Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive197

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation, wrong forum)[edit]

Page: Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2] "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4] (admitted edit warring; self-reverted when warned)
  • 4th revert: [5] (self-reverted, but tag bombed the lead)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Closing this RfC


While this user has not strictly broken the 3RR, I believe the examples above highlight the latest in a larger pattern of disruptive editing which I first warned the user about here User talk:Arthur Rubin#Disruptive removal of sourced content - September 2012

Notably, the user has made few if any actual contributions to these articles, instead seeming to prefer to police them for perceived bias and then argue both against consensus and against reliable, verified sources.

Other examples where this user has removed sourced content from articles about designated hate groups, (falsely) claiming that the content is unsourced. In each case, the sources can be verified and usually are direct quotes:


  • September 14, 2012:[7]"It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
  • September 18, 2012:[8]""reason" is still unsourced. As you added back the default reason, within any justification, I'm removing the entire thing until it can be specifically sourced"


  • September 17, 2012:[9] " additional information not in any of the sources yet provided"
  • September 17, 2012:[10] "Hate group designation: still not in citation. Please stop synthesizing" (except it is in the source)
  • September 17, 2012:[11] "It's not in the source. Please learn to read."

Southern Poverty Law Center

  • September 9, 2012:[12] tag bombing

Public Advocate of the United States

  • August 23, 2012:[13] "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede"

Parents Action League

  • September 17, 2012:[14] tagging and (unwarranted) attribution
  • September 19, 2012:[15] overtagging (even re-introducing a biased statement with a misspelling in the tag)
  • September 17, 2012:Talk:Parents Action League#Revised content - discussion related to above edits

I think this editor's objectivity may be clouded by some unknown bias that is evident in his edit history. He consistently tries to raise the bar for inclusion on certain articles. When multiple supporting sources are documented and consensus trends against his arguments, his arguments then morph into WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, followed by overtagging articles with dubious maintenance tags.

I do not propose a block for this user however, given his tenure and role as an admin, he should know better than to engage in disruptive, tendentious editing. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. – MrX 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

MrX (and others) are using synthesis to insert unsourced material. I'm not going to discuss the clear bias by the reporter in this former, but almost all of the examples I'm removing or commenting on consist of combining
  1. SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group.
  2. (SPLC): that groups are generally called (anti-gay) "hate groups" because of X, Y, and Z
to produce
  • SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group because "X, Y, and Z".
This is just wrong, even if the two statements are in the same source. It should be clear to anyone who actually looks at the edits that the statements that they are attributing to SPLC are not in any of the sources, and many of the statements made about SPLC are not in any sources except SPLC.
A topic ban might be warranted against the nominator, and a couple other editors. But I wasn't going to propose one without sufficient evidence. Almost all of my "reverts" are reverts of misquotes or synthesis of sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I reluctantly accept, for the moment, the assertion that SPLC is generally reliable, even though no actual argument was presented on WP:RSN. (The history of discussions on RSN lead from (1) arguments than SPLC is generally reliable as an organization of experts, but without indication of fact-checking; hence reliable, but not necessary BLP-reliable to (2) assertions that the previous consensus was that SPLC is BLP-reliable.) That doesn't mean we should synthesize multiple SPLC statements to construct statements about their reasoning, or that we should reinterpret their statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not wrong. SPLC defines a category of wrongdoing, and then fills the category with list members. The list members are of course in the list because they meet the definition—there is no synthesis. Frequently, the SPLC gives additional material to tell the reader specific examples of wrongdoing, but that is frosting on the cake. Without that elaboration it is enough to make a general statement that the article topic group has been named a hate group because of its actions that meet the definition. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Arthur has seven previous blocks for edit-warring, and seems to do an awful lot of reverting and not a lot else (I only looked at his last hundred or so edits though). Seem like this might be worth a longer look. --John (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    Over the past few days I have over 100 reverts of IPs determined to be a blocked editor. In this topic, I may be reverting edits when I should be removing the entire sections which include the edits, or tagging the information as unsourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
When looking at his edits, I suggest looking at the topics about the SPLC, or in any way connected with it, such as articles about hate groups. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In the multiple discussions created on this topic, repeatedly the term "role as an admin" or similar comes up. Looking through the edits above no administrative tools were used nor was the rollback feature. There is no administrative abuse in this case. As for the contentious content mentioned here, its worth noting The SPLC source uses the phrase "anti-gay" explicitly 18 times in the cited article. Fairly specific terminology. While WP:BLPGROUP applies, its worth mentioning that "Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. ..To whatever extent the BLP policy applies to edits in this particular case. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Noone has claimed that anything was done with admin tools. We do expect admins to behave well though, per WP:NOTPERFECT, and I don't think anyone is suggesting removing the bit. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I clicked on a few of MrX's diffs and they look like reasonable edits to me. For example, this (moving a "hate group" description from the lede to a criticism section) on the face of it seems perfectly fine per WP:WEIGHT. This looks like a valid de-SYNTHing though it might have been better to separate out the two sourced statements and include both rather than eliminating one. MrX mentions the possibility that Arthur Rubin is editing from an "unknown bias". There is a saying about WP:NPOV that while everyone has biases, if you're editing neutrally then those biases should be hard to identify. So the "unknown bias" comment corroborates a theory that Arthur is editing neutrally, which is what we should be hoping for. My general impression of Arthur Rubin is that he's a usually-good editor who occasionally gets overheated, but I'm unpersuaded that anything like that is going on at the moment. Overall the complaint makes me more suspicious of MrX than of Arthur Rubin. (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article in a consistent pattern against the SPLC isn't "perfectly fine". Then the edit warring to remove categories as well: [16][17]. Should admins be expected to continue the edit war of other editors [18][19]? I know these are from 2 weeks ago, but they fit the overall pattern. Is this topic under the community sanctions? Also [20], he did start to edit war: [21] "Thinking it over, I am going to edit-war. That phrasing is not supported by any of the 3 references. The third says something similar, but doesn't attribute it to the SPLC. The first two say nothing of the sort. And why was "anti-gay" removed?", which he self reverted half an hour later: [22], after this discussion [23]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, who are you? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
@IRWolfie: I understand your concern, but it always makes me nervous when people say stuff like "moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article". In my experience phrases like that are too often used as straw man arguments against WP:Weight. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you have just deflected on some irrelevant part of my comment and not actually addressed anything I have said. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Queries Where a source does not directly support a claim, does it require a clear consensus to note the fact that the claim is unsupported? Where a group is small in size, does WP:BLP enter in at some point where a "contnetious claim" requires substantial sourcing? How small is the dividing line? And where an opinion is given about such a group, ought the opinion be given in the lede, or is it proper that such opinions be given in the body of the article where the opinion is from a single source, and not from multiple independent sources (positing that a single cource used in 1000 newspapers remains a single source for an opinion)? Where edit war is asserted, is a laundry list of all articles edited by that person utile where the reverts in question are in one specific article? I rather think these questions should be answered by anyone seeking to resolve this complaint. I would also suggest the current incarnation of the edit [24] making a specific comment about a single living person, "the discreditied theories of Paul Cameron", requires more than the opinion source now given per WP:BLP (I assert the SPLC is an opinion sourse, staing its opinions, and not a source of objective fact) and should not thus be given in the lede in a prominent manner. Collect (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In my experience, Arthur raises the bar arbitrarily high when it comes to sources that say things he doesn't agree with and is more than willing to revert over and over again to keep these sources out. If he were consistent in his high standards, I'd conclude that he had his heart in the right place but was a bit overzealous. As it stands, it's clear that he is very selective about resisting sources and has arrived at conclusions about reliability that differ from community standards. Most notably, he joins the right-wing fringe in discounting the SPLC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that Arthur is editing fairly and with NPOV. He should have the communities support. -- (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the first source, it does not support our text's claim that the IFI was listed (past tense) as a hate group, because the source pre-dates the actual listing. In addition, although the the internal quote above does indeed come from the first source, it was taken out of context. The source was just characterizing the IFI, and if you read the entire document you find that source #1's opening italciized paragraph explicitly offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group.
Regarding the second source, our cite itself has a quote that also offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group, i.e., a very specific reason other than the sweeping generalized remark that IFI "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality n general." I'm not saying this quoted text is untrue, I'm saying the two sources in the complaint's first diff did not support that quoted language and actually offered a different reason for the hate group listing.
I agree with Arthur that in terms of the diff listed above, the sources did not support the text he reverted. I have not reviewed this complaint in terms of wikietiquette other than to say I don't think going to ANI is a good way to try to defend SYNTH.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Rebuttal - Please see User talk:Arthur Rubin for conversation about how this is not the case. Basically, the source has a heading that applies to all hate groups, so it's not synthesis to apply it to this particular one. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a violation; declining. This is a matter that can be handled via further discussion and fluid editing. I would view blocking as more taking a side in what is a fairly good faith content dispute. NW (Talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
To remind you, MrX wrote, "I do not propose a block for this user". What he did request was for Arthur to be warned. I can only hope that Arthur takes all of this feedback as a warning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any place that he requested a warning, please provide diffs.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a warning would be appropriate here. Pass a Method talk 11:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A topic ban is not possible in this area, and I am not going to give a warning (I mostly focused on the diffs and missed that line last time). I see poor edits by Arthur and good edits by him. For me to warn him about what I perceive to be poor edits would almost certainly be crossing the Rubicon some sort of line and ruling on content. NW (Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As you wish. But I do have a follow-up question: If you decline to warn him and believe this is the wrong forum, what would the right forum be? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(This is not a purely theoretical question, as his behavior has not improved.)[25] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales and others reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: Protected 3 days)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Discussion on his talk page:user talk:Jimbo Wales#Seriously, Jimbo? Come on

