to http://www.kevinkatovic.biz/blog/april-fools-day-pranks-for-2012/ , in some edits replacing an existing link while claiming to be deleting spam. Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For the continued reverting and spamming. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:McKhan reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484873085

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash Comments:
Mckhan broke the 3rr rule and he has been warned previously by others to not revert other peoples work on his talk page Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way but I have not broken the 3RR rule. Thanks. McKhan (talk)
Technically true, but the pattern of reverts is clearly edit warring. A really bad idea on an article that being closely watched. Kuru (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48/72 hours respectively. Warning left on article talk page for future discussions. Wifione Message 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AmandaParker reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)[edit]

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmandaParker (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash

Comments:
user will not discuss in talk page just edits and reverts work and has been warned about reverts previously Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Reporting editor Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. See above report. Wifione Message 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaychandra reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are warnings and explanations all over their talk page over the last few days

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kurmi#Shudra and subsequent sections.

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four clear reverts in the last 24 hours; was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Greyhood reported by User:Malick78 (Result: Self-revert)[edit]

Page: Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18]

The links at times contain a lot of info, but the main points that have been reverted 4 times are in the cruft-filled "Symbolism" section; about the gait of a troika, a "troika-bird" and some references to Gogol and Dead Souls. The first "revert" has a summary of "expand, add sources" - but readds sections from a previous version word for word - and hence I think I'm right in considering it a revert.

As can be seen here, there were two other reverts at 17:33 and 17:53 of a huge amount of material which partly overlaps with other material in later reverts, all within the 24 hours, but not the material I'm primarily reporting about.

The page is up for a DYK, which could be why the padding keeps being readded.

I previously warned Greyhood about 3RR here two months ago regarding a different page. That time he self-reverted, but not without an accusation or two of his own.

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

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

Comments.
Update: Greyhood has just self-reverted here. I feel he doesn't particularly feel sorry though - shown by his accusation (again, like last time) - that I am "gaming the system". I'm not. On Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video, on Putin, and 2011–2012 Russian protests, Greyhood has over the last few months consistently engaged in nigh-on edit warring (sometimes in conjunction with the about to be banned Russavia (btw, Greyhood provided the anti-Polish cartoon which is partly leading to Russavia's ban)) and should learn a lesson from this.

