Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive196

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Nlsanand and User:Kingjeff reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)[edit]

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

Page: 2012 Toronto FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nlsanand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Nlsanand engaged in an edit war with me over this subject less than 36 hours earlier.


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert for Kingjeff: [2]
  • 1st revert for Nlsanand: [3]
  • 2nd revert for Kingjeff: [4]
  • 2nd revert for Nlsanand including the taunt: [5]
  • 3rd revert for Nlsanand: [6]
  • 3rd revert for Kingjeff: [7]
  • 4th revert for Nlsanand: [8]
  • 5th revert for Nlsanand: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both editors are experienced and Nlsanand even uses 3RR as a hammer to stop others from editing. He is well aware of the policy. Kingjeff: [10] Nlsanand: [11] and [12]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page that's not getting very far.

Comments:


I invoked 3 revert rule at 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC), Walter then insisted on goading a new entrant to undo my edit without first reading the talk page. If you read the talk page, I always explained my edit clearly, and another poster was shown to see what I said accurate. Nlsanand (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd add that I took steps to neutralize the wording and told the other editors to take it to admin if they wanted. I'll own what I wrote. User:Walter Görlitz tried to disprove me first at various points then backed off. He then just tried to get another user to re-start the edit war. Nlsanand (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I simply pointed-out the discrepancy on the talk page. No goading required. No goading was required for an editor to make 5 reverts on the article though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It wasn't an edit war three days 36 hours before either. It was civil. talk had reverted an edit of mine in good faith. I pointed out that his source was incorrect, by explanation in the talk page. Just to make it clear, it could be disproved in simple words and said that I would invoke the 3 revert rule if he chose not to engage me and simply revert. You can read the talk page and see the sequence. Then, Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (who chose not to read the same talk page) made the same mistake. Instead, of making Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aware of the same mistake, talk said (and I paraphrase), "You should go ahead and edit it again" That sounds like goading to me. Nlsanand (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. It was an edit war. I changed it (my first revert). You changed it back (your first revert). I reverted based on the supplied RS (my second revert). You changed it back (your second revert). Seems like an edit war to me.
From Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
My exact comment was "Then you might want to update the lede to reflect that". It was simply an acknowledgement to Kingjeff that the lede and body no longer agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added reliable sources that clearly backed-up my point on the talk page. The first source came last night and I added two more sources. Walter Görlitz added a fourth source. All four sources are credible. I have asked Nlsanand to provide a credible source. He has failed to do so up to this point. He has only provided a message board as a source on the talk page. If you take a look at Nlsanand's edits, on both the article and the talk page, you will see that he has provided nothing more than original research. Whereas I have provided credible sources. Kingjeff (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kingjeff stopped at the bright line, but as edit warring goes, sources don't give us leave to edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Nlsanand is clearly creating original research. Kingjeff (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to make thing clear. I believe I am correct and Nlsanand is wrong. Nlsanand is in violation of WP:OR. He has failed to produce a credible source that backs him up after being asked too. I personally added three sources and Walter Görlitz added a fourth. I don't understand why my name was added here since my edits were in compliance of WP:OR. Kingjeff (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I just came across this issue as an uninvolved editor, and removed the disputed statement before I became aware of this discussion. However, Nlsanand's math/explanation on the talk page is absolutely correct. Yes there are sources saying they were eliminated on September 12. However, a routine WP:CALC clearly demonstrates that this statement is false due to the scenario described at Magic_number_(sports)#Subtlety. Nlsanand has explained this on the talk page, but is only getting WP:IDHT in response. Since the date of elimination really doesn't add anything to the article, I've removed it as per WP:BRD. Hopefully this puts an end to a rather WP:LAME edit war. TDL (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article. No comment on the edit warring, but constant reverting can't be tolerated. GedUK  11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of IDHT, it's a matter of sources, and it seems both have a point. The fact is the edit war is unacceptable and the actions of the editors should now be addressed.
And when I say now, I mean that this issue is close to 24 hours old and nothing has been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I am citing WP:CALC, as another poster has alerted me to it. Again, the math is self-evident. I have still not seen Walter Görlitz state that he disagrees. He simply keeps deflecting and saying (and I paraphrase) that "There are sources that say they were eliminated on the 12th". Nlsanand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@Walter: Agreed, edit warring is unacceptable whether you think your edits are correct or not. However, I'd point out that you yourself made four reverts within 48h ([13], [14], [15], [16]) so you're hardly blameless in this. Yes you stopped short of the bright line of 3RR, but you WP:TAGTEAMed with Kingjeff to insert the date of the 12th into the article in spite of the lack of consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree that I made 4 edits over 48 hours, but the fact that Kingjeff and I have the same opinion at the outset does not explain why I reverted in the end and my edit summary is clear as to why I made mine. If you're counting my 4 over 48 then Nlsanand is at seven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, then I'm going to point out, another editor also noted how it was clear they were eliminated on the 6th (take a look at the talk page. Furthermore, Kingjeff's talk page contributions showed a general misunderstanding of the issue, and a general unwillingness to engage in discussion (or at least an inability to understand the issue at hand). An experienced editor like Walter Görlitz understood that when he encouraged this general misunderstanding. Nlsanand (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────── Would an admin please step in and block this self-serving editor please after five edits? This should be a no-brainer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Buddy, anyone who looked at the talk page would see a clear pattern of not engaging in consensus building. I feel like you're trying to use my lack of knowledge of Wiki rules (I'll own it, it's clear that I didn't really fully understand the 3-revert rule) to hide the fact that you're trying to claim ownership of the article and not willing to admit that you got it wrong. Kingjeff's edits were just clearly wrong, so my reverts had to be done. Even if his math was accurate, his edits were still wrong; he was using the 13th, not the 12th. Your most recent posts show a clear lack of civility on your part. I will note that you had the decency never to lie, but you have deflected from the fact that my math was clearly correct (which is supported by at least two other users who have opined on the talk page). You seem to be using your knowledge of the rules to attempt to piss people off, and in this case it at least seems like you're not really doing it with any intent of making the article better. If my violation of a bright line rule warrants a block, I'll accept that from the administrators. However, if you review the content, the talk page, and the malicious editing against which I was defending the article, I don't believe it's warranted. Moreso, I think it calls the pair of you a lot more into quesiton. Nlsanand (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits were wrong? I put in a statement and I sourced it. How are my edits are wrong? A contributor's edits are not wrong just because you disagree. Kingjeff (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - Ten days, by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Terrible precedent. I am marking this decision not to block for going well past 3RR and will point to it as my only reason for doing so myself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Honestly Walter, you two are lucky not to be blocked. Bright line is one thing, but your behavior through this has been reprehnsible. Nlsanand (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:DePiep reported by User:WaitingForConnection (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Hillsborough Independent Panel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] [24] [25]

