Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive194

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:131.217.255.209 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 131.217.255.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:43, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 507962969 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
  2. 06:44, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  3. 09:23, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  4. 10:00, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508589195 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
  5. 11:25, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Consensus sought")
  6. 14:35, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508612946 by Frickeg (talk) No, it is correct, Howard is no liar.")
  7. 23:46, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508698693 by Frickeg (talk) Analysing the content page shows the consensus is this, not the wrong information.")
  8. 01:18, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Authoring a bunch of pages on Wikipedia and saying "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" apply to so and so does not make it so. Timeshift9 is the originator of this content and is redefining what the party's ideology against PM Howard.")
  9. 01:26, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting incorrect content in accordance with talk page consensus.")
  10. 01:40, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508712951 by Timeshift9 (talk) Vandalism")
  11. 01:44, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting the wrong information is not vandalism. This is ridiculous. Look it up anywhere. It is not correct.")
  12. 05:34, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508731023 by Timeshift9 (talk) Unexplained reversion of content.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users violating 3RR on that page:
A certifiable mess. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, sorry I overstepped 3RR there - I had no idea, considering they were two entirely separate issues, one a pretty uncontroversial one, on a fairly busy page. Nonetheless, mea culpa. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics I won't action this, but I think that full page protection is the best response. There's nothing to be gained from blocking Timeshift9 and Frickeg, both of whom are highly experienced and very sensible editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Will leave a note on the article talk page. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Page protected)[edit]

I came to CBS Records by following an incoming link and was surprised that the article was about the 2006 incarnation of the company, so I tried to add the missing information.

Page: CBS Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [1] I add list of presidents and he reverts back to his original version.
  • 2nd revert: [2] I add references and reword the lede and he reverts back to his original version.
  • 3rd revert: [3] I add more references and add sections on the two incarnations of CBS Records as a compromise and he reverts back to his original version.
  • 3rd revert: [4] I change back to the dual RCA Records version and point out all the incoming links are to the earliest incarnation of the company, and he reverts back to his original version, then the article is locked. There are ~1,500 incoming links for RCA Records (1962-1988) and maybe 4 or 5 for RCA Records (2006). He insists the 1,500 links belong to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records which are other business entities with relationships to RCA Records (1962-1988). Sony Music Entertainment bought RCA Records in 1988 and gained ownership of the Columbia Record label and the Epix Records label.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

Comments:

  • There are two incarnations of CBS Records as a business entity and there are 1,300 internal links to the article for CBS Records (1962-1988). Steelbeard1 insists that only the 2006 business entity should be in the article and reverts any and all changes to the article back to his version despite the addition of a half dozen references in the article from the New York Times and Billboard to the CBS Records (1962-1988) company with its own president. He insists that the CBS Records (1962-1988) version should be called Columbia Records despite the business news referring to it as CBS Records. Business structure is complex so we have to go with what the reliable sources use. If the New York Times says Clive Davis is the president of CBS Records and doesn't print a retraction, we have to assume that business entity existed and that is the correct name for it. For instance the New York Times reports: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. At the time, he signed a multiyear contract that was believed to have included a $20 million bonus. Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971. He had joined the company a decade earlier as a lawyer." All these internal links are to the earlier business entity and have nothing to do with the 2006 version of the company. If he wants to create a separate article called "CBS Records (2006)" he is welcome. That will take care of any links that may belong to the new business entity and save the hundreds of incoming links to the old entity. Here is my version of the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That material belongs in the Sony Music Entertainment article. Once again, this incarnation of CBS Records was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. All material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records company belong in the Sony Music Entertainment article and all material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records label belong in the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sony Music Entertainment is a conglomerate that owns Columbia Records, Epic Records, RCA Records, Provident Label Group, Verity Gospel Music Group, Legacy Recordings, Columbia Records UK, RCA Label Group (UK) as businesses merge we don't make one massive article and redirect the older companies, we preserve previous business entities. None of the incoming links are to the 2006 business entity. We still have articles on all the companies that were bought by General Motors and by Volkswagen and by Ford. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
BEFORE CBS Records changed its name to Sony Music in 1991, its label portfolio included Columbia Records, Epic Records, CBS Records UK (now Columbia Records UK) and Legacy Recordings. After Sony Music merged with then acquired BMG Music, it added RCA Records among other labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute in which Richard Arthur Norton is inserting erroneous material involving the current incarnation of CBS Records. The 2006 incarnation of CBS Records is unrelated to earlier incarnations of CBS Records. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and gave only a temporary license for Sony to use the CBS name. So in 1991, the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment. The allowed later CBS parent CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. So besides the hatnote to direct the reader to either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertaiment article as well as the brief mention in the CBS Records article, all material regarding the former CBS Records entities belong in the Columbia Records or Sony Music Entertainment articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hundreds of incoming links are to the pre 1988 CBS Records. Reliable sources in GNews all refer to a business entity called "CBS Records" prior to the new incarnation in 2006. Clive Davis was president. CBS Records is not a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment or for Columbia Records. Business subsidiaries are complex so we have to rely on what the reliable sources say. If the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Variety and Billboard all refer to "CBS Records" prior to 2006, we have to go with the reliable sources even, if an editor says the truth is that CBS Records did not exist prior to 2006 as a business entity, and is just a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment and/or Columbia Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
They are not the HUNDREDS of links which Norton refers, to. The link in the Talk:CBS Records page number more in the dozens so they are being corrected one by one. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)\
Here are the first 500 links here are the second tranche of 500 links here. Here is the third tranche of 391 links here for a total of 1,391 incoming links or which maybe a dozen are administrative links and not article links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, on January 1, 1991, the CBS Records company was renamed Sony Music and the CBS Records label was renamed Columbia Records so any article from 1991 on which mention CBS Records are erroneous. See the news article at [7] Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also like a ban on Steel from delinking the ~1,300 incoming links in other articles until the issue is settled. He is currently changing the CBS Records links to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. Business and legal entities are complex, and by changing the link you are changing the meaning of the content. If a reliable source says the group is signed to CBS Records we should not be changing it to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. We need more reliable sources and less "truth". When you change the link you are making a subtle distortion from what the reliable source says is the correct business entity a group has signed with, they are not synonyms in either plain English or in the business world or in the legal world --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That leads to misleading errors so the corrections must be make. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You are misleading readers when you link to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records when the reliable source says the business entity is called CBS Records. At Wikipedia we go with what the reliable source says and not what the editor feels the truth is. "Sony Corp., which acquired CBS Records Inc. in 1988, will change the music company's corporate name to Sony Music Entertainment Inc. under the terms of the aquisition agreement, the company announced Monday. CBS Inc. had agreed to allow Sony to use the CBS Records name for three years. The name change will take effect Jan. 1, 1991, but it won't affect the company's domestic record labels, which are Columbia, Epic, Associated and WTG." The business entity of record is CBS Records and the subsidiary labels are Columbia Records or Epic Records. They are not synonyms, so stick to what term the reliable sources use, and not what you feel the truth is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Source, please. Since January 1, 1991 the official business entity of the parent company of Columbia Records and Epic Records is Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Dude, no one is arguing with that. The 1,300 incoming links are to the business entity known as CBS Records that existed from 1962 to 1988 and that business name was used by Sony until 1991. Changing the article over and over to your version of the truth doesn't override how reliable sources use the name. The business entity is CBS Records from 1962 to 1988 and is not synonymous with Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records or Epic Records. Business entities are not synonyms, you can't use the subsidiary in the place of the larger business. We have to stick to the term the reliable source uses, so as not to cause semantic drift away from the original meaning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Steel is speeding up his changes to articles that link to CBS Records since I posted the request for it to be stopped. Can I have a decision by an admin person to put the changes on hold while consensus is forming. Steel is causing Semantic drift in the information by linking the corporate name CBS Records to one of the subsidiary labels which is not the correct legal entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Norton is STILL in the wrong here. The CBS Records article is strictly about the 2006 incarnation. There are already hatnotes directing the reader to the correct former CBS Records entity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think the reason for that is because you stripped all the other information from the article and reverted it to your version 4 times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If Norton bothered to read the hatnote on the top of the CBS Records article, it reads: This article is about the record label founded in 2006. For the earlier CBS Records label, see Columbia Records. For the earlier CBS Records company, see Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
In essence we have 1,300 votes from reliable sources that CBS Records (1962) is the proper landing page and not CBS Records (2006). Columbia Records and CBS Records and Sony Music Entertainment and Epic Records are not interchangeable synonyms. It is also bad-faith editing to continue to make changes to links while an Administrators' noticeboard notice has been posted and not been resolved. You are changing the 1,300 incoming links before a decision on consensus has been made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The proper landing place for the 1962 CBS Records is Columbia Records as the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991. The intro mentioned the 1962-1990 CBS Records label at the start of the Columbia Records article and the history section begins with the 1960s subsection of the Columbia Records article which shows the "walking eye" CBS Records logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Beeblebrox. Take your content dispute to the article talk page. This page is not the place for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Guanxi reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guanxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]

Addendum

Suggestion When showing diffs, it is very helpful to put them in chronological order.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
13:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] [11]