Malick78 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I've made a technical self-revert. The other editors asked me for the sources - I've provided them. If the sources were asked in correct and respectful way, that is by adding "citation needed" tags, I'd simply replace the tags with sources. But instead the whole material was outright deleted. So how could I have provided the requested sources without restoring it? Note that the editor Toddy1 on the talk found my addition of sources OK and helpful.[25] GreyHood Talk 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that editor Toddy1 reverted my self-revert [26]. GreyHood Talk 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hang on. This looks like gaming the system. User:Malick78 generally agrees with User:Mootros and both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood.
A neutral person would also have noted that User:Mootros is deleting the same material, over and over and over again. Notice how the paragraph explaining the naming of the donkey keeps being deleted (along with other stuff) in the following four edits
  • [27] 16:13-17:10 1 April 2012.
  • [28] 17:40 1 April 2012
  • [29] 06:54-07:43 2 April 2012
  • [30] 11:23-11:43 2 April 2012
Whatever is done to Greyhood, should also be done to Mootros and Malick78.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Erm, hang on: I've never had any contact with Mootros ever on WP. This is the first page we've ever been on together (as far as I know). I've never sent Mootros a message, and I don't think I've ever addressed Mootros directly on the talk page. How exactly have I gamed the system? This is an absurd, disingenuous, wild accusation. If you're suggesting that he and I both dislike cruft, then erm, I can't deny that. I haven't yet checked his edits above - but from what I've seen his edits have generally been fair and constructive. I'm still puzzled by how I've been accused of something. Are you saying I've coordinated edits with him? If so, that's simply a huge mistake (/barefaced lie).
"both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood" - Greyhood argues with everyone except the about-to-be-banned Russavia, and Toddy1! There are a dozen editors out there who, using your definition, are coordinating against him. He has weird views and likes to goad people. Check out the Putin talk page, for instance, or his co-authored with Russavia Polandball article, designed to goad Poles.
The fact that Toddy1 accuses me of "gaming the system", the phrase Greyhood used on his talk page regarding my actions, suggests Toddy1 and Greyhood are very close and, erm, gaming the system. As for me and Mootros, as said above, - don't know the guy/girl, never interacted with him/her. Feel free to prove me wrong. But don't make unfounded accusations to get Greyhood out of a jam.
Oh, and lastly, I see Toddy1 readded the material Greyhood deleted with his self-revert. Shame you couldn't have waited for an independent view of things here. (Btw, one problem with the info added is that it's sourced to an article which contains anti-semitic comments, showing it's not RS. On the talk page, Greyhood says he "can't see anything anti-semitic there" (I'm paraphrasing him). This is the level of discussion on the talk page, unfortunately :( And why there's an edit war going on... ) Malick78 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Malick78, your usual accusations on my part are irrelevant here. You have a long history of personal attacks and harassment against me, and please don't add more harassment on every next opportunity. I had no off-wiki contacts with user Toddy1, and whether you had contact with Mootros is really irrelevant - you game the system in the sense that you try to preclude me from editing some articles when you know perfectly that sources and editorial reason are on my side and you could do nothing about this except of accusing me in minorish mistakes or a breach of technical rules - in which case I'm always ready to self-revert and to concede I was wrong in overdoing with reverting, as well as I always recognize my mistakes. Another your attempt to undermine mine edits is your made-up claim of "anti-semitism" in one of the sources - the source just mentioned the Jewish ancestry of a subject of the article in a neutral way (is any mention of someone's Jewish ancestry antisemetism?), and the source is taken from the official site of the Club of the Heads of Regions of Russia, which is a high profile political institution, and mind you, Russia is multinational country with one of the regions being the Jewish Autonomous Oblast whose head is a Jew, Alexander Vinnikov - and after that you expect to see anti-semetism on the site of the Heads of Regions of Russia? Of course there is no anti-semitism, and overall there could be no anti-semitism on official high-profile political sites in Russia - otherwise there would be a huge political scandal. So please stop your gaming. GreyHood Talk 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A good faith warning of edit warring and reporting here would have warned and perhaps later reported both editors. Unfortunately Malick78 only reported the editor he disagrees with across a number of issues. This was not a good faith way to behave.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice Mootros's alleged breaking of the rules. I just noticed yet another revert from Greyhood, and focused on that. But the fact that Mootros may have broken the rules, doesn't let Greyhood off the hook. Please assume good faith, btw. Both of you.
As for racism (and I'm sure this isn't the place to go into it in depth), the source says "True, [Zhirinovsky] says everywhere, that he's been baptised, but it's not been excluded, that the leader of the LDPR, himself not realising it, is affected by rudimentary Judaism. He has not changed his genes." ("Правда, он везде говорит, что крещен, но не исключено, что лидер ЛДПР, сам того не осознавая, находится под влиянием рудиментарного иудаизма. Генетику никто не отменял.") I defy any non-involved editor here not to find an unsavoury anti-semitic subtext there. The subject of the article is Orthodox Christian, and the source is making snide comments about the fact that "really, he's kind of still Jewish". Malick78 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If you have a goal of finding an antisemitic context at whatever cost, surely you would be able to find it. As I said: if some ancestors of the protagonist of the article would have been in some way associated with troika harness (another subject of the article) - for example they would have been troika keepers or troika riders - and if some source would have written about those "troika genes" in connection to the subject of the article - would you call that racist? Of course not. GreyHood Talk 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The guy is whipping a donkey in the video, and he compares the donkey to Russia! His Jewish ancestry (from just one side, his father), is completely irrelevant.