Comments: There was also an attempt to remove a CSD tag despite being the creator, an acknowledgement of what 3RR was after the warning, and the latter two diffs above were reverts of two uninvolved admins, who both concurred with my decision to redirect.
WFCFL wishlist 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I created the page in good faith (the very need to mention this). WFC accused me of 3RR ("technically"?!) when I only had done 3 edits in toto: [26]. I removed CSD tag? Read my "oops". Here are three edits by WFC, quite early in the process: 1: change page into redirect 2: again 3: adding tag Speedy. How is that for warring? The notion that some edits were reverts of two uninvolved admins does not weigh: I am not to know that it is an admin who edits, nor should it matter. I am to weigh an edit by quality, not by admin's arrogance. Interestingly, and annoyingly, another editor upped that same argument: [27][28]). In general: WFC does one-sided counting & observing. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
My initial redirect was on the basis of Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel article. My second redirect was because I strongly believed that it was in the interests of the reader to be directed to the Hillsborough disaster article unless the new page went significantly beyond the information there, and based on my belief (which has subsequently proven correct) that other users would concur. Once reverted a second time, I tagged under CSD A10, to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator, who answered the tag by redirecting. I have made no subsequent edits to the page, and have several times attempted to explain my reasoning. My assertion about a technical breach of 3RR was in relation to the corresponding edits DePiep made to the hatnote at Hillsborough disaster – in hindsight this was incorrect, as it goes without saying that if a specific article exists, a hatnote should point to it. Nonetheless, 3RR has been breached – a status quo achieved through a breach of 3RR and editing regardless of the talk page comments made by myself, Struway, Peridon and others cannot be right. —WFCFL wishlist 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • DePiep, you are just coming off a block for a 1RR violation of ARBPIA restriction. I've seen you around to think you are intentionally being obtuse here. You're often quick to note how every admin is arrogant and abusive, yet you claim you don't know one when you see one. My points on your talk page and the article talk page speak for themselves, and the history at the article is clear. I've tried to just end the problem, but I will leave this up to the neutral 3RR specialists to do the counting, since I've warned you about 3RR in other cases, and had to decline an unblock request from you just the other day. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Also for multiple removals of the speedy deletion tag as the article's author (you don't have to "remember" the rule - it says so on the tag in bold). Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not do multiple removals of the speedy tag. Bbb23 knows by now. [29] -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Afgtnk and User:144.132.28.156 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 hours for both)[edit]