Although nobody made more than 2 reverts, it is clear that this is an editwar.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You reported Jimbo :D --Wüstenfuchs 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not closing this as I've commented on Jimbo's talkpage and could be considered "involved," but I consider this to be a frivolous report. Jimmy's edits were amply justified for all the reasons discussed there, and in any case, discussion continues on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Good grief. Lots of edit warring by people who should know better. I've fully protected for 3 days to allow consensus to form on the talk page. If *any* (hint) admin makes any edits that are not extremely uncontroversial without consensus, they will be blocked. People outside WP are watching this page, so it's a bad time for everyone to act like children. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that this is an "edit war". It is normal routine editing accompanied by a constructive discussion on the talk page. Protection in this case is counterproductive. You've frozen it to my own version, so perhaps I should be happy with that, but I actually think that progress is being made towards a compromise version. Please reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's not an edit war? Take a look again, please. Once there is consensus for a compromise version on the talk page, or consensus that protection is no longer needed, then protection can be lifted. That's how it works for the mere mortals, seems reasonable to handle it that way here too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Objectively, if I had been on the stick at WP:RFPP and this came over, and it was no names that I recognized, I would be hesitant to full protect. 3 total reverts from multiple editors isn't exactly a full blown edit war, and isn't that uncommon for editors to bounce around a few edits then for it to settle down, all part of the editing process. Not the same as two editors ping/ponging past 3RR. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Eight reverts, actually. But if you really wouldn't have protected a "normal" article with 8 reverts in 24 hours, then feel free to unprotect. Like you, I'm more than willing to have an uninvolved admin change whatever I do, without needing my OK first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I didn't see but 15 edits in three days and four were double edits, for a net of 11 edit cycles in 72 hours. I'm not saying there isn't contention or that you "shouldn't have" so I am sorry if it seemed that way. Protection was a valid option even if it wouldn't have been my first choice. Fram and Jimmy both had two reverts (plus Jimmy's first edit), and maybe no one likes to throw a template on Jimmy's page, but dragging him to AN3 certainly isn't a better option at 2RR. Again, grey area and I just felt like the likelihood of it escalating too much further wasn't that great. And yes, I've seen 8RR that I've protected, or that I've blocked for,or that I've just talked to the participants, depending on those particular circumstances. It's no shocker that I'm not a lover of "bright line" rules. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Facepalm Facepalm Whilst I'm sure the subject did tell Jimbo this, and it's correct, Jimbo should really know that this is the very definition of original research without reliable sources. Sigh. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll admit that was my initial reaction as well, but c'mon. In some cases primary sources are acceptable. All policies are marked at the top with the advice that they are subject to "common sense and the occaisional exemption" How somebody spells their name would probably be be one of those. On top of that, there are actually sources that back Jimbo's edit, more so now that this incident itself has been commented on in the press. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I would have been impressed and delighted if Jimbo had shown her the cool way instead: registering, boldly making the change herself, with an inline citation to her website or a supporting independent RS, noting in Talk her preference with reference to WP:BLP, and finally filing with OTRS from her own email address re the change. --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
And if she didn't want to be shown all that? There seems to be a belief amongst some Wikipedians that everyone else should fix your project for you and jump through every hoop you require, or else just have to put up with whatever you write about them. It's a seriously vile attitude. (Apologies if you were being sarcastic... true believers on Wikipedia and those that parody them fall under Poe's Law) (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen a single source so far that really back his edit. I have commented on the talk page of the article that articles that state that he was born "William Adams" don't prove or back anything, as the same can be found for pretty much every celebrity with a pseudonym (I gave the examples of Sting and Bono): sources will give them as "born First Name Last Name", omitting the middle name(s), all the time. Obviously, this doesn't mean that the middle name in this case is correct or existing, but it isn't evidence of the opposite either. The fact that the middle name only seems to appear in sources after our article was created is much more damning though. Fram (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)[edit]