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The source analyses the symbolism of the video - and yes the video is symbolical - the guy claims that and multiple sources agree, and most educated persons in Russia or specialists in Russian literature would easily recognize that symbolism. That you deny it just show that you have not studied the subject and available sources well enough. The source analyses different aspects of symbolism in intricate detail, and in one aspect finds a possible connection to a Biblical subject, Messiah, and focuses on the fact that Messiah is relatively more important for the Old Testament and for Judaism, reminding that the author has Jewish background. This one is excessively intricate and loose connection in my view, but not entirely unreasonable - who knows what family traditions were in the guy's family, and as an Orthodox Christian and PhD in philology he must know the basics of the Old Testament anyway. The same source quite reasonably claims that the guy has a Soviet school background and that's why he must know the troika symbolism from the Russian literature course which includes Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol which includes a famous "troika-bird scene".
Really, all this pretty irrelevant to the 3RR, except for the fact that you have reverted me on a made-up pretext of non-existing "anti-semitism" in a source of a kind where anti-semitism is prohibited, and then I had to restore my edits adding more sources by the way. GreyHood Talk 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not the source is anti-semitic is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It is worth adding that Mootros and Greyhood are both good editors, who in their zeal to improve the article made a mistake without realising it. It would have been right to have warned both of them equally, and to report the first one who continued edit warring after the warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I and others have previously warned Greyhood about edit warring. It has made little difference to his editing. Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not want to talk about Mootros here, since I believe he finally has engaged in some form of dialogue with me, but you provoke me, Malik78, with your phrase "Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing." On 27 March, after Mootros started mass unexplained removals and ignored the call to respect WP:BRD, I proposed to avoid edit warring and said I would wait for the explanation of Mootros removals: "Mootros, I would not like edit-warring and I'm waiting for explanation for your removals (why this stuff was irrelevant) and why the used Russian sources were not good enough." Since that moment I ceased editing the article until the 1 April. In my second to last post in this section, I explained in detail why the removals by Mootros were wrong. I waited almost 5 days until the 1 April for explanations of these removals from Mootros, but the answer to my concrete and detailed post never came in that section. And subsequently he simply continued his removals, unexplained or poorly explained, even though an uninvolved editor came and asked him Why did you revert to the crappy version? GreyHood Talk 17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I looked at Greyhood's talk page and found the following:
--Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I totally forgot of that. Malick tried to game the system even then, with BLP, as now with anti-semitism. GreyHood Talk 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I reverted 4 times because Greyhood was adding material that suggested living people, Russian opposition activists, had visited the US embassy for nefarious reasons (the wording made it sound like they had something to hide). It violated WP:BLP, and therefore there was no limit to reverts. That's not gaming the system Greyhood. That is the system.Malick78 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That time, on the my last revert I removed the name of the video which was for some reason the source of concern to you - I thought that would be a compromise. But your aim was obviously to remove the entire section, that's why you gamed the system and made me to make revert, himself reverting 4 times on the pretext of BLP. Later the section was restored, but you removed the "embarassment" part from there. Basically, you made those two minor points the pretext for removing the entire section, which you did not like as a fan of the Russian opposition activists. Yet both the video title and the embarassement were all reflected in multiple reliable sources - including the source currently in the article [34], and there was no point to conceal those facts or to involve WP:BLP - which only states that "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." - these conditions were fulfilled. I could have refused to accept your unjustified censorship and your irrelevant BLP excuse that time, but I chose to avoid the dispute. But it was clear that you didn't think about improving the article on the whole - your point was to remove the entire section inconvenient to you by whatever means, and you gamed the system, using a small part as a reason for wholesale removal, misapplying BLP and ignoring the proposed consensus.
  • This time you again asked me to revert - despite the fact that it was already clear that such a revert would turn the Symbolism section into nonsense lacking cohesion and important context. Possibly you hoped that I would even remove the entire section in my self-revert. You ignored that in my last edit I added new relevant sources proving that I was right and that the material included to that section was all relevant, justified and needed in the article. Toddy1 did a right thing to revert my self-revert with a summary "this is silly - gaming the system", because by making me do it you degraded the article and disrupted the work on it - again, your aim was to game the system and to remove the material you did not like.