Comments:
This editor doesn't have a lot of interest in discussion, he seems mainly interested in pushing through his changes over the objections of other editors. He wants to remove material on the basis that information from Reuters and the NY Times isn't reliably sourced, but when it suits him he sees nothing wrong adding coatrack material based on hearsay about a person's Facebook, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. Unfortunately, racking up 5 reverts in 20 minutes makes this situation impossible to deal with without admin intervention. Belchfire-TALK 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you can see plenty of discussion and compromise on my part, as well as purely constructive edits going back a long way.
  • Some of the edits Belchfire cites could not possibly be mistaken for reversions. Some even advanced Belchfire's POV.
  • The only thing I reverted (without violating 3RR) was from an editor who declined to provide an NPOV RS citation for his statement. He asserted that the organization's own website and a Wikipedia page were sufficient (but still didn't cite them in the article). If you look at the talk page and his user talk page, I tried to help him and even offered to post the cite if had reached the 3RR limit.
  • The last edit Belchfire cites was changed, by me, moments later, to attempt to compromise with Belchfire. Unless something has changed since I last looked, Belchfire has offered no compromise.
  • This complaint seems like an waste of my time and this page.
guanxi (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


I noticed that Belchfire claimed all of the edits were reverts to [12], but that's clearly not the case. Would Belchfire please identify what version he believes each one is a revert to? Otherwise, this case should be thrown out due to false evidence.

I'd also like to point out that this article is under WP:BLP, so we should not be including material unsupported by citations. That's precisely the issue with the "social welfare" claim. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A ludicrous claim if ever I saw one. The BLP exemption only applies to material that is potentially libelous. If there is anything of the sort going on here, it is to be found in diff #5, above, where such material was added by way of edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What's ludicrous is that you apparently didn't read WP:BLP. We do not get to insert uncited material in BLP's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The relevant policy here is WP:3RR. Purely for your benefit, since I'm quite sure everybody else understands it, here is the exemption: "7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since this is the EW noticeboard, anything else about BLP you would like to discuss is irrelevant here. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note again that what are incorrectly listed as reverts 2 and 5 are not actually restoring http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Operations_OPSEC_Education_Fund&diff=508881140&oldid=508879554, the way Belchfire claimed. It's not clear what, if anything, they're reverts to, and it's not our job to guess. Belchfire has to do his part in making the case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is clear at this point. Note that when the other editor (mentioned in my second bullet point above) eventually provided a valid citation, I not only supported it on the Talk page, but repeated his/her statement and cite elsewhere in the article: [13] [14]. I'm going to move on to other things now; hopefully I'm no longer needed on this noticeboard. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even clearer than that - 6 reverts in 75 minutes, over the objections of other editors and mostly prior to any meaningful discussion. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear at all: reverts to what? Your report falsely claims they were all reverts to a single version. Fix your report or close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
To the same article. And the issue is not even close - for a BLP exception the edit must clearly relate to a single person or small group of people -- to call an organization a "social welfare" organzation is not a BLP violation, and can not be used to excuse a revert on that basis. Guanxi is a "proper cop" here, despite jis opinion that this page "is a waste of time." The idea of WP:EW is to get folks to listen to the rules -- and the doscourse here by him (essentially "I don't care") is singularly unimpressive. Collect (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
To what version? Belchfire has made a false claim. I'm giving him the chance to correct it by specifying, for each revert, what it's reverting to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if "reverts" 2 and 5 were not real reverts, that still leaves 4. And, you (at least) still don't understand the meaning of "revert" for 3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The report may not be properly formed (and it would be helpful to note, at the least, for each "revert", which edit was being (partially) reverted), but there's probably enough meat there for the closing admin to determine the facts of the matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that StillStanding-247 has a history of edit warring and has been blocked for such behavior, this is not surprising. --Mollskman (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────The history is messy, but let me see if I can make some sense of it. I see five clear reverts of different material, but two were made consecutively (with no other users' edits in between).

  • Reverts adding the text "...has taken extreme positions against President Obama..." that had previously been removed here:
[15], [16].
  • Reverts removing the words "social welfare" that had previously been added here:
[17], [18], [19].

The first revert in each series were made in the same string of edits, and thus count as one revert, which gives us a total of 4RR.

Additionally, as best as I can tell, it looks like User:ViriiK and User:StillStanding-247 were both at 3RR, User:Belchfire was at 1RR or 2RR (depending on whether you call the first edit a revert or a bold edit), and User:Kenatipo, User:Arthur Rubin were at 1RR. In other words, protecting the article was a smart move.