Page: List of programs broadcast by Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

  • [36]. To be honest, it's easier to link to page history; I count ten reverts tonight alone.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]. Warning was given here as I entered into a discussion which was already ongoing and felt it easier to warn there than with a template drop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is simple page blanking and should not need discussed.


  • This is a case of constant page blanking as the reported user has taken a warped approach to NPOV, believing that no one article should be better than articles on similar subjects and to improve only one is wrong. Coupled with accusations of "fanboy"ism thrown at the productive editor involved in improving the page in question, this is clearly a blatant bad-faith campaign. GRAPPLE X 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You know what...I don't care's not worth the whatever you want to the article. Vjmlhds 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've blocked Vjmhlds for 72 hours...but I've also blocked User:TBrandley for the same amount of time. Both of them went far far beyond 3RR, and this was not a case of vandalism where there's a 3RR exception. I can't block one person and not the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
While User:TBrandley did exceed 3RR, I would have felt the edits he was reverted constituted vandalism; it was the mass blanking of uncontroversial reliably-sourced material. This wasn't a case of two versions of a page being warred over, but of one user blanking large swathes of material just because they didn't like seeing one article be improved over others; a level of spitefulness which clearly constitutes bad faith. GRAPPLE X 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Stale + note)[edit]

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: There have been subsequent edits to the article so please see comments for recommended action.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] and edit summaries[44][45]

There's a conflict coming to a head over at the Frank Vandersloot BLP regarding the improper inclusion of a partisan Heritage Foundation video[46] that is rife with serious allegations about third parties (including the President and several others) and clearly violates WP:BLP. I've removed it from the article but one editor keeps on putting it back and ignoring the BLP violation.[47][48][49][50] I've pointed out the issue in my edit summaries and on the Talk page,[51] so it's now a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the other editor's part. I just left a lengthy explanation, again,[52] as to why the video violates BLP, and although policy states that it should be immediately removed, I didn't want to be the one to pull the plug again lest the other editor starts squawking about a 3RR violation, so I'm asking for some immediate assistance to remove the external link in the article to the video ASAP. I've also posted this notice on the the BLP noticeboard.

Regrettably, this is the type of conflict over a straightforward issue that has been coming up all too often with this editor and one other editor on the article lately, and it's getting to be a really exhaustive process having to explain the simplest of details over and over again to editors who refuse to listen or play by the rules. It seems that they are waging a war of attrition, whereby they make blatantly inappropriate edits and then launch edit/revert wars under obviously flimsy premises, necessitating lengthy talk page replies/explanations and noticeboard interventions time and time again. Seems very unfair for a couple of rogues to punish other NPOV editors in this manner, so I'd really like to see some user blocks handed out for this sort of conduct so that it can be kept to a minimum in the future. Not to sound vengeful, but there needs to be consequences for WP:DE/WP:TE] and an example needs to be set so that this sort of punitive war of attrition and waste of WP resources does not continue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I must have angered the beast. Now the editor is blanking huge swathes of content from the article.[53] Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the external link to the video. However I have no idea about what to do with the rest! I would suggest going to WP:DRN as this seems to be more of a content dispute than edit warring... (And no, I am NOT an admin!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. That should hopefully put the immediate BLP violation issue to rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. Problematic behavior continues. One of the other edit warriors just reverted the deletion and put the video link back in the article.[54]

I believe this is a simple case of two editors disagreeing as to when new information was added to an article and who has the right to revert it. I was the one who originally added the video, so any blanking of it would be a reversion, and any restoration of it would be, well, a restoration.

The video in question was originally posted by me to the page at 18:17, 23 September 2012 as a source for a statement in the text that VanderSloot as a child was engaged in "chopping wood for his mother's cookstove, milking cows and feeding chickens, and he began managing the farm when he was twelve years old. He was allowed to keep the $2.50 cream check to save for his college education"

At 20:23, 23 September 2012, Rhode Island Red removed the text, as well as the citation, with the Edit Note "Seriously? Video speech with Norquist at the Heritage Foundation making allegations about third parties? Not even properly attributed or accurately quoted; no transcript. Take it to talk if any objections."

At 23:42, 23 September 2012 I restored the info that had been deleted by RIR – and added some more – along with the Heritage video citation (again) as the source. My Edit Note stated "Rewriting two paragraphs to give a more rounded picture of the subject, as reported in WP:Reliable sources. Fixing a link to Heritage Foundation per request (See Talk Page)."