  • Basically you, Malick78, as well as Mootros, did not show any respect to the editor who created the article and added 99% of stuff and all sources - i.e. me. Instead of placing [citation needed] tags you constatly deleted the material completely, refusing to pre-discuss your removals on talk, to respect WP:BRD and to wait until we would reach consensus on talk or until I would provide sources- which I provided excessively. Mootros further complicated this by continuous placing of irrelevant tags to the article - which he was not able to justify. His/her constant merging of sections which should not have been merged also was no good, and (s)he did not discuss it. That all turned the article into a mess (noted by uninvolved editors). I waited for the explanation of Mootros's removals for 5 days - (s)he did not wait, ignored my arguments, ignored calls to discuss on talk until the end of the day today, and ignored WP:BRD. Yes, all that continuous mess resulted in some improvement of the article because I brought many new sources - but that could have been reached in a decent, constructive and respectable way, without constant removals, without reverts of referenced stuff, without ignoring the talk page or not waiting for the answer there. You call Mootros "constructive" - well, could you please name what (s)he or you have actually constructed in the article, other than several misapplied tags, undiscussed confusing merge of sections and constant disruption, which prevented me from adding new sources because you kept deleting the stuff? He got as far as nominated a plausible redirect for deletion, (s)he opened the 2nd and the 3rd standing requests for move on the article's talk page which totally confused the situation with current and future naming, (s)he tried to delete the more images and more text as possible - all ignoring calls to discuss and to reach consensus, ignoring proposed compromises. And I had to work on the article, to try to make a title matching to the name, to search and to add sources despite all this artificially created, disrespectful, and totally unneeded confusion. I was constructive - I created the article, I added sources, I added images, I structured and formatted it - you were just removing, placing unhelpful tags, ignoring BRD and talk page, refusing to wait, to discuss, to seek consensus, trying to delete more and more and more and overall being disruptive. GreyHood Talk 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You mention "disrespect", "BLP", and making the article a "mess", yet this is the article you started with the joke name Zhirinovsky's ass! It was an article named in such a way as to maximise the mocking of the target. How can you use the word "respect"?
  • Oh and here, Greyhood has removed a ref after I pointed out the source article was written before the subject of the WP article (the video) was ever made, and therefore couldn't have referred to it (his edit summary goes thus: "indeed, thanks for catching this - I was confused with the combination of words Zhirinovsky, troika, Chichikov and election campaign.. perhaps might be added later as an interesting fact that this comparison preceded the donkey ad"). It just proves my point that Greyhood is taking random articles that mention Zhirinovsky (in passing) and adds them to the article as if they contain notable content. They mostly don't.Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've already explained why I created the article under such name - I was using exclusively Russian sources for the coverage of recent events, and I only briefly glanced on the title of the first English-language source which I encountered - that was this: Zhirinovsky Explains why He Swatted Ass. So I used this term.
  • I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads. I still consider this source interesting and worth adding to the article, though in a slightly different capacity - 1) as a source for the novel contents 2) as an interesting fact that the comparison made by this source happened long before the main event of the article, and later was repeated by other commentators. If you can find I've done something wrong with other sources - go on. I do not claim my work was all perfect, but I await constructive help, not unfriendly criticism.
  • Yes, everyone should be respectful and follow WP:BRD and never make personal attacks. In particular, you should be grateful to me that I created the article in the first place if you are so interested in it. I really hope that you are interested in improving the article rather than in finding yet another place to conflict with me. GreyHood Talk 22:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, saying "I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads" is not good enough. If you aren't able to be accurate on an encyclopaedia, maybe you should rethink your participation? Blaming others isn't good enough. Here I caught you misrepresenting sources as well, and you just said: "I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly." Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging (there was one more time I caught you out doing exactly the same thing on another page, but I haven't yet found it. I'll keep trying).
  • As for you innocently calling the article Zhirinovsky's ass, I don't believe that for a second. It was a premeditated joke and was why you had a DYK associated with it for April Fool's Day. Malick78 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've made 90,000 edits on Wikipedia. 90,000 edits. Some of them were later deleted, reverted, contested, discussed, fixed, improved, expanded. Just as is typical in collegial editing. For some edits I was baited and for some I received barnstars and congratulations (sometimes those were the same edits actually). So, Malick, you seem either not to understand that all people sometime make mistakes (you too, remember that) and not to understand what is collegiality and collaboration, or simply you are too fixed on a conflict with me. If you have nothing else to do, go search further my mistakes or just things that you do not like or do not understand. I'll continue prefer constructive and productive editing (with inevitable share of mistaking), you may prefer WP:PAs, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:BATTLEGROUND - but where that would lead you?
  • As for the Zhirinovsky's ass, I know the double meaning of the word "ass", so what? In my personal experience "donkey" may be rather loosely interchanged with "ass", and the mention of the synonym in the donkey article as well as the existence of such articles as African wild ass all show that the term is acceptable on-wiki. And the first English-language source which I saw suggested me that usage is appropriate in political context too. GreyHood Talk 19:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he reads English? RIANOVOSTI 7 February 2012 has an article entitled "Zhirinovsky explains why he swatted ass".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - Self-revert. If the dispute continues, the article may be placed under full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Two weeks)[edit]