In summary, the 6RR report was inflated, but there was a 4RR violation. That said, a block at this point would probably be more punitive than preventative, and I don't have an opinion on whether one should be issued. I commented because things seemed to be getting confused here so I thought I'd jump in and try to clear up the picture. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do Belchfire's work for him. Still, I'm pretty sure I was at 2RR, since that's my voluntary limit, but you're right that it doesn't matter so I won't dispute it. In the first place, it's not as if Guanxi was acting much differently than other editors, and now that the article is protected, blocking him would be punitive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding-247, 4rr, 3rr, 2rr, it doesn't really matter since you are still edit warring and have a history of doing such and have been blocked in the recent past for the same. Keep using the talk page. --Mollskman (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, no, I'm not. It's entirely normal for edits to include reverts even when you're not edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just getting back to this ... I didn't realize 3RR applied to the whole page or I wouldn't have violated it; I thought it was just for reverting one edit. I'll know next time. So many rules, so little time ... I wish people would just focus on finding constructive agreements, as we did with the "social welfare" wording. guanxi (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Opn800 reported by User:Sionk (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: User talk:Sionk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opn800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26][27]

Comments:
I'm not sure where else to ask for help. Opn800 has been resorting to personal abuse for several hours on my Talk page, following disagreements with a number of editors about changes to articles he has created. I (and another editor) have removed snide/sarcastic comments from my Talk page but these have been repeatedly reverted by Opn800. I have asked him to desist and explained it will be impossible to engage in constructive discussion until he does so. He is already aware of 3RR rule because of his actions on 'his' articles today. He has also received a formal warning from another editor about 'vandalism' to my Talk page. Sionk (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 31 hours for general disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mollskman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [28](for all but last)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
While we'd be entirely within policy if we blocked him, I recommend page protection, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that Still did not report ArdenHathaway which he's now at 6RR+'s reinserting the same off-topic content. I would suggest that the page is to remain off page protection or at least PP without the offending off-topic material. ViriiK (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Read up on page protection and you'll see that you don't get to demand that the "right" version is frozen in place. I didn't report Arden because he's obviously new here, so it would be punitive. Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So you conveniently ignored the rules on 3RR in order to accept ArdenHathaway's 6RR+ violations? You warn me and other users consistently of breaching 1RR and yet you are giving a pass to this edit-warrer? Did you even warn him that he broke the 3RR rule? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
And also unlike Mollskman, Arden engaged in personal attacks against other users. User_talk:ArdenHathaway#August_2012 ViriiK (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Still how can you make this statement Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. when anyone can go to the talk page and see it to not be true. Arden has made two comments on talk, Mollskman has made 9 (as of this comment). Arzel (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, Arzel, he used the talk page to attack other editors who were opposed to his inclusion on the basis that they are all paid PR flacks. ViriiK (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This is all interesting, but how does it relate to protecting this page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. ArdenHathaway blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and for personal attacks. Mollskman warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the drama and I will try not to repeat this. --Mollskman (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ArdenHathaway reported by User:ViriiK (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArdenHathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] This was the user's only response to the talk page and he used a personal attack to accuse other editors of being paid PR flacks against Kathryn Bigelow. I am not a participant to that conversation. I did not edit there and I do observe that this user is edit-warring to reinsert the same contested material over and over again without even coming to consensus for insertion. ViriiK (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

There's a massive, ongoing edit war here. Rather than single out this editor, I suggest page protection. I suggested it when I reported another editor, and I've also formally requested it.[45] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so massive as you make it out to be. An admitted Kathryn Bigelow fan is edit-warring to reinsert the same offending material over and over again. As per above, you failed to warn him, knew he was edit-warring thus ignored his edit-warring habits and also he did not discuss on the talk page as you claimed him to have done so but instead used personal attacks claiming those who were opposed to his insertions were "Paid PR flacks". Mollskman has been a more active participant in the talk page unlike ArdenHathaway. ViriiK (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As the article has already been protected, a block would be inappropriate. If ViriiK's allegations are correct, a warning would be appropriate. An extension of 3RR to ignore the time the article was protected, for the purpose of defining "24 hours", might be appropriate, although I don't recall that ever having been done before. And I believe I've edited the article, so my opinions here are not as an admin, but as an interested editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, but exactly one of the editors was blocked. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:74.14.85.152 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.14.85.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Dr.K. reported by User:Cinque stelle (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [54]


User was warned on the Tenedos talk page, the history page, as well as my own talk page where he threatened to block my account. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:Dr.K. continues to make edits and reverts in violation of WP:TPYES. Guidelines state that editors should: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Dr.K. attempts to shift the discussion to speculate about WP editors. His activity is disruptive of the community attempt to find a solution to the name Tenedos/Bozcaada page name dispute.

Cinque stelle (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. This is a problem with the reporter refactoring other editors' comments on the Talk page. I have advised the reporter accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )[edit]

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings [70] [71] and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:DanielUmel is still engaging in low intensity edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo article. He is totally ignoring talk page consensus and reliable sources. DanielUmel is a persistent problem user with only two modes; huge problem user and lesser problem user (the latter behaviour being only when he is the subject of a noticeboard incident like right now, this being the third such incident that I know of). Action needs to be taken. حرية (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

  • Revert by Gussss: [73]
  • Revert by Dr. Vicodine: [74]
  • Addition then reverted by Gussss: [75]
  • Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine: [76]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page: [79]

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Statesman1 reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Needs to go to WP:AE )[edit]

Page: Six-Day War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Statesman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]


User advised in 2009 to discuss on Talk rather than "continually reverting": [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Informed user of this report: [86]

Comments:

This article is under 1RR, however this report isn't a 3RR or 1RR report as such, rather this involves general edit-warring behaviour.