Having realized that this video was not really a good source for the information in the article, at 00:01, 24 September 2012, I removed its link from the list of References and made a new Section for the article, titled "External links," and I placed the link there, with the Edit Note stating "Changing Heritage Foundation link from a Source to an External Link. The statements in the article are sourced elsewhere as footnoted." This I considered to be a new posting, not a restoration.

I posted a note explaining the above at

At 03:11, 24 September 2012 RIR reverted a large number of my editorial and factual changes, going back to a previous version, I believe, as well as removing the External Link section with its link to the video in question. His Edit Note stated: (none of what was added is mentioned in the cited source (Popkey))" This, to me, was RIR's first reversion.

At 04:51, 25 September 2012, having taken RIR's concerns into consideration, I restored the External Note, with a link to the video. This restored External Link had a new reefer, as follows: "'The Bloggers Briefing,' Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2012, video, at 32:33] VanderSloot speaking at a meeting of the Heritage Foundation, talking about his life, childhood, education and family, supporting the free-enterprise system and responding to charges made against him." I did not leave an Edit Summary because I considered that was all taken care of on the Talk Page (sorry). This was a restoration, not a reversion.

At 16:25, 25 September 2012 RIR removed the External Link and added this Edit Note: "video is filled with WP:BLP violations (i.e., controversial claims against third parties). I explained this already, so please stop ignoring the issue." I considered this RIR's second reversion.

Really puzzled, I took RIR's complaints to heart and spent an hour or more viewing the video and making notes, and I found only one comment in it that could possibly have been damaging to any person, who, by the way, was a public figure about whom Frank VanderSloot stated an opinion.

I posted my complete report about what I found in the video on the Talk Page at

At 21:23, 25 September 2012, I restored the External Link, with the Edit Note "This has already been reverted twice by the same editor. See WP:3RR and WP:Editwar)"

So far the External Link in question has stayed put. There is a discussion at on the fate of this video, and I believe that is where this complaint should be decided.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a mighty long post that really seems to miss the point. It's late, so for now, I'll just reiterate that I clearly documented all the reasons why this video violates WP:BLP,[55] so I don't know why the point is still being missed after I had been making those same points all along. This never should have escalated to an edit war. The BLP and sourcing issues are cut and dried.Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Just received this notice on my Talk page alerting that the editor in question is now violating WP:CANVASS in a possible attempt at vote stacking.[56] Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The CANVASS issue would be troublesome were it not for the fact that no one not already cognizant of this page has appeared at all, making it moot at this point. I would point out that I am known as a very strong proponent of WP:BLP. The issue here is whether WP:BLP is a valid defense where the source is essentially an SPS by the person and the person deleting it suggests it is self-serving for the subject of the BLP. If a self-serving statement is removed because it defends the subject of the BLP, does WP:BLP suggest that reverts do not count? I fear that both editors have, indeed, edit warred here, but misuse of a policy as a license, if it is indeed misuse, does not excuse RIR. OPs are not exempt, IIRC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The edit-warring report, as originally filed, is stale. The edit-warring occurred 3 days ago. It looks fairly clear to me that GeorgeLouis canvassed. The fact that no one has appeared as a result of the canvassing does not render the canvassing acceptable. I don't usually look at content too much in an edit-warring report but because this is intertwined with whether there is a BLP policy violation, I did look at some of the history, including the comments here and on the article talk page. The topic at BLPN doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. The video is very long (an hour is what someone said), and I'm not going to watch the whole thing. It's fairly clear to me that it is a link that should not be in the article body or in the external links section. It is essentially a platform for a political organization to spread various messages. Assuming that RIR is correct as to what it says at various points in the video (RIR lists quotes and times on the article talk page) - and GeorgeLouis has not challenged the actual facts of RIR's list - the link violates BLP because third-parties make accusations against living persons, and it is not reported in a secondary source. Honestly, I find it highly suspect that anyone would use this link to report on the subject's childhood and various anecdotes he tells about his childhood. It's mostly trivia; yet to hear that trivia, you have a an hour-long link with a great deal of objectionable material. I believe GeorgeLouis himself does a good job of pointing to WP:ELBLP as one of the policies that prohibit the use of this link in the article. At the moment the link is out, having been removed several hours ago by Barts1a. If there were still a tug-of-war on the article about the link, I'd lock the article, and I'd lock it without the link because of the policy issues. Even if someone wants to continue arguing that the link does not violate BLP, WP:BLPREMOVE is sufficient to keep it out until the issues are fleshed out. I might remind editors that a content consensus cannot override policy, although I understand that editors can disagree whether the policy is violated in the first instance. My belief is this report should be closed as stale with the understanding that the link cannot go back in. I'm not going to close the report, though, particularly in case other admins wish to comment. I will be watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Reiniger321 reported by User:Lguipontes (Result: Blocked both for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Reconquista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Velarized alveolar lateral approximant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reiniger321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57] [58]

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

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

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


People in the Linguistics project generally accepted my edits in perfect harmony until this novice tried to revert everything that I edit (as you can see by my and his/her contributions) based on rules that were ignored until since because of consensus and permission to transcribe things dealing with local business in their respective dialects by narrow IPA. A major experienced editor (Aeusoes1) at first, in the past night, agreed with his/her side (before it entered edit war), though I'm used to dialogue to him with accuracy and research issues, it is not the first time he calls my attention on something and we generally enter consensus not much afterwards because I think I am good to try to prove my point to people who considerate dialogue, it's my first edit war in years of Wikipedia. Lguipontes (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted Lguipontes per WP:PRON and WP:DEL, but he kept Edit warring. Reiniger321 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Lguipontes (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
1 - Oh, of course they'll believe someone who literally get in here yesterday, ignored consensus, "ignore all rules" and 'local' policies of the Linguistics project, and edit warred with a relatively peaceful and experienced editor for minor issues which you do not even argue to be of error of my view of the phonology of Brazilian Portuguese, but of TRANSCRIPTION – wouldn't be much easier, if my edits to some many pages are so pervasive and supposedly inadequate, for you to add phonetic values to the page of Help:IPA for Portuguese instead on reverting edits that had their accuracies not questioned by no one, including yourself? Dude, I'm not attacking you, I'm just avoiding problems for myself. Lguipontes (talk) 15:32, 26 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) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:WWE+TNAMustCombine! reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: )[edit]