Page: Sport in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Afgtnk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 144.132.28.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Afgtnk contributions
  1. 05:31, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512578286 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  2. 05:32, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  3. 05:40, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  4. 05:45, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512580371 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  5. 05:55, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512582084 by 144.132.28.156 (talk) "Only NSW and QLD" is half the population. If that's the case, AFL is only popular in VIC, WA, SA and TAS.")
  6. 06:03, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512583283 by 144.132.28.156 (talk) AFL & NRL have roughly same percentage of women following the game. Riverina is league dominated. You have no basis for your argument.")
  7. 06:14, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512585059 by 144.132.28.156 (talk) You have absolutely no proof or basis for your argument, sorry. Propagate elsewhere please.")
  8. 06:20, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512586240 by 144.132.28.156 (talk) You have shown nothing, only maode up a bunch f lies. AFL is only popular in Southern Australia.")
  9. 06:39, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Edited to mention ratings. Though they are the highest nationally year in year out, I'll leave it at the general statement it is now.")
  10. 07:05, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512591726 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  11. 07:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Re-corrected sentence.")
  12. 07:09, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added Australian film")
  13. 08:23, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence")
  14. 08:27, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  15. 08:31, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Adjusted incorrent stadium capacity, removed superfluous apostrophes")
  16. 08:33, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Stadium Australia */")
  17. 08:37, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */ Docklands is not a major stadium.")
  18. 08:44, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512607421 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  19. 08:45, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Sentence structure")
  20. 08:47, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512607805 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  21. 08:48, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  22. 08:50, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */ Docklands is not a major stadium. It primarily only has AFL played on it, a sport played in only one country.")
  23. 08:52, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Stadium Australia */ AFL is rarely played at Stadium Australia.")
  24. 08:56, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected to acronym used by governing body")
  25. 08:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  26. 08:59, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512609867 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  27. 09:01, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512610138 by 144.132.28.156 (talk) Re-added Stadium Australia as a major sporting venue")
  28. 09:09, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */ Removed subjective claim & double entry")
  29. 09:12, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512612418 by 144.132.28.156 (talk)")
  30. 09:19, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  31. 09:21, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */")
  32. 09:23, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Incorrect history")
  33. 09:25, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  34. 09:27, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Participation */ Spelling error")
  35. 09:29, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Sentence structure")
  36. 09:40, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */")
  37. 09:42, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Sentence structure")
  38. 09:44, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Spelling")
  39. 09:47, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added Ratings comment")
  40. 09:52, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512619060 by Bidgee (talk) Rugby League has the highest ratings in Australian sport, it deserves its own line about ratings")
  41. 09:57, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "NPOV my fucking arse. Either keep the league statement or remove the AFL & Cricket statements. If not consider yourself reported.")
  • Diff of warning: here
User:144.132.28.156 contributions
  1. 12:09, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "added a link to MMA")
  2. 12:10, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "corrected sentence structure")
  3. 12:14, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  4. 12:16, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  5. 12:17, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  6. 12:19, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  7. 12:20, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  8. 12:22, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  9. 12:22, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  10. 12:28, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  11. 12:29, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "Got rid of un needed information")
  12. 12:31, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Basketball */")
  13. 12:32, 13 September 2012 (edit summary: "added a link to tennis in australia")
  14. 05:28, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512577825 by 121.223.184.248 (talk)")
  15. 05:41, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added that the NRL draw's high television ratings")
  16. 05:53, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision because rugby league is really only popular in QLD & NSW with proof of participation numbershat are available on Google.")
  17. 06:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision because not a lot of women like rugby league & the Riverina Region in NSW is Australian rules, so with women being bout half the population of NSW & QLD it much less than half the population like rugby league")
  18. 06:10, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Next to women follow rugby league as shown by membership numbers and the Riverina Region is Australian rules. And put back popular team and individual sports it goes into detail on the sports played in Australia like all other countries have done.")
  19. 06:18, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Rugby league is only really popular in QLD & NSW as I have shown, you have absolutely no proof to back up your statements.")
  20. 06:33, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "I have provided information to prove my statement, and Australia rules football is the main mainstream winter sport in the Northern Territory and Northern WA so it no just popular in southern Australia. Take your propaganda else where.")
  21. 06:56, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure.")
  22. 06:56, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "corrected sentence structure.")
  23. 06:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "corrected sentence structure.")
  24. 06:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure.")
  25. 07:02, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "added that the afl is 3rd highest attedned sports league in the coutry")
  26. 08:06, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "corrected sentence structure")
  27. 08:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure and a paragraph between to sections that are about different things")
  28. 08:08, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  29. 08:10, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Got rid of the word very when talking about rugby league because rugby league isn't more popular than Australian rules football and shuldn")
  30. 08:11, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Got rid of the word very when talking about rugby league because rugby league isn't more popular than Australian rules football and shouldn't be written than way.")
  31. 08:13, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  32. 08:43, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Dockland is a major stadium")
  33. 08:45, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "added that AFL actual name is Australian rules football")
  34. 08:48, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512606343 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  35. 08:57, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512608687 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  36. 08:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "got rid of un needed information")
  37. 09:02, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  38. 09:10, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512612198 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  39. 09:14, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512612745 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  40. 09:15, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Placed the MCG first on the list as it is premier stadium in Australia, for reasons it has bar's that over look the ground, several entertainment area's, many more cooperate boxes and the Australian sports museum all things Stadium Australia doesn't have.")
  41. 09:15, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  42. 09:16, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  43. 09:17, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected sentence structure")
  44. 09:18, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512608687 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  45. 09:19, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "corrected sentence structure")
  46. 09:23, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  47. 09:24, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Major sporting venues */")
  48. 09:24, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  49. 09:28, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "correcting the major stadium, stop alining them different that is correct")
  50. 09:30, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 512615742 by Afgtnk (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