This account has been sporadically active since 2009, this year largely in the article in question here. The issue involves the "Background" section of the article, which was discussed on the talkpage with an eye to making it shorter. User:Statesman1 has repeatedly (four times, see diffs above) inserted information in this section: 1) that a UN resolution was vetoed (i.e. not adopted), and 2) that Egypt prepared to perform (but did not perform) attacks in Israel. No sources have been provided to the effect that either event would have been key or central to the unfolding of the events leading into the Six-Day War. To the contrary, User:Statesman1 has removed from the section text stating that border provocations were actually done, which is identified in an academic source as an important factor in the deterioration of the situation toward war.

Therefore it seems very much that the motive in this edit-war is the pushing of an agenda, rather than an attempt to identify the most relevant material to include. As the editor has refused to engage in the Talkpage concerning this content, I feel that a sanction is in order, for example a block regarding the Six-Day War page only. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I'm declining this solely for procedural reasons, and am not saying that there was or was not edit warring. Since this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA, this really should be handled as a request for arbitration enforcement. This is important because edit-warring in this area generally results in more serious consequences, needs to be understood in the context of other people's actions, and needs the eyes of admins with experience in the enforcement area. Apologies for making you go through another step, but if the report is valid, it's likely that stronger sanctions need to be placed than a short block, and a topic ban is really outside the remit of this board. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

  • Revert by Gussss: [88]
  • Revert by Dr. Vicodine: [89]
  • Addition then reverted by Gussss: [90]
  • Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine: [91]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page: [94]

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientiom reported by User:Lionelt (Result:protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [95]

  • 1st revert: [96] changed "practicing homosexuals" to "LGBT people"; which is a revert of this [97]
  • 2nd revert: [98] changed "practicing homosexuals" to "gays and lesbians"
  • 3rd revert: [99] added quotation marks to "practicing"; this is not a minor change: the scare quotes change the meaning of the word and represent a legitimate POV issue
  • 4th revert: [100] is a revert of [101] which re-added the disputed "Demar/SPLC" item


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Demar/SPLC discussion

Comments:

Editor was blocked a couple of months ago for 48 hours for edit warring [103] on Marriage. The subject relating to the 4th revert (Demar/SPLC) is currently the focus of a 2 day old edit war that had just subsided. The issue is currently under discussion and the revert was extremely poor judgment. The discussion is barely a day old! Why try to restart an edir war? Why not wait until consensus is reached?