Page: Bahrani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Thread of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician, Chaldean, etc. origins and Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician+Chaldean+North Arabian =Bahrani people

Comments:

The editor has not breached the 3RR in 24 h, but engages in a long-term edit war on this article (see hist), showing clear indications of article ownership. He/she has been warned of edit warring and/or page ownership at least four times. All attempts to resolve the issue (on the article's talk incl. 3rd opinion, on Ashrf1979's talk page and on my own one) have been effectless. Co-operation and communication with the user seems impossible. --RJFF (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Two weeks. Long-term warring to insert unverifiable material about the history of the Bahrani people. This is an important article and we need to be vigilant about its correctness. Any admin may lift this block if the editor will agree to follow consensus in the future. If the editor really can't understand the problem, the next step is probably indef. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

66.108.2.128 reported by User:Acps110 (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: High Line (New York City) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.2.128 (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: diff

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

Comments:
66.108.2.128 seems hell bent on including a POV external link to the High Line article. Thus far has not responded to any messages left for him, but just continues to revert. Acps110 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(And he reverted a 6th time.) Acps110 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 72 hours. The editor made no attempt at discussion, but just keeps restoring his own external link. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.141.237 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Article semied)[edit]

Page: Bolero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.98.141.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
174.98.138.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

  • 1st revert: [40] 19:10, March 31, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 2nd revert: [41] 16:14, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 3rd revert: [42] 21:29, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 4th revert: [43] 05:41, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 5th revert: [44] 16:07, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 6th revert: [45] 18:50, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 7th revert: [46] 18:52, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 8th revert: [47] 21:54, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
  • 9th revert: [48] 22:29, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49][50]

Comments:

This person who edits from North Carolina under various IPs including 174.98.141.237 and 174.98.138.223 is a music fan who has very poor English skills and a wish to insert original research about Latin music topics. He was blocked for vandalism by Spencer on March 31.[51] The article Bolero is but one of the targets of this person: he has been edit warring on Salsa romántica, Timba, Cha-cha-cha (music), Guaracha, Pachanga, Dominican salsa, Johnny Pacheco, Mambo (music), Son (music), Son montuno, and Salsa dura. Recently, Drmies protected Salsa music for one month because of this guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


  • Second that. Refuses to discuss his edits despite multiple warnings in user talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexf blocked the IP for 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vikramadityabushahr reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [52]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] - entire talk page consists of warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Virbhadra_Singh#BLP_issues

Comments:

  • Update - this edit summary is perhaps significant. I had already raised the issue of weight, WP:BLP etc on the talk page but this contributor simply is not responding ... and now there appears to be a conflict of interest. The article needs to be adjusted, sure, but using consensus and with regard to our "not censored" stance. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. But I believe a trip to WP:COIN might be useful... Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Skyring (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:29, 2 Apr 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485246938 by Ianmacm (talk) grow up!")
  2. 23:35, 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485248144 by Ianmacm (talk) by what authority do you claim to know who this IP actually is?")
  3. 23:54 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Skyring (talk) please stop")
  4. 23:56, 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Ianmacm (talk) Ho hum, here we go again")

  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:
BLP article has been used to attack subject, who requested deletion. An IP editor, presumably subject, complains that harassment continues through minor edits by two editors previously advised by GK to cool it. Subject of article described as idiot by User:Malleus Fatuorum. Sigh.

Pete (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has never been used to attack the subject, who has simply objected to the inclusion of his date of birth (now removed, and never added by me) and made vague and unsubstantiated claims about its innacuracy. And since we don't know who the IP is I have called nobody anything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue here is your behaviour in edit-warring. I note that you added the word "allegedly" on the fourth and fifth reverts, whilst retaining the wording objected to by other editors. --Pete (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
But the issue really ought to be your behaviour in edit warring. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I think people can see quite well. And reverting BLP violations is exempt from WP:3RR anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
There were no BLP violations. Malleus Fatuorum 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source for your repeated assertions that Hawkins was 'an idiot'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The "reverts" are to restore a comment made by the editor on an article talk page -- as refactoring comments when the poster objects is considered improper, and repeatedly doing so when it is clear the poster objects to refactoring the remarks is improper, the person who is most culpable on that end is Ianmacm -- not Malleus. The proper course if it was seen as a WP:BLP violation would be to report it at BLP/N instead of edit war over what appears to be a fairly mild "claim" on a talk page. Search shows on article talk pages an innumerable usage of "idiot" -- I suggest the word is, in fact, in common usage and is not something which is a BLP violation on an article talk page. I would also note that I !voted "delete" on the article at issue. Collect (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Declined. The phrase which led to complaints is no longer on the talk page, and the dispute seems to have quiesced. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:76.97.19.69 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Three months)[edit]