Page: List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWE+TNAMustCombine! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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


This user has broke the 3RR rule multiple times on both the TNA and WWE personnel pages.Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I see a fair amount of edit-warring. What I don't see is any discussion about the content issues on either article talk page or on the editor's talk page. Nor do I see any edit-warring warning, just the (unsigned) notice of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dsomeone reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result:1 week)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

This editor is new and doesn't know the ropes but persists in adding some simple content to the page. Xe does appear to be reading xer talk page and perhaps is too tied up in the edit war or just too inexperienced to notice the warnings and requests to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I suggest a very brief block to get xer attention. Jojalozzo 00:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am new. and it is no edit war, the information is good, and important. no one has tried to discuss with me. I am fixing the complaints. I removed the ref in question. and am doing my best. --Dsomeone (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again no one is discussing any answers, they are just deleting good information and with no good reason, the last deletion was without and discussion. Not making the page better. Please view the page. I am explaining in detail what I do and no one is collaborating, just criticizing. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Regarding line for origin of word. Deism. --Dsomeone (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)--Dsomeone (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this editor understands much of how WP works and persists in reposting content which a number of us have removed. There is a discussion on the article talk page but xe lacks skill in expressing ideas and appears unable to allow the content to be removed while discussion is ongoing. I'm sure this is extremely frustrating for the offending editor but it's also very disruptive for the rest of us. Jojalozzo 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Re Deism, the editors are just deleting information with no constructive alternatives, this is a religious topic and they admit to not being deist or authority of, i have been deist for many years and study it's meaning constantly, I am just trying to keep the origin of the word Deism on wikipedia and they don't like the origin of the word for some reason. I get no help only criticism and bogus excuses. please help. Deism is from deus latin word for god and Ism the religion for study of, with ref. and better format or help to improve it. see edits. Thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Note: this editor was blocked for edit warring on the same article less than a week ago. Jojalozzo 04:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being blocked because I am new and no one want to collaborate, they are just deleting and criticizing. with no better solutions. They are not authorities on the subject and give bogus excuses for the deletions. thank you. --Dsomeone (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Given that the user continued the edit war even after being reported, and that this is a second offence, and that the user is making somewhat battleground-like comments, I think one week is a suitable length for a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Liftmoduleinterface reported by User:Bridies (Result: Closed per reporter)[edit]

Page: Video game genres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liftmoduleinterface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72] (this is his first removal of the disputed content)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Visual novel as a genre. This was started by another user on a project talk page.


Obviously, there is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. The user has ceased discussion in the relevant talk page thread (where consensus was unanimously against him) and here appeared to acknowledge that there was a consensus, and said "A consensus about invalid information means little". 2 out of 3 of the reverts were performed (in the last few hours) after he ceased discussion, and he has continued after I pointed out he had not added anything further, and was acting against consensus. 3 different editors have reverted him over the course of the dispute. bridies (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the case that bridies has decided to prioritize his own personal views of a topic in lieu of those which are correct. An editor attempting to make changes to an article that benefit it on the whole is met with inane discourse that aims only to re-establish the current paradigm. It can be said with confidence that this sort of behavior does not behoove Wikipedia in any way. What is the purpose of having an editable encyclopedia if all edits are met with 'but this is not the status quo!'. If it is the status quo that Elvis is not dead, ought one to remove the dates on which he died?

Apparently so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftmoduleinterface (talkcontribs) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The crux of Liftmoduleinterface's argument is that what he believes to be "the truth" (that visual novels are not a type of video game) is not supported by the sources in either the section he was removing or in the main article. In fact, this edit an in one of the diffs bridies provided above indicates that he believes that any source that is does not agree with his viewpoint is not reliable. His actions indicates that he intends to enforce his "truth" on the article until everyone else complicates. I should also note that Liftmoduleinterface has made almost no other edits outside of this single issue. —Farix (t | c) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Any attempts to dispute WP:NOTRELIABLE sources are ignored, the status quo is all that matters in the case of this article. As for the fact that I have 'almost no other edits outside of this single issue'; that is because I choose not to jump around from issue to issue. I aim to improve the quality of articles across the board, and I aim to do so by giving each the attention it deserves. Wikipedia deserves no less.--Liftmoduleinterface (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, if Liftmoduleinterface is now interested in discussion, he should be doing it at a relevant venue. Probably starting at WP:VG/RS, with trying to overturning the consensus of the reliability of the sources to which he objects. bridies (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I guess this can be withdrawn/closed/declined. Reported editor is now discussing and not reverting, so no need for a block. bridies (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hmains reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Malcolm X Shabazz High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hmains (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]