The whole thing is a mess. —Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bandwidth47 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: High Point University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bandwidth47 (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: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:User Bandwidth47 has deleted a passage of text six times without comment, four times within 24 hours, and four times marking the changes a minor. I have added comments when replacing the deleted text, and on the talk pages above explaining that the text contains factual references to a reputable national publication and is pertinent to the article. User has not responded other than by repeated reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeisGood88 (talkcontribs) 15 September 2012—

Comment by non-admin user: A quick check of the article showed that User:Bandwidth47 has introduced large tracts of text copied verbatim from copyrighted sources, hence massive WP:COPYVIO violations. I rolled the article back to the last stable version (see diff here) and suggested that the policy be read carefully before attempting to re-introduce the material. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. AzureCitizen, thanks for catching the copyright violations. I have posted a warning about the violations on the editor's talk page to make sure they know about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked 72h)[edit]

Page: Hafez al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I told user that he should take the problem to the talk page, but insted he continued edit-warring. He adds this source that can't be verified and the claim is not at all generally accepted by the reliable sources. I don't know who stated this in this documentary, it can be someone's personall oppinion or an interview.

In his edit summary, the User called me "a dictator" ("its hard to talk to dictators") and accused me of censoring.

--Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. 3RR violation on both sides, both editors have a block history including edit warring. --Chris (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:CristofolR reported by User:Ravave (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Salvador Puig Antich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CristofolR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Ravave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In the last days i had a little edition war with CristofolR about the nationality of Puig Antich, when i'd be wrote is a "Spanish anarchist", he was born in Catalonia (region), Spain (country), but the user seems to be dislike and undoing me. A few days another user we warned if we continue with this, we will blocked. 7 september i contact with him in his user tak page with the hope to reach an agreement, but days later he answer me without reach and acord and turns to edit. I just say he was an Spanish anarchist cause Barcelona is Spain, you see the history page for its last editions

  • 1st revert: [40] 16-sept
  • 2nd revert: [41] 28- aug
  • 3rd revert: [42] 22-aug
  • 4th revert: [43] 17-aug
  • 5th revert: [44] 16-aug


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

In the talk page, for reach an agree, i ask days ago to Christofol to reach an agree, but he hasn't Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45].Ravave (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Revision history

6 reverts in one day, user in constant edit war, was warned by other user he would break the rule but still continued.

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. (There were not six reverts in one day.) Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User: 116.71.16.36 reported by User:Electriccatfish2 (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Mouse (computing) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.71.16.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Note: The edit war is still ongoing, so please check the article's history for more diffs.

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

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

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Kinu. Electric Catfish 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [51]

[55]

This is a dispute about an {{{{expert-subject-multiple}}}} template I added to the newly-created Phallic architecture article. As I've explained on the talk page, I think the article needs expert attention, but Dr. Blofeld seems intent on edit-warring over the template without ant discussion beyond an assertion that "it is... ridiculous to suggest that phallic architecture has an 'expert' who is likely to edit wikipedia" (edit summary to this revert [56]) As I've pointed out in the ongoing discussion on my talk page "The subject clearly isn't just 'architecture' anyway - it is as much about sociology and anthropology for a start." (see User talk:AndyTheGrump#Phallic_architecture). Essentially, as I see it, Blofeld is asserting that there are no 'experts', so nobody can improve the article, in spite of the obvious flaws I've indicated on the talk page, and he seems to want to edit-war over it. He is only at three reverts so far, but clearly refuses to address the issue properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
Does any admin here seriously think that an article on architecture which resembles a penis will have an army of experts swarming to come to wikipedia and improve it. The tag is about as pointless as you can get. I'm not an expert on most of the subjects I edit, I'm a good researcher though and work well if I'm allowed to happily edit without obstruction. I am keen to constructively address the article providing you back off and stop being a grump basically. I've requested the article from JSTOR you wanted from Bgwhite. If you spent more of your time trying to solve what you think is the problem yourself instead of removing a lot of material, fussing about it on the article talk page and then wondering why other editors think your slopping an "Expert tag" on the top of a highly obscure article is highly inappropriate you'd get on a lot better with your fellow editors. You've gatecrashed this article from the moment I started it and you've put me off working on for fear of you reverting me and me wasting my time. Just back off.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. As Andy acknowledges, only 3 reverts by Dr. B. I'm not going to block Dr. B. for edit-warring alone, particularly on a tag issue. Rather than lock the article, how about seeking dispute resolution on the tag.Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to constructive comments or valid actions. I'm not in the habit of challenging others. Somebody placed a tag on Osiandrian controversy which I agree with. But I think placing an expert tag in an article on buildings which look like a penis looks more of a joke than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a constructive comment - how about reading WP:OWN? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No more. Dispute resolution doesn't take place here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by Rreagan007 (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Ray Farquharson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "image placement")
  2. 12:46, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
  3. 15:37, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
  4. 01:49, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")

Comments: Upon viewing today’s featured article, I was surprised to discover that there was no image in the infobox, as is standard formatting on Wikipedia when a free use image is available per WP:Images. I then added the available free use image to the infobox along with a couple other parameters to the infobox. Upon viewing the article again a few hours later, I discovered the image had been removed. I assumed it was just a routine case of vandalism of today’s featured article as often happens, so I added the image back.

I just now looked at the article again, and I discovered the image had disappeared yet again. I then took a look at the article history, and discovered that Nikkimaria had been reverting any additions to the infobox by me and at least 4 other good faith editors within the last 24 hours. This activity clearly violated the 3 revert rule. I then took a look at her user page and was shocked to discover she is actually an administrator.

Not only that, but it also appears from her edit summaries that she was using Twinkle rollback privileges to do these reverts, which is a clear violation of the Twinkle abuse policy and would be, on its own, grounds for a block.

There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior by an admin, as an admin is expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies, and should be setting an example for other editors to follow. Per Administrator conduct policy, “Administrators are expected to lead by example… Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies”.

An admin blatantly violating Wikipedia policies in this manner is totally unacceptable conduct by an admin and must be dealt with accordingly.

Rreagan007 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't using Twinkle, all these edits were manual. I was, however, maintaining the quality of a featured article that was then on the main page, which does allow for some leeway under the edit-warring policy. If, in the process of monitoring changes and vandal edits to that article, I stepped over the line, I apologize for that. I invite Rreagan007 to discuss his/her views on image placement on the talk page, where this discussion belongs, and entreat him/her not to engage in such disputes while an article is mainpaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Not the appropriate forum to request review of an administrator's actions or request sanctions. Best would be to work it out in light of Nikkimaria's apology.Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the 3 revert rule doesn't apply to admins. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:StillStanding-247 reported by User:Little green rosetta (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Parents Action League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Only 2 reverts to restore recently disputed content

[57] [58]


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

[59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:


I really did not want to bring this here. I would hope that the editor in question would self-revert and this can be put to bed without admin intervention.

A user added some content which I reverted due to (IMO) being a POV and coatrack edit. User "Still Standing" undid my reversion (thus reinserting the disputed content) insisting we discuss the issue on the talk page. I once again removed the content and joined the talk page so that we could get to the "D" in BRD. I reiterated my concerns about POV and coatrack issues (which from a quick view of the article should be readily apparent) and I'm getting a "I DIDNT HEAR THAT" response. At least one other editor on the TP at least understands my concerns about the coatrack.