Page: Cops (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.97.19.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Comments:
I'm not reporting somebdoy who has broken the 3rr rule, but somebody who has been edit-warring even when he has been told to not do so. This IP has been blocked three times and, due to the existing evidence is why I'm reporting him/her immediately. User:Qwyrxian warned him about this "game" he's been playing, but as he was unblocked, the edit-war returned. Further information can be found at User talk:76.97.19.69. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Cmach7 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: List of French monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmach7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [59]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:

Reverting a consensus of several editors, no edit summary given. Part of a larger pattern of slow edit-warring on this page to insert various parts of this larger reverted edit, in spite of numerous requests in edit summaries not to make these changes without Talk (See page history: [66]). Same editor similarly edit warring against consensus on other pages (i.e. Henry III of France), but hasn't violated 3RR.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 00:15, 00:57, 13:27, 14:13. Was warned by Agricolae at 13:54. Kuru (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.114.252.234 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Article semied)[edit]

Page: University of Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.114.252.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]


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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Ottawa> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:

This has been going on, literally, for months. This IP, as well as 24.114.252.240 and User:OttawaGreek have been adding material against consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.228.226.58 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.228.226.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus reported by User:DVdm (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Frank Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [88]

1st revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.
2nd revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"
3rd revert on 24-Feb-2012.
4th revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions
5th revert on 1-Apr-2012


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See message at template talk and long thread at Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7#Zappa Template., involving several users.

Comments:


User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) seems to behave in a rather disruptive way at Template:Frank Zappa and Frank Zappa discography. Yesterday I put this message at user's talk page ([90]).

Recent behaviour at Template:Frank Zappa is i.m.o. wp:disruptive.

First change to split on 19-Jan-2012, followed by properly motivated undo by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012
#1 revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.
#2 revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"
#3 revert on 24-Feb-2012.
#4 revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions
#5 revert on 1-Apr-2012 <== New
Edit by Aerosmith366 on 21-Jan-2012
Your #1 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by Aerosmith366 on 25-Jan-2012
Your #2 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012
...
Your #3 revert on 4-Feb-2012

User was pointed to the following items at wp:disruptive.

"Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
"'...'continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."
"repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

I asked to user to please not continue this form of slow edit warring by reverting again, unless they can establish a strong consensus on Template_talk:Frank_Zappa and/or Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template.

This resulted in

DVdm (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User was notified of this thread on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - After having removed this entire tread, user Wisdomtenacityfocus opened a dispute resolution noticeboard case [91], [92]. I merely made a short remark ([93]) there, as I don't think this is a content dispute, but rather a user who refuses to respect talk page consensus. Note that user also accuses me of ownership and vandalism, which is by no means the case. - DVdm (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - User has downgraded article classes of original discography, with edit summary "Since vandalism, quality of list has gone down, thus downgrade.", again labeling an edit with which they disagree as vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You removed massive chunks of the discography, clogged everything together despite clear distinction between compilation, studio and live releases, added links to articles which don't exist (Greasy Love Songs, a redirect to Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, the album of which GLS is an alt-title reissue) and an album which is claimed as a Zappa covers album but is actually a distinct solo album by Flo & Eddie which has only one Zappa song (Illegal, Immoral and Fattening). You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism. --WTF (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, the quality of the article was downgraded by your edits. Look at Dream Theater discography. Look at The Beatles discography. Look at Miles Davis discography. See a pattern? Notice how these artists' albums are not grouped together regardless of whether it is a live album, a studio album or a compilation produced either for promotion or after the artist's death? There are sources categorizing Zappa's albums thusly. Clearly this is not edit warring, but a content dispute on behalf of your attempt to own the article, list and template. --WTF (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed nothing of the discography. Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. I tried to have a conversation with you on the talk page about what other editors prefer. I never reverted anything regarding this issue. You also accused me of "aggressive attempt at article ownership" here. Please retract those accusations of bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have put a 4th level warning for personal attacks at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus: [94]. - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - In this statement at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard clerk TransporterMan (talk · contribs) wholly agrees with my analysis ([95]) that "that it is incumbent upon WNT to build a new consensus if he/she wishes to change the article, that he has not yet done so, and that pursuant to the consensus policy that the template and discography must retain the same organization as they had before he/she began making changes." Clerck requested WNT to produce a policy or guideline that would overrule the quoted policy regarding an established consensus of the community. - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - Again, after having removed my warning on their talk page, user has (this time on my talk page) falsely accused me of vandalism: [96]. See my reply. Can someone somehow stop this? - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - The case about this matter at wp:DRN was closed. See closing note. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.22.156.40 reported by User:216.16.232.250 (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.22.156.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