I alerted Scientiom to the problem but they refused to do the right thing. I wrote on Scientiom's talk page: "You are at 4RR at American Vision. This is your lucky day. Editing has slowed down, and if you hurry back there, you might just be able to self-revert..." But unbelievably they did not take the chance to self-revert. Instead Scientiom responded "I'm at 1RR not 4RR." When it was pointed out that Scientiom was over 3RR at another article (YCRBYCHI) they personally attacked me writing "stop the lies." – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. You neglected to notify Scientiom of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend Scientiom, but I'd like to suggest that you might want to look at the history of this article. The people reporting the edit warring are themselves quite guilty of edit-warring. You could block them all, or you could protect the page. I politely recommend the latter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong wrong wrong. I reported the the 4RR violation and I am not edit warring. You statement is completely erroneous. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I did say "people". You're not a people, you're just one person. There are a bunch of people -- many of whom are members of your WikiProject Conservatism and others who are followers or fellow travelers -- who are edit-warring. You're filing this on behalf of your people because your hands are cleaner, but their hands are not. This is a common pattern. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You are on very dangerous ground with these accusations, StillStanding. To say that Lionel is "filing this on behalf of his people" is an absurd claim that should be withdrawn immediately. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Which part is absurd? That you, ViriiK and some of the other people reverting against Scientiom are all associated with Lionel's project? That Lionel has a habit of doing the filing? That he's not at likely to revert as his people are? Which part of this is false? As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply explaining what "people" means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm a part of his project? News to me. Drop the accusation game now and retract your crap. ViriiK (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not part of his project either. StAnselm (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Another thing is, do you see me reverting any of Scientom's edits? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that many of the recent reverts were by Belchfire, who is an official member of WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody imagine the hue and cry if somebody were to make this same allegation against members of Wikiproject-LGBT? Belchfire-TALK 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because WikiProject LGBT doesn't act anything like WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't play admin and decide they're edit-warring. It is pretty clear that Scientom is edit-warring but don't be passing recommendations to the admins here. They can decide for themselves on the appropriate steps to take. Meanwhile, you are basically accusing him of conducting a WP:BATTLEGROUND which is clearly not the case per the talk page of that article. ViriiK (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you don't need to be an admin to recognize edit-warring. I'm also pretty sure there's nothing wrong with asking admins to look for themselves and decide if they also recognize edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I am outraged and incensed at this unwarranted and unprovoked personal attack. I categorically deny this outrageous falsehood. I did not file this report on behalf of anyone. I did not coordinate my editing with anyone. I am not a meatpuppet. I have 30000 fucking edits. Why the fuck would I be a fucking meaqtpuppet????? I don't need to coordinate with anyone. I have been here 3 years. I know what the hell I am doing. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC) This is crazy that we are all putting up with this bullshit. I just can't believe how many editors he does this to and NOONE does anything about it.' WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?!?!? – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I have 3 bronze stars 3 green plusses over a dozen DYKs and a page full of barnstars. I always edit my own pages when I want to edit them and noone ever tells me what to do ever. I do not need anyone to HELP ME or DIRECT ME to edit ANYTHING.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I am "not likely to revert" because unlike you I HAVE A CLEAN BLOCK RECORD and I do not edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) What really pisses me off is that I had no intention of even filing this report. I literally pleaded with Sciention to SELF REVERT. But he foolishly chose NOT TO. I told him he was at 4RR. I told him he had time to self-revert. How is any of this my fault????? So chose not to self-revert. He had his chance. At the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopedia------NOT TO EDIT WAR. So he gets reported. Not my fault.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no personal attack here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You accuse me of filing a report for someone else IE MEATPUPPETRRY and you have the unmitigated gall to say "no personal attack"??????? All of these editors here just told you it is a personal attack and still have the audacity to write "no personal attack"? We have a serios serious problem here. You do not comprehend our policies. You do not know or do not care when you violate our policies. When you are told you are wrong you just don't care. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Scroll up to where I said, "As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything." Clearly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
REALLY? REALLY? Do you think we are that stupid? Do you think that you can manipulates us so easily? ANYONE reading this thread will immediately see the personal attack when you wrote "You're filing this on behalf of your people". That is a personal attack!!!!!! We are not falling for this "you may think that this is an attack but in reality it is not a personal attack" bullshit. No. The fact that you are even trying to deny it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of the entire community. Your behavior is deplorable and unacceptable. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just looked up WP:MEAT, but I'm not sure how it applies. It doesn't say anything about filing. Instead, it talks about recruiting people to do things for you. I don't think anyone recruited you; why would I? Like I said, as far as I can tell, you have not violated any policy here. Therefore, saying I'm personally attacking you by claiming you violated a policy just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry about your distress, but I assure you that nothing I said was intended as a personal attack or could be mistaken for one by an objective third party. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a post directly on Lionel's talk page.[104] I'd like to move any discussion of perceived insults off this edit-warring notification page, as it doesn't seem like the appropriate place. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) One problem with this article about an organization primarily based on religion, possibly not free from controversy, is that it is labelled on the talk page as being part of WikiProject Conservatism. Multiple senior administrators have pointed out in the past that labelling like that can cause problems: the appearance, possibly unintentional, of a project trying to watch over certain articles. In this case things are not helped by the fact that the discussion on the talk page and here seems to have become too emotionally charged and personalized. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about??? Belchfire--a brand new member--has been there a few days, and I have what looks like 1 or 2 edits. How is that ownership? This paranoia about WPConservatism ownership is bizarre. We're not taking over Wikipedia Mathsci Scout's Honor.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussions concerning WikiProject Conservatism are a matter of record on wikipedia. Your wikifriend Anupam added the WikiProject banners on this particular article.[105] Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What has led all of the conservatism team to the American Vision page? I'm not surprised to learn the edit warring is over the Southern Poverty Law Center either. The request seems a bit stale, I see no current edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it's been over 24 hours since the last time Scientiom edited this page. A block would be punitive. I'm not even sure that page protection would be in order, since there's productive editing going on right now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it was User:Insomesia's idea of starting a political RfC there.. I first edited the article in October 2011, and have had it on my watchlist for ages - but then, I'm not a member of the "team". StAnselm (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected, the edit warring here is pretty widespread, with multiple parties on both sides. No doubt the version I protected is WRONG. As there are concerns about reliable sources and BLP, I think it would be wise to consider heading for one or both of the relevant noticeboards. In any case, I would love to see us find a way to resolve this dispute through discussion. Then again, given that this year is divisible by four, maybe I would get better results trying to ride a flying pig through a snowball fight in hell. Anyone care to join me in that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You want those pigs saddled or bareback? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:88.104.16.200 (Result: Both parties warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [106]