Seeming Forum shopping aside (alansohn already started an AN/I thread about this), Hmains has already been warned on his talk page. I think this can be closed. - jc37 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Four reverts by an editor with over 400,000 edits who is in the middle of an edit war would the very definition of clear 3RR violation, if it weren't the evenmore damning *four* reverts, instead of the usual minimum of three. As to the bogus claim of forum shopping, the 3RR violation took place after the ANI posting, only providing further evidence of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. I agree with jc37. Enough fuss has been made of this already. The situation has been dealt with. Any technical block now would be punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Where does this imaginary "Enough fuss" exception for edit warriors come from? This is a textbook violation of 3RR by an editor involved in a WP:POINTy category bombing campaign completely contrary to the consensus he claimed existed after receiving multiple constructive pleas that what he was trying to do never made sense. Even worse, this is an editor who in the span of making over 400,000 edits should have some basic understanding of Wikipedia policy and that you can't use "I didn't realize" as an excuse. The apologetics coming from Jc37 and Hmains, imagining that an editor who has made hundreds of thousands of edits doesn't know how categorization works strains all credulity. Nothing changes. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Alan, the typical result of this thread would be to warn the editor. if they didn't stop, then further sanction might be necessary. Hmains has been warned, and he has stopped. Regardless, I suggest that you might wish to dial back the accusations. If others start to see this as a type of harrassment, or other disruptiveness, WP:BOOMERANG may become applicable. - jc37 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Jc, you do realize that to any rational outsider this stinks to high heaven of a slam-dunk 3RR violation being swept under the rug. Look through every single edit of mine in trying to reach out to Hmains and repeatedly explaining why what he was doing was contrary to both Wikipedia policy and common sense. After Hmains decided to seek the consensus to support his case that he claimed already existed, not a single editor supported his position. If anything came up at the schools discussion, it was that Hmains should have reverted his needless and WP:POINTy abuse of AWB to category bomb several hundred articles, but sadly he refused to take on that responsibility. If you can come up with even a whiff of policy violation, then fire away with everything you've got; If there's nothing, rational editors might well start to see this a type of harrassment or other disruptiveness. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Setting aside your rhetoric, please remember that sanctions are to be preventative not punitive. And so far you are sounding to me like you're looking for punitive sanctions. - jc37 03:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Alan, I strongly urge you to drop this discussion. First, you're not saying anything you haven't already said. Second, your stridency undermines your arguments. Third, and perhaps most important, you are perilously close to making personal attacks, if not already there. Your history shows that you had a problem with incivility repeatedly, but if your block log is any indication, you've reformed your behavior. Congratulations. Don't go down that old road. Step back, take a deep breath, and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe before I'm done here you could point me to the "Enough fuss" exception to 3RR. Strangely, it's not listed anywhere as an exception on WP:3RR and comes perilously close to being concocted of thin air. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • How do we decide that someone who has added several hundred categories, despite pleas extending over several months is not edit warring and that a slam-dunk 3RR violation be ignored due to a nonsensical "enough fuss" criteria? Does rather clear Wikipedia policy mean anything or is this all arbitrarily up to whoever wants to sweep this under the rug and ignore it? Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Joekiddlouischama reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Clint Eastwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:49, 18 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  2. 01:19, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  3. 01:21, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
  4. 01:41, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
  5. 01:44, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
  6. 02:21, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
  7. 03:05, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Relationships */")
  8. 03:10, 19 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  9. 07:06, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  10. 07:12, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  11. 07:14, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  12. 07:26, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  13. 07:31, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  14. 08:28, 20 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  15. 03:49, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  16. 04:48, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  17. 05:16, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  18. 05:19, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  19. 05:25, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  20. 12:29, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  21. 18:23, 21 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  22. 06:57, 22 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  23. 08:16, 22 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  24. 08:26, 22 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  25. 10:06, 22 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  26. 09:18, 23 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  27. 20:07, 23 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  28. 21:59, 23 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  29. 12:33, 26 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  30. 16:44, 26 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  31. 16:48, 26 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  32. 15:18, 27 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
  33. 15:59, 27 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")

Warnings: August 25, September 18, September 23, September 27

This individual seems to be savvy enough to stop at three to prevent breaking the letter of the 3RR law. However, as you can see, when the 24 hour period is over, the user returns to edit war again. This clear pattern of edit warring needs a block to be stopped. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I can see the pattern, and it's possible you're right that the user is gaming the system. But, at the same time, I see that the user has made only 189 edits at Wikipedia and zero edits on any talk page. I also see that other than plastering templates on the user's talk page, no effort has been made to discuss the problem with the user. Perhaps that would be more fruitful than blocking them. It would at least make a block more justifiable if they refused to collaborate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The August 25 "warning" I posted there wasn't a templating, but a genuine talk page post. Granted, it was terse and curt. I'm attempting to engage the user on his/her talk page now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you meant your September 23 warning, which has a personalized comment added to the template msg?—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's what Muboshgu meant as they didn't edit the talk page on August 25. I missed it because it was sandwiched in between the templates. In any event, Muboshgu, I appreciate your making the extra effort to engage the editor. If it fails, and they continue to edit-war, you can come back here or even post directly on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In spite of the effort to contact this editor, he came back on 29 September to once again restore the line "I'm not in the Republicans' camp" that had previously been removed by others. Joekiddlouischama maintains his perfect record of never commenting on a talk page. Is there any way short of a block of getting his attention? EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Your latest warning/advice to him was many hours after his last change to the Eastwood article. Because of that, I think it's better to wait and see what he does before blocking. I've done a couple of things. First, I reverted his last change (in doing so, I'm not expressing a view on the content dispute - it's procedural), which was very similar, although not identical, to his previous changes. Second, I've added a (sterner) comment to yours on his talk page. At this point, he has only two options. He can stop editing the article and discuss the content issues, or he can make further changes without discussion and I will block him. Obviously, if he doesn't comply with the warnings and I happen to be off-wiki at the time, any admin can block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Closed. I'm going to watchlist the article and editor, and see what happens. If they continue to edit-war, they'll be blocked straight away. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. They did and they were.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Asmpgmr reported by User:Thibbs (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Gauntlet (1985 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asmpgmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

  • The central issue here is that Asmpgmr believes that no reception section should appear in the article and he is unwilling to discuss the matter despite being invited to. He has blanked the reception section over and over again for the past few days but today he's done it 4 times in 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • I've been asked not to contact Asmpgmr on his talk page (see here and here), and he has a record of deleting every message I post to his talk without responding, but I did try to warn him here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


  • Asmpgmr has taken a strong dislike to me personally so I would appreciate it if someone else could talk to him and explain to him that this is not how Wikipedia works. He seems to be an intelligent person but he has no idea how to collaborate and he won't listen to any advice I give on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs is a user who has attacked me with backhanded comments multiple times, questioning my intelligence, suggesting I'm delusional, cranky and stressed amongst other annoying snarky remarks. I've tried to avoid him altogether simply for the sake of civility yet he keeps hounding me and then complains that I don't want to deal with him. Really ?