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

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

Comments:

The dispute is about whether HK416 should be mentioned in the article. My argument is: It's an M16 variant only in the same sense as Bizon is an AK-47 variant. The crucial part of the rifle design has nothing to do with M16, despite it having many interchangeable parts. The reported user has not countered that and resorted to insults ([104]). Note: user has been warned about edit warring on the article page before ([105]). He appears to regularly blank edit warnings on his talk page. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The following is a transcript of discussion in question....

Removed paragraph about HK416 - basically, it's a G36 with AR-15 furniture. It is only an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk)

Again,removed HK416: a manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business; it's an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts - not automatics (crucial for reliability) finally, the HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...even you stated that it has large number of interchangeable parts...in fact, with the exception of the gas system all of the parts are in interchangeable...even the H&K 416 names reference that it's and M16 variant...I challenge to provide a reputable source to prove otherwise. Also you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways. Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways. 1) A business can claim things that aren't true in the literal sense for advertising purposes. 2) If an invention is a variant of another invention but possess significant difference it will be issued a separate patent; the HK are the license-holders for HK416. It's a variation, but it's irrelevant. You could add as much sources that refer to HK416 as an M16 variation - it would still be irrelevant. Especially in the reliability section - which has nothing to do with the M16 design. Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way. HK416 has to be mentioned in the article, alright. But in a different light - the US Army has finally realized that AR-15 is beyond salvation and purchased a foreign design instead. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...it is up to you to provide a references that say that it is not an M16 variant...those reference also stated that the H&K 416 is used by the U.S. Military which is indeed relevant to the article...the burden of proof is on you...before you can remove reference content, you have to prove your point and you have offered nothing but your personnal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute it's an M16 variant. But I've given valid reasons why it's not relevant - 1) the design rights belong to Heckler und Koch 2) crucial part of the design - the gas system - has nothing to do with M16, and, consequently, it's reliability.216.16.232.250 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who holds the design rights to the HK 416's short-stroke gas piston...this aricle is not about design rights...it's a "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16"...The reliability section content is based on the AK-47 long-stroke gas operation system and the M16 direct impingement gas system and the fact that the new HK 416 (which you now admit is an M16 variant) is using a short-stroke gas piston is totally relevant.

The facts speak for themselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected This is not the place to continue the content dispute. Since both parties are edit warring, I've protected the page for a short period to encourage discussion. Please get consensus before making any other changes to the page. If the edit war continues after the protection expires, both parties may be blocked. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've only started editing the article. There are still some blatant innacuracies that need to be fixed. I would abstain from editing the HK416 part until the issue is resolved on talk page, if the article is unlocked. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Von Restorff reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page: Jon Driver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Von Restorff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [106]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:

User continues to revert despite consensus on talk page.