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

Comments:While adding some details/corrections to the article page, my edits were reverted by user: MarnetteD. S/he claimed to do this because the edits I made did not include sources. I responded and said I was in the midst of adding the details and then as I was starting to add the relevant sources, s/he reverted again without waiting. Despite the interference, I eventually added the sources, but s/he reverted my edits again claiming them to fail WP:VERIFIABLE, which is not true. Two of the sources I added were from a leading British newspaper (The Guardian), which included budget and release details for the film at the time of its release. Another source (The-Numbers.com) is similar to Box Office Mojo.com, but gave US release date information that was not already in the article (it was released on Wednesday December 8th 1982, not December 10th). Another source (in70mm.com) highlighted the fact that the film received a royal premiere in London, and a fourth source (Princess-Diana-Remembered.com) actually showed a press clipping and photographs of the London premiere itself, attended by Princess Diana in 1982. All of these sources support the information I added to the article and are all valid, and I informed user:MarnetteD accordingly. Assumingly s/he thinks that The Guardian newspaper cannot be used as a source because there is no direct online link to it, but WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE state that sources do not need to be available online (although The Guardian archives are actually available online via proquest.com). I restored the details again stating this and giving a warning about edit warring to user:MarnetteD, but s/he simply reverted again (the 4th time), this time claiming that the sources I provided does not give the information I say it does (which is not true). My warning to him/her against edit warring was simply dismissed with flippancy.

Looking at the edit history before today, user:MarnetteD has shown considerable article ownership on this article for a long time, which is counterproductive towards Wikipedia's aims. Despite his/her claims, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sources I have added to this article, and MarnetteD is simply edit warring to keep his/her preferred version of the article (which has an American emphasis for something that is not even an American film) intact. As 3RR has been broken, the user should be blocked for his/her behaviour. According to the block logs, the user has been guilty of similar behaviour in the past. 88.104.16.200 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you used the talk page to discuss your edits? If we had more editors like MarnetteD reverting unsourced edits, Wikipedia would be a highly respected and reliable source, so I support her work. On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page. The fact is, MarneteD has been revering vandalism to this page for some time[112] and your edits could be construed as vandalism since many sneaky vandals change content in a way that looks legit, but without sources turns out to be vandalism. So next time, add sources while you are editing, not after. And go to the talk page to discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why didn't MarnetteD use the talk page either since she's the one who had the problem with the material being added? I've just had a look at this, and IP 88.104.16.200 added valuable information and corrections to the article and backed them up with valid sources. At first it might have appeared that MarnetteD was simply reverting because no sources were added in the initial edits by IP. However, once the sources were added (and they are perfectly fine sources) then MarnetteD still reverted the page to her chosen version, for no good reason. She simply wiped out all of the work that the IP user had done, despite his edit summaries providing sufficient reason to include the sources. MarnetteD didn't want to make alterations or discuss it, she just reverted the whole lot, first claiming it to be unverifiable (which is wrong) and then claiming the sources didn't include the details given (which is also wrong because I just checked them). I have noticed in recent months that more and more non-admins are getting trigger happy with wikitools and making reverts here there and everywhere because they feel it gives them power. However, this appears to be nothing short of edit warring and MarnetteD has crossed the line by breaking 3RR. As the IP user says, she's done it before and been blocked for it. She should be held accountable this time too. MassassiUK (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I said, "On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page". Did you miss it? I think she was editing in good faith, and she was not edit warring in the traditional sense, but reverting to prevent perceived harm to the encyclopedia. Most of her edits to this article consist of reverting vandalism, and she was acting in that role. I don't see how a punitive block will help. We want her to continue reverting vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but that is clearly not the case. Even after sources were added she continued to revert. It clearly wasn't in good faith and reverting adequately sourced details is vandalism. This is a clear case of edit warring and another punitive block will show her that this kind of behavior is still not acceptable. MassassiUK (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are wrong. Sources were added, yes, but they didn't support the content. The previous version was accurately sourced whereas the new version added by the IP was not. See for yourself:[113] This could be viewed as vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The new sources do support the new details because I have accessed them all. The film's budget in British pounds sterling (which is relevant because Gandhi is a British film) is included in The Guardian's review of the film, the royal premiere date of Dec 2 1982 in London is also included in The Guardian's entertainment listings for that day as well as the 70mm.com source and the Princess Diana source. The Numbers.com makes it clear that the film was released in the US on Dec 8 1982 and gives its five day opening gross, as well as dates in which the film went from limited to wide distribution. All of this information is pertinent to the article and the sources the IP user added back it up. MarnetteD had no business reverting it. MassassiUK (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. Please scroll down to the changes indicated in the "Box office performance". To start with, the cited source[114] added by the IP does not support the information he added, whereas the previous version ("box office mojo") does. In other words, MarnetteD was reverting what looks like vandalism. Please take a moment to correct your errors before you reply again. I fully support MarnetteD's edits and we need more vigilant editors like her. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. I've got The Numbers.com source open right now and it gives all of the details you are claiming it doesn't in the article's Box Office Performance section, including the date it opened in the US (8 Dec 82), the film's final US gross ($52.7 million), the film's opening 5-day week gross ($181,583), the date it went into wide release and its first wide weekend gross (21 Jan 83, $2,324,871), and the details of its widest release after the Oscars in April. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that source so I would like you to explain how it is wrong. It seems to me you are obviously just supporting your pal here and trying to smokescreen the issue. MassassiUK (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken for a third time, and evidently you did not review the changes. The source does not support the material. The Numbers source does not say the film was "followed by a wider release in January 1983" as the IP claims in the "Release and reception" section. The interpretation of the wide release remains that of the IP's and contradicts established sources. There's nothing in the source about the "success at the Academy Awards" as that was added by the IP. It is also doubtful that the film opened on a Wednesday as the IP claims. We have good reason to believe that the film opened on Friday, December 10, 1982, and was widely released on Feb. 25[115] like most opening films. I can go on and on and on and on. The source doesn't say any of this stuff, the IP is making his own interpretations, and the claims and added source contradict the best sources on the subject. Not an improvement by any stretch of the imagination, and reverted appropriately. You're either a troll or blind. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Not all films open on a Friday and it is ludicrous to suggest they do. For example, none of the Star Wars films opened on a Friday. The Numbers page has a table that includes a complete list of the film's weekend grosses. The table shows that the film started off in only 4 theaters and remained in limited release until Jan 21 1983 when it was released in 350 theaters (its first wide release). The table then shows that on April 15 1983 (four days after the film's huge success at the 55th Academy Awards which took place on April 11 - AND the IP user included a wikilink to it) it went into its widest release of 825 theaters. It's all right there on the The Numbers page. Box Office Mojo is not a superior source to The Numbers. In fact, BOM's weekly chart data for this film isn't even complete, whereas The Numbers is. It's obvious that you are simply trying to swamp this issue, so if you have nothing constructive to add then get off this noticeboard. MassassiUK (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned, both parties. I really don't think anything is going to be gained here by handing out blocks. Both parties are to blame for the problem here, so I will post a note on each of their talk pages. The anon should not have continued to add the material after it was challenged, and moved the discussion to Talk. MarnetteD should have been more careful to educate and inform the user instead of creating an edit war situation. We don't hair-trigger revert people just because they're editing anonymously. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:168.70.7.2 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Blizzard Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 168.70.7.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [116]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123] and [124]