As for the issue at hand he and another user seem to think that adding reviews is a good idea for encyclopedic content. Reviews are definitely subjective, they are the opinion of the reviewer. How is one person's review of something any more valid than the next person's ? Would it be OK if users added their own personal opinions to articles ? I thought one of the core principles of Wikipedia was having a neutral point of view. This is something I totally agree with. It is a very good principle for an encyclopedia to be purely factual and objective with no bias whatsoever and my intention is only to follow that. I really don't see why this is a bad thing unless someone simply doesn't care about this and wants to use Wikipedia to increase the profile of something they personally like. If certain opinions are allowed then where is the line drawn ? If certain opinions are allowed then that means Wikipedia's NPOV principle isn't serious and it is frankly hypocritical to claim this is a core principle.

My only intention is to improve articles which I know about by making sure they are factually correct, adding factual information if it would enhance the article, removing any errors if I see them, doing cleanup if necessary and making sure there is no bias one way or another. This seems like a perfectly reasonable and valid goal. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Including reviews is one of the most basic, accepted editing practices when writing about video games and other art and entertainment. Including opinion is not incompatible with WP:NPOV as long as each is given the proper WP:DUE weight. Either way you can't just keep removing stuff against consensus and without discussion. bridies (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've read NPOV and I really don't see where opinions are compatible with that, it mentions nothing about including reviews or any other sort of opinionated content. A neutral point of view should mean a neutral point of view. Opinions are not neutral. I truly don't understand the logic of arguing against this. Is Wikipedia serious about their own principles or is Wikipedia a joke ? Asmpgmr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As Asmpgmr demonstrates here, he is not interested in discussing matters and he considers my efforts to discuss the underlying issue with him to be "hounding". He takes offense at everything I say regardless of my intent (although interestingly he insults me freely without any concern for my taking offense), and although he doesn't avoid (as I have) the articles that are the focus of our underlying dispute, he has craftily avoided me by ignoring the consensus-oriented discussion I invited him to at the WikiProject Video Games talk page. Every single editor I'm aware of who has looked at the underlying issue has rejected Asmpgmr's authoritarian view either implicitly or explicitly, but because Asmpgmr is avoiding me and my activities he's never heard that and because I'm forbidden from contacting him he remains in blissful ignorance free to revert over and over again to preserve his vision of the perfect Wikipedia. Since I first asked him to avoid blanking reception sections while we were still discussing the issue, he has done so over a dozen times and as far as I can tell he believes our discussion to be over. He's apparently content knowing that I and others disagree with his edits but he doesn't care what others think because he is an expert at arcade game topics and that's all there is to it.

Although I think he could really use a voluntary break from editing, I recognize that a block may not resolve the behavioral problems. Someone neutral needs to talk to him to get it through his head that he cannot carry on like this. Our dispute is trivial in the extreme and is purely guideline-based. In other words his beef is not with me, it's with the community. Someone needs to explain to him that he can much better serve his needs by channeling his frustration into making cogent arguments to the community in an attempt to change consensus rather than by shutting his eyes and blindly reverting in an attempt to score cheap victories against an editor he imagines is his enemy. -Thibbs (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"behavioral problems" ?? Yet another attack, you are a hypocrite who continues to attack and make assumptions about me in an effort to further your own questionable agenda and then wonder why I don't want to deal with you. Asmpgmr (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahsanch12345 reported by User:Ratnakar.kulkarni (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Siachen conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahsanch12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88] this was the version that is being reverted by the user.

  • 1st revert: [89]
  • 2nd revert: [90]
  • 3rd revert: [91]
  • 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]


He/she is a new user not sure about this being a SPA. I have mentioned on the talk page of the user that he should take it on the article talk page if he/she wants those additions which look like POV. There was no reply, he reverted my reverts so I inserted a warning and reverted his edits. He again reverted my edits and again there is no reply either on my talk page or his talk page or the article's talk page. Did not know how to proceed so came here. P.S; This is the first time I am reporting someone so there might be few errors. --sarvajna (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 72h Fairly obvious disruption and possible socking, please feel free to submit an SPI. Black Kite (talk)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 48 hours, page semi-protected)[edit]

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (N/A since many different changes, some acceptable)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My 9/22 warning to him. Note the article was protected for a week because of Festermunk and Anon Ip's edit warring over Greenwald quote and other issues - diff here. (I don't know if Anon IPs have violated 3rr or if they are same or different individuals.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The Greenwald quote was discussed in several talk page sections, but no real attempt to compromise.

Comments:Festermunk obviously has an extremely negative POV vs., just as Anon IPs have a positive one. Obviously this makes it hard for myself, and any other editors who would attempt to make the article NPOV. These editors need a break from editing the article, instead of just protecting the article for another week. I don't have a problem with their continuing to edit the talk page, but whatever.
CarolMooreDC 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. There appears to be IP-hopping as part of a content dispute, so I've also semi-protected the page for 2 weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:JoshuSasori reported by User: (Result: Article protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101] [102]


  • Article protected. Please feel free to work out any issues on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on User:
  1. The account User: has only been used for editing one page, Shiguehiko Hasumi.
  2. The user was asked to add a citation for his/her change.
  3. The user put references into the edit summary rather than the article. Despite the user's failure to understand the request for citations, the user was familiar enough with Wikipedia to start using edit-war templates and come straight to this noticeboard.
  4. The references the user added to the article don't support the edit, except via a synthesis.
  5. The user ceased all discussion on the talk page once the article was protected.
The anonymous user seems to be using this noticeboard and the revert rules in order to prevent his/her synthesis from being removed from the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Further to this, I'd like to ask if it could be checked whether User: might be someone with a Wikipedia account who is editing anonymously? I have a strong suspicion about this. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Tomica reported by User:Till (Result: )[edit]