Response

Consensus reached on talkpage on 13th. We have a majority on one side of the debate, supported by the likes of Jimbo Wales ("I think that on balance, we should follow the sources, and view his manner of passing as not worthy of mention.") and WP:Persondata ("Be specific, but not to the point of listing a street address. Usual formats are City/Village, State/Province, Country; or City/Village, country; or State/Province, Country; etc."). Naraht & TerriersFan responded to Jimbo's comment, but he did not respond back and the debate died down a bit. It seemed like they would accept it and drop their sticks. On the 17th TerriersFan wrote: "Since no objection has been raised after over four days, I have added the cause of death as reported by The Times". I wrote: "Against consensus. Bad move.". He wrote: "I made a proposal to put Drivers suicide in the article, in a way as Jimbo says "the way the best sources have handled the question" - no objection, except from you, has been made." My response was: "Where? And where is the consensus? If you would've had consensus for the changes you made it would've been easy to answer these two simple questions.". It is probably a good idea to protect this page; that gives us time to focus on using the talkpage instead of reverting. Von Restorff (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Von Restorff, you are clearly edit warring and you could be blocked right now for that. And the fact that you claim you have consensus on your side in no way justifies your actions. I understand you're acting in good faith and doing what you think is best for the encyclopaedia and, therefore, I'm not going to block you for the moment. Please realise, however, that a. another admin may decide to block you, even if I'm inclined to let this one slide and b. if you revert once again, I'll have to sanction you. Please, discuss on the article's talk page and follow WP:DR, but do not revert any more. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:184.2.174.194 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Article semied)[edit]

Page: Marek Edelman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.2.174.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:184.2.174.194

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:

The IP editor has just returned from a 24-hour block and begun the same behavior, at the same article, that led to the previous block. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by Y00tu (talk) (Result: Boomerang)[edit]

Page: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:53, 4 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Y00tu (talk): KPOV The Korean interpretation of the report is not needed. (TW)")
  2. 13:59, 4 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Y00tu (talk): POV If you think the addition is needed ask for consensus first on the talk page. (TW)")
  3. 15:52, 4 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 485526364 by Qwyrxian: restore. That's what the report said. (TW)")
  4. 20:04, 4 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Y00tu (talk): POV and undue weight. (TW)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Y00tu (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Y00tu reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Y00tu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: taken care of.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East#Terribly unbalanced, stubbing was the only solution

Comments:

Note, first, that diff 4 above may not count as a revert, as that could arguably be adding new material. But that still leaves 4 reverts in 24 hours. Also, I'll file an additional report on the other part (User:Oda Mari) next. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


First of all, content existed long before my edit.[123] On this case, POV pusher is Oda Mari. Second, You have no clue what is POV pusing. Adding changed US. govt. stance is not POV pushing. Deleting Changed US. govt. stance is Japanese POV. Third, My edit are adding, correcting, by discuss of talk page, Those are not violate 3RR rule. However, Oda Mari exactly reverted 4 times without any consensus. Even his last reverting is no discuss at talk page.

By the way, I know both are Japanese editors. But attacking one editor by tag play is possible case of Tag team or meatpuppetry.

Wikipedia:Tag team Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). --Y00tu (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: done.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: While I did not warn Oda Mari directly, 1) she was participating in the thread on User Talk:Y00tu where xe was warned (see report on Y00tu above) and, more importantly, Oda Mari is a very experienced user with lots of DR experience, so I am certain she is aware of the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East#Terribly unbalanced, stubbing was the only solution

Comments:

Note that I make this report with great regret. Oda Mari is a very good editor. Furthermore, in this case, she is 100% correct: the versions that Y00tu is attempting to revert to are direct and fairly obvious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Unfortunately, such violations are not an exception to WP:3RR, and since it is necessary that I report the other user to stop disruption, I am compelled to report Oda Mari as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I commentes above. By the way, "Oda Mari is a very good editor. Furthermore, in this case, she is 100% correct" Because You agreed his POV pushing ? Wow. How neutral point of view you have. Because your POV pushing is OK. Adding changed US govt. stance are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR? I think you misleading seriously. --Y00tu (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian reported by Y00tu (talk) (Result: Boomerang)[edit]

Page: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:39, 2 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* After the Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East */ First, much of this is directly copied from one of the refs; second, there's no clear evidence it's about this report; finally, it's POV")
  2. 21:41, 2 April 2012 (edit summary: "This is all basically a copy of the report, including some EXACT copies. That's not how WP articles work. I will rewrite")
  3. 21:57, 2 April 2012 (edit summary: "Timeline was unreferenced, and not really about this report. cut this down to a 2 sentence summary; see talk")
  4. 22:04, 2 April 2012 (edit summary: "add section on LR, since a little focus seems ok")
  5. 14:32, 4 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* U.S. government stance */ You cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that the documents ar