This user is (or should be) well familiar with WP:BRD and that its not WP:BRRD. I suggest that he is being intetionally disruptive. I request that he self-revert and he not do this again.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Using a left-wing source (not inappropriate for opinion, but not inherently notable to declare fact or make neutral claims) to make a partisan coatrack assertation is bad enough, but not inherently disruptive - but edit warring over including it instead of discussing it? Still knows better than to edit war, so there is no real excuse for it here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are the recent edits by SillStanding24-7, as formatted by the 3rr.php script:
  1. 06:47, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "removing redundant reference; same exact article as the previous ref")
  2. 08:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "there is no "gay influence"; that's their conspiracy theory and we can't use Wikipedia's voice for it")
  3. 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "cited")
  4. 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "also supported by rolling stone cite")
  5. 02:36, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: ""In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate." - See talk.")
  6. 22:59, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "Talk this over; this is what our sources are commenting on.")
  7. 00:10, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted unexplained removal")
In this list, edits 1-4 by StillStanding-247 are consecutive. The above does not show four reverts in 24 hours, though admins will need to decide whether this is a pattern of edit warring. The submitter of this report is complaining about edits #6 and #7 as 'restoring recently disputed content.' The question is whether Michele Bachmann should be named as part of the story of the Parents Action League. I assume that people who don't think well of Bachmann want to add the material. Apparently StillStanding-247 feels that the connection should be asserted in the article. If Mother Jones is the source of the connection, then the opinion comes from a journal unlikely to be neutral in the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for cleaning up my (poor) submission. I think you have the overall gist of the complaint. I would like to point out that I'm not necesarily against linking Bachman to this article, but I objected to the (in my view) POV presentation of the material amongst other things. Per BRD the edit in question should be discussed, not included and then discussed. 3RR has not been crossed, but I feel ISS is demonstrating WP:IDHT to a tee.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Many of these aren't even reverts or are contiguous, or both. 3RR has not been violated.
  2. All of my changes are explained in edit comments and on the talk page.
  3. LGR shows many reverts in that time scope, and his talk page posts are evasive.
I support protecting the page to force him to state his reasons instead of ducking my questions or edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Still, don't play the ignorance card - you know full well that you don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. You also know what bold, revert, discuss is, so why not follow it? If you have the superior argument and are following process and policy, you shouldn't have to revert because your idea would be policy-compliant and neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
First, let's not pretend that you're in any way neutral. You side against me consistently, and now you're piling on because this is a false report against me.
Second, I'm going to suggest that any admin reading this ignore us both and see for themselves whether LGR is being evasive. It's all in the talk page that I linked to (including the section at the bottom). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't side for or against anyone because this isn't a warzone. If I wanted to pretend like I'm in a warzone I'd be playing Call of Duty, not arguing with people I don't know on the internet. Politics isn't my main topic area for that reason - it simply isn't much fun to edit there. When I do comment or edit, I support additions I think are supported by vital policy and it just so happens that many of the additions you support are ones I feel are incorrect. I'm not 'piling on because this is a false nomination' - I noticed the notice on your talk page, examined the evidence, and commented. I haven't endorsed any proposals or anything, I've noted that you know the policy on edit warring and there is no real reason for you to be doing it.
bold, revert, delete does not mean 'revert back to my edit while we discuss', it means 'discuss controversial changes if there are objections through reverts and establish consensus before re-adding it'. Still knows our policies, he isn't ignorant. I urge all admins or reviewing editors to examine the material added and the reverts and compare them to applicable policy, and see the clear disconnect. As long as the solution deals with the issue, I'll support it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You're a member of WikiProject Conservatism. Consider that before you pretend to be neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not pretending to be anything. Toa Nidhiki05 03:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to chime in. So out of curiosity, why are you deploying red herrings to distract from the point of this report against you? What does his being a member of a Wikiproject have to do with this report? Perhaps you can enlighten me? Is it that you are currently planning a RFC against the Wikiproject therefore you are claiming these members have an axe to grind against you? Is that what you're accusing him of? ViriiK (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note This is not an isolated incident. This editor is also violating BRD at a different article [61]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD is essay, not a policy. As it happens, I like BRD and I generally follow it. I do make exceptions, which is allowed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I have things to do. I very clearly haven't edit-warred. This is a false report and should be closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: No action. At most three reverts by StillStanding-247 within 24 hours (#5, #6 and #7). StillStanding has been notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log but this is not one of the affected articles. If some editors continue to believe that Michele Bachmann's name should be included in this article I hope they will find better sources to justify the connection. The addition of her name seems to raise WP:BLP issues. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:203.35.135.174 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 203.35.135.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:54, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added new website")
  2. 06:25, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "New site")
  3. 07:18, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Not a spam")
  4. 07:43, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "It's notable")
  5. 07:53, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment -- Additionally, editor has repeated recreated articles W3leaf and W3leaf.com after speedy deletion as A7 and G11. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3leaf.com. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
See also:
--Tgeairn (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I would have made it longer except there was no discussion with the IP about their edits. Abhi1028 was already blocked as the creator of the non-W3leaf articles listed above.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Fabyan17 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: South China Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fabyan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:
User has been making controversial POV edits without engaging in proper discussion with other editors, and has been mindlessly reverting edits without looking at them, even if they are maintenance edits (such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS). -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any admin reviewing this should also look at WP:ANI#User complaint: Benlisquare - Re: Using derogatory words against editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Please continue any discussion at ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx reported by User:Ronz (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Weston A. Price Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sockpuppet ip used by user: 66.41.95.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike18xx (after he threatened to continue edit-warring [69] Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Recent_attempts_at_rewriting_and_changing_pov_of_article As to the sockpuppetry, 92.4.165.211 (talk · contribs) pointed it out twice [70] [71], providing this May 2011 diff. The ip is still being used by Mike18xx as seen here followed by this.

Comments:
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The accusation that Mike18xx and 66.41.95.121 are the same person seems pretty well-founded to me. My recommendation would be to file a report at WP:SPI to get a determination. The edit-warring is fairly stale. However, another admin may feel more comfortable taking action than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Defense: Oh my goodness gracious! Four reverts in 31 hours...where does the time go? Book him, Dano. Stretch his ass on the rack, then send him to the guillotine.
  • In other news from planets in nearby parallel universes otherwise astonishingly similar to the one Ronz is in, Wikipedia editors often do not log in to their named accounts because they dislike (a) logging in every hour, or (b) being logged in for 180hours -- and being logged in is actually unnecessary save for article-creation or when dealing with protected articles.
  • ....which reminds me, Ronz' attempt to protect the article was declined.
  • In three days of this nonsense, Ronz hasn't found anyone to stick around and help him defend his "critics-soapbox" version of the article; and is now resorting to this more elevated level of "tattling to teacher" after his request for protection was declined.
  • He is stubbornly insistent that critics' soapbox sound-bites remain in the second paragraph of the lede of the article, and is unwilling to listen to any reasoning as to why that's a terrible way to write an encyclopedia.
  • I though it was very generous of me to retain more critical references than supportive ones, and to not blot out all his references sourced to non-notable militant vegetarian blogs -- which a real hard-ass editor would have nuked. (Hint, hint.)--Mike18xx (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment And in the actual Wikipedia universe where a very dim view is taken of using an IP to tag-team edit-war using your registered account against more than one editor (despite your claims), especially when using incivil edit-summaries, why exactly shouldn't a block be the result? Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that Mike has admitted that he and the IP are the same, I would say that the only question is how long the block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
7 previous blocks? Blocked for 1 month (same time as last major block). Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Acoma Magic reported by User:MrX (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
I hate to report users, but in this case the user has continued edit warring after being warned and after removing the warning template from his/her talk page. There also seems to be a refusal to accept consensus, as documented on the article talk page.

(I apologize if I made any mistakes in this report as I have never filed one before.)

20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you don't know that the first and fifth revert you listed aren't reverts. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Some admins would count the first diff as a revert. Even so, you made four after that. User:TParis warned you on your talk page after the fourth diff, telling you that the only reason he didn't block you was because you hadn't reverted again. Then, you went ahead and made a change to the article after that, even though you should well know that undoing other editors' material (which is what you did), even if it is different material, constitutes a revert. I blocked you for 31 hours because of your recent 24-hour block for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Shipofcool reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Not done)[edit]

Page: 1960 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shipofcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]

  • 1st revert: [81]
  • 2nd revert: [82]
  • 3rd revert: [83] (bundled with some other edits)
  • 4th revert: [84]
  • 5th revert: [85]


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

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

Comments:

This dispute spreads beyond this article. The bottom line is that User:Shipofcool has been replacing the historic charts on the "XXXX in film" articles with his own revisionist rankings. The problem though was that these revisionist charts aren't complete, since the box-office data is unavailable for many older films. Impartial comments at [88] were obtained where User:Grapple X commented that If it could be uniformly, and reliably, switched to gross, then I guess that would be alright. After Shipofcool dismissed my concerns (see [89]) I took the dispute to the Film project [90] where User:Gothicfilm commented Clearly the same figures - box-office grosses and theatrical rentals - should be used consistently. Shipofcool does not seem to have listed what his source for grosses on the pre-1990 films would be. If only rental figures are available on the older films, that's what you go with, right?. Shipofcool has continued with his disruptive editing despite the fact no editor has voiced support for his edits, and the two impartial editors only advocated replacing the lists if the data could be uniformly transformed. This has not been the case, with Shipofcool simply removing the films from the chart where he could not source a replacement figure. He clearly isn't acting in accordance with the approach as advocated by the two independent editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This has gone to an RFC now and Ship has started toeing the line. I don't particularly want him blocked during discussions, so I think we can wrap this up and if it starts up again I'll re-file. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As you wish. Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Frank Vandersloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [91]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

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

Comments:
Jeremy112233 is currently engaging in disruptive/contentious editing on the lead in Frank Vandersloot. The article was revised a few days ago (prior to Jermey's first appearance) to indicate that Vandesloot's company Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The change was supported by numerous references (more than 20[98]) and by loose editorial consensus after some weak objections had been raised -- the objections were addressed in 3 different forums including the Talk page,[99] and RSN.[100] After that, the article was stable until Jeremy started reverting today (obfuscating the designation as an MLM) and edit warring over the issue. He has removed the basic MLM description of Melaleuca and instead inserted the following statement in the lead -- "Melaleuca is described by some as being a multi-level marketing company[1][2] and described by others as being a direct marketing company.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" This is problematic on many levels.

First and foremost, the edit is misleading and makes no sense because it describes the company using the vague top-level term "direct marketing company", when in reality, MLM is a sub-type of direct marketing (see multi-level marketing), so Jermey's edit is akin to nonsensically arguing that Bugs Bunny isn't a rabbit because he is a mammal. Obviously, MLM is a more specific and more appropriate term.

Second, Jeremy bypased the Talk page and did not attempt to gain consensus for the reversion, despite the fact that the issue had previously been under active discussion by many editors and a rough consensus in support of the MLM designation had been reached.

Third, the body text of the article doesn't refer to any such nomenclature controversy about "direct marketing" vs "MLM" (the notion has been manufactured by Jeremy and it smacks of WP:OR), nor do any of the sources added, so it has no place being in the lead (see WP:LEAD).

Lastly, the user appeared on the Vandersloot article shortly after having wikistalked me from another article (Protandim) on which we had a brief and minor locking of horns recently after he was blanking text in the article.[101][102]. I am requesting that the editor be blocked and the article reverted to the last stable version prior to Jeremy's edits.[103] Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OWN - and noting that RIR has clearly been more than a "willing participant" in any edit war at this point, including adding clear violations per WP:BLP (using opinion articles as sources to make charges of criminal wrongdoing, of "buying judges" etc.). WP:BOOMERANG obviously applies here. Collect (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Collect, you've been forum shopping hoping to get the answer you wanted but it didn't happen. Every un-involved editor that weighed in on this question after you posted it to Talk[104] and RSN[105] disagreed with you. You have no grounds for that WP:OWN red herring. Your comment above has no bearing on this particular case of 3RR. I've been following protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The edit history of that article is exceedingly clear. Your personal attack is, moreover, a tad unlikely to impress anyone. The noticeboard here is to try to prevent edit war, not to work in favour of one edit warrior who reports another - the goal is to have no such battleground mentality about articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I might ask to clarify what you meant by personal attack ("forum shopping" was a simple statement of fact), but that question, like your comment above, would have no place in a 3RR report. Since you are an involved party,[106] your comment does not appear to be at all constructive but rather is carrying over warrior behavior onto the very page that is designed to prevent it. If you have nothing salient to add, saying nothing is never a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has popped up on my radar several times recently, so I finally took a look at it. In addition to the very obvious 3RR violation, Jeremy's text is also WP:NPOV; it uses the word “accused” in reference to the MLM claim, which is very obviously not neutral—and as such, RIR is correct to remove it per WP:BLP. But in any case, Jeremy crossed what is widely said to be the bright line. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk
 
22:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. It's been more than a day since either party made any edits to this article. Had I seen this report earlier I would have blocked both, or protected the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Final3211 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Final3211 (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: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:
User in question added content that was not properly sourced or formatted, which I reverted [115], said user persisted in reverting, so I then attempted to appease the editor by wikifying the material - keeping some of the barely usable cites. Unfortunately the editor again reverted, preferring instead to ignore my advice concerning the consultation of WP:MOS & WP:RS guidelines. Semitransgenic talk. 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rules are to be observed not blindly but with a sense of purpose, which you sadly lack. All of your attempts to edit or format the article render it illegible.—Final3211 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. Final3211 seems to be an account that was created on 15 September to edit war on this article. I've also blocked God the Son one week as a probable sock and have put semiprotection on the article to slow the success rate of any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Old-timer0 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Old-timer0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·