Comments:
IP editor keeps adding material without RS and violating NPOV. In his/her edit summaries (s)he calls editors censors and accuses, without evidence, people of having a COI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Soniarangel reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soniarangel (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: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

No comment on the edit warring per se, but I've protected the article for three days just for its stability. If this is resolved sooner, please unprotect. Thanks. GedUK  11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Closing, since article is currently protected and additional sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell Talk 18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: No 1RR vio; referred to unblocking admin re: violation of unblock conditions)[edit]

Page: Islam in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

My initial edit: [131]

Altetendekrabbe is under 1RR. No attempt at discussing his reverts was made on the article's talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those reverts are three days apart. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am not familiar with 1RRs. Does this mean Altetendekrabbe was allowed to do the revert even though he did not abide to the rest of his unblock agreement, namely to "use appropriate talk-pages, administrative noticeboards and seek outside help rather than getting into fights. " Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
See also this series of five reverts by A. at another article:
[134], [135], [136], [137], [138]
- Ankimai (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

comment this is the most ridiculous and spurious filing i have ever seen on this noticeboard. gunpowder and ankimai should get banned as wp:boomerang applies here. please also note that gunpowder is trying to add a "segregation"-section to the islam-in-europe-page. clearly, he has no intentions to contribute in a balanced way.-- altetendekrabbe  15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Given that there are three days between the reverts, I'm not willing to block for them. I do think there's a serious concern that Altetendekrabbe isn't abiding by the second part of his unblock agreement, namely to use the talkpage and other dispute resolution appropriately rather than getting into fights. That's a bit outside the scope of this board, but I will refer the question to Bwilkins, the admin who unblocked Aletendenkrabbe, for additional input. MastCell Talk 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


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


Article is subject to WP:ARBPIA remedies and is under WP:1RR.


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

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

Comments:
Ankh, I don't think you provided the right diffs - it just goes to the revision history. Anyway, here are the 3 diffs:

--Activism1234 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Clear 1RR violation; blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not as well-versed on general sanctions as I probably should be, and I'm not familiar with this particular user and their history, but it looks to me as if the user may have been improperly warned. They seem to have been editing in good faith, and first edited the article today. As far as I can tell from the user's talk page, they were only warned about the 1RR restriction four hours after their last edit, and a half hour before they were blocked, making it implausible that they would be able to self-revert. (Of course, I could be way off base here, as it's possible that they knew about the sanctions and chose to ignore them when editing this article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:MastCell (Result: 31h)[