Page: Diamonds (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomica (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: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]


I didn't want to have to come to this but they have reverted 5 times in 24 hours, which IMO is just a crystal-clear violation of WP:3RR. Till 17:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note My initial reaction is (1) there is a lot of acrimony between you and Tomica and (2) it's not clear if Tomica's reverts are, if not exempt, at least understandable. There may also be some sockpuppetry going on that Tomica is reverting (see User:45abc123's edits and subsequent edits by IP addresses).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find this report totally useless and a little "biased" (actually don't know why, but yeah). Never before had any big accidents with Till, but suddenly something happened with him and his behavior that was initially good. I don't think I broke the 3RR cause I reverted the five times different users or IP's. Good note made User:BBB23, probably is sock-puppet case but let me elaborate my edits/reverts a bit. The first one was obviously my mistake and I am guilty about it I admit it. But the rest? Those were pure vandalism. Some users/IP's (which is probably) one was adding the UK download date with a FAKE reference. If you check the reference it does not exist. I personally went through Rihana's page on UK iTunes to see if the song is released, but obviously it was not. The other revert was genre vandalism which btw had a not to not remove the genres, instead it was. To be honest, I am the one who should report Till cause he made a bunch of WP:PERSONAL ATTACKs on my talk page including things like he would "spuke that shit on me" and other stuff including WP:SHOUTING. He also wrote personal messages to his talk page for me indirectly calling me a pig and telling me to fuck myself right now. So let's the justice win. — Tomica (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the genre reverts and the internal comment. My use of the word "acrimony" was understated. It went further than that. Just one point of clarification for Tomica. Reverting different editors (whether registered accounts or IPs) is not an exception to edit-warring. The issue (or at least one of the issues) is the nature of the revert, not which editor it impacts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just semi'd the article, hopefully this will help calm everyone down a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Tomica, it is this attitude that I'm talking about! You reverted five times in 24 hours yet claim "I don't think I broke the 3RR cause I reverted the five times different users or IP's"—wrong, you are not allowed to make reverts to an article more than four times in 24hrs, regardless of the editors, period. You have shown clear signs of article ownership by constantly patrolling the article and reverting people, again with the marking of "vandalism" when it isn't. If someone is changing the genre, simply undo it (without the vandalism notice) and explain to them on their talk page why they shouldn't change it. Btw I haven't made a single personal attack to you. If you are referring to "trying to teach a pig to sing", that is a figure of speech in English language, and the fuck you right back thing had completely nothing to do with you, it's a 2004 song. Till 04:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not stupid, I can't purely understand that those messages were towards me. This is a pure message for that (on my talk) ...Your ignorance continues to astound me. Till 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (u wrote it after you posted your poems on the talk). How come removing of information and removing genres is not vandalism? That's the reason I tagged that. And of course I do not shown signs of WP:OWN, everybody can edit the article. Did I revert when the CR was created? Or the charts? So what If I edit the article everyday? Isn't this Wikipedia the free editing encyclopedia. — Tomica (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I never said you were stupid. This is the figure of speech that I am talking about. And yes I will admit it was directed at you, because of your stance that all that background information to stay. But the fuck you right back thing is a song and NOT directed at you. I just happened to enjoy the song a lot so I wrote a quote about it. I also wrote this quote, was that about you? No. Till 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was semiprotected by Mark Arsten at 21:35 on 29 September. Most of the edits by Tomica in the above complaint were prior to the semiprotection. Some of Tomica's reverts were of strange edits by IPs. That implies that some of the issues may be stale. If the two editors want admins to issue sanctions under WP:No personal attacks are they OK with the rules being literally enforced on both parties? EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Cadiomals and User:Haldraper reported by User: (Result: both editors warned)[edit]

Page: American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cadiomals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Haldraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [None; outside observer]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [None; I'm not involved in the dispute]


  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The dispute is pretty silly. I've warned both editors. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: )[edit]

Pages: Lega Nord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The People of Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Five Star Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Future and Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Italy of Values (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Left Ecology Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democratic Party (Italy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Nick.mon engages in long-term edit wars on several articles of Italian political parties. He/she does not breach the three-revert rule in 24 hours, but over a longer period (since July). The sheer number of affected articles makes it disruptive. In every article, he/she added the totalized number of seats of the respective party in all Italian regional councils together (without disclosing a source!) to the infobox, and keeps reverting to his/her version of the respective article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I can see similar edits by Nick across many articles. I can see repeated edit-warring warnings by you on Nick's talk page. I can see that Nick doesn't edit talk pages, his own, or anywhere else. All that said, can you point me to a place where you attempted to discuss the problem with him but he failed to respond?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't yet. User:Checco has given explanations for his edits in his edit summaries which Nick.mon obviously ignored. I didn't really know how to start a discussion with this user. Unfortunately, Checco edit-wars as well, instead of trying to discuss.--RJFF (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Because the edits are similar across multiple pages, I suggest doing it on the user's talk page as a separate section (just so it doesn't get buried among templates and other comments).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point a fact. I'm not an edit-warrior at all. I have been a respected editor of en.Wiki since January 2006 and, during the years, I have become the main editor on Italian political parties. I have contributed to virtually every article on the subject. I always give explanation for my edits. Nick.mon never does that, thus it is difficult not to consider him just a vandal. Despite this, I always appreciate the good part of his contributions and I'm certain of his/her good faith. I'm a cooperative guy. It is true that I've never discussed with Nick.mon in talk pages, but, as I'm very busy in real life, I haven't seen the point of doing that so far with an user who constantly ignores edit summaries and what other users write in his/her talk page. I will do it this time. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment. Where are we on this, everyone? I can see that RJFF opened up a discussion on one of the article's talk pages and then invited Nick to participate (thanks!). Nick made a brief comment, seeming to agree, but then edited something and was reverted. Did he back off on his agreement or what? What are everyone's positions on the subsequent edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Scrosby85 reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Croatian language is subject to WP:1RR per WP:ARBMAC
User being reported: Scrosby85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [120]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: