Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive201

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:E4024 reported by User:Athenean (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Varosha, Famagusta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: reverted to two different versions, as explained below

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


Comments: Clear cut 3RR violation, 4 reverts within 15 hours, albeit to two different versions. In the first two reverts he edit wars with an IP editor over the caption, when I remove the image altogether, he reverts twice to keep the image in the article. He is also misusing WP:BRD, an excuse he frequently misuses to justify his edit-warring [6] [7].

The user who reports me does not even know the name of the article. Obsessed to everything he believes Greek... --E4024 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Making personal attacks is not going to save you, in fact it is only going to make things worse for you. Athenean (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And now a fifth revert in that same article. This really needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Continued reverting even after commenting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Wellbelove reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: )[edit]

Page: Steve Reed (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wellbelove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above

Comments:
Hi. Steve Reed is a local politician who is now standing in a forthcoming Parliamentary by-election. That's when I first took interest in the page, which appeared to me to have had some very one-sided edits by a single-purpose account User:Admiral Kizaru. I made changes to the page. The page was originally created by User:Wellbelove, a relatively new and almost single-purpose account, and an edit war between me and Wellbelove developed, as you can see in the article history. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but I didn't take the discussion to the Talk page, which was an error on my part in retrospect. I reverted Wellbelove for what I thought was a third time today and then realised I had also edited the article early this morning, so I would also like to report myself for breaking 3RR!

I also realised after the event that Wellbelove had tried to start a discussion on his own Talk page, rather than the article Talk page. I have since left a message there.

I rather sleep-walked into this situation. I could have handled this better sooner, but at this point it seemed most sensible to come here for help. The article is currently in Wellbelove's preferred form. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. A refreshingly honest appraisal of the situation. One way to close this is to block both of you. A better plan is for you to start a discussion on the article talk page (not the editor's talk page but alert them to the new discussion) to discuss the content dispute. If you're unable to reach agreement, there are dispute mechanisms available to you, and you can also go to WP:BLPN. I don't see the point in blocking you as you appear to have come to your senses and, despite the obvious breach of 3RR, a block would be more punitive than anything else. I will post a message on Wellbelove's talk page so they have notice of my comments here in case they resume edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Capscap reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )[edit]

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Capscap (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: [19]

Comments: A 1RR article. I gave him the opportunity to self revert but his response was to insult me. [20] Sepsis II (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to point out that all of my edits are discussed on the talk page for the article and are widely agreed with by other editors. In the course of editing this article, I have made over 260 edits to the talk page as compared to a total of 32 edits to the article itself, including minor edits. For a comparison, Sepsis has only edited the talk page 13 times, yet has made at least 17 edits to the article.

Specifically relating to these claims, you can see that I went out of the way to discuss the first edit here: Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Conflict_in_sources. I didn't have time to sift through edits to see when someone (I now assume Sepsis) whitewashed the text based on his own predictions. Given how uncontroversial the content was (please note that the edit was the addition of one word), I found it hard to believe that it's removal was not deliberate vandalism.

I'm not even sure how the actual reversion I did (the second link) is an issue. The term was a deliberate decision thoroughly debated and agreed upon as a resolution on the talk page here. Additionally, I gave an extensive response—which has yet to be contested—to the clear FRINGE and POV edit that I reverted on the article's talk page.

It would have been nice if Sepsis II made a boda fide attempt at solving this elsewhere instead of threatening me while refusing to give me any clue as to what he's talking about.

I'm trying to be a positive contributor to the article and it's quite an annoyance to have to deal with someone who is running around just looking for reasons to harass others. The fact that Sepsis II was just blocked earlier in the week, tried to hide evidence of the block by labeling it as "harassment"[21], and has made 3 reports on this page within 24 hours should say something. Just to put that in numbers, that's 1 report for every 4 talk page edits.

Thanks, Capscap (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Shifting the focus of the report from you to Sepsis is unhelpful. Do you understand the restrictions that have been imposed on the article? Did you understand what Sepsis meant when they warned you? Do you understand that you violated the restrictions, or are you still maintaining that you did not? As an aside, how do you come up with those numbers (260 edits, etc.)? According to toolserver, you have made a grand total of 121 edits since creating this account on November 16.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This raises more than just WP:3RR issues. If it consequently needs to move to WP:ANI, let me know.

At this BLP policy talk page thread, a tendentious re-re-re-re-proposal by User:LittleBenW of his incessant campaign against use of diacritics in en.wiki, he has not only violated WP:3RR (twice?), after explicit warnings, but is also editwarring to repeatedly abuse {{collapse top}}...{{collapse bottom}} to effectively censor other participants in the RfC who disagree with him, and to WP:OWN the debate with no proposals but his, with everything written in childish, ridiculously biased straw man language, instead of the neutral language required by WP:RFC, making the RfC an invalid abuse of process, anyway. He has been doing these reversions so reactively, furiously and incautiously that he's even clobbered two other threads, twice now (as of this writing) in his haste to shut everyone else up. I even did some explicit refactoring to make it hard to accidentally censor those threads, one totally unrelated, and he just did it again anyway, despite warnings and an explicit request to stop, and why. So, at this point it's not only a WP:3RR and WP:DE problem, but a WP:VANDAL issue (it's basically "wikisuicidal" vandalism-through-negligence editing, rather than typical "drive by" vandalism, by an experienced but disgruntled editor who knows better, yet does't care what harm he does to get his way and make his WP:POINT, which is arguably worse that regular "tee-hee, look what I did" vandalism). There are many other admin-actionable problems raised by this editor's behavior, including a protracted and consistent pattern of incivility and personal attacks against multiple other editors (i.e. not a one-off loss of temper, but a demonstrable habit). This is only the latest in a years-long string of such anti-diacritics fiascos that LittleBenW engenders when the last WP:PARENT also said "no", as all the ones before did. This is starting to approach a WP:ARBCOM-needed level of disruption and tendention.

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

  • It's more complicated than that, being a long talk page thread, not just some article text. I cover everything important, skipping over a lot of more minor transgressions.
     
More than 24 hours ago, but relevant for background –
  • Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship of criticism by others 1: [22]
  • Asked to stop misleading editing tactics by another editor: [23]; LittleBenW personally attacked him later (see below)
  • Asked to stop ad hominem attacks by another editor: [24]
  • Personal attack (accused another critic of "vandalism"): [25]; later edited the attack to be worse, not better: [26]
  • Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 2: [27]
  • Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 3: [28] (moved his existing "shut up" collapse tags to encompass more comments that didn't agree with him)
     
Today, mostly all in the last few hours –
  • Warned against continuing his pattern of incivility and personal attacks by another editor: [29]
  • Incivility against another editor: [30] (repeated this "you don't have anything useful to contribute" slur against me later[31] but I had also strongly criticized his proposal, so it didn't particularly offend me, but it shows a pattern of hostile dismissiveness that impedes WP:CONSENSUS)
  • Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 4: [32] (here, someone had posted a totally unrelated topic, without a new heading, and LittleBenW chose to censor it without apparently even reading it, and continued to do so repeatedly, even after warnings)
  • Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 5: [33] (he intentionally expanded the scope of the collapse tag so that it not only hid responses to his proposal summaries, but now also hid opposition to his entire RfC proposal.)
  • Real revert 1, and personal attack (accused me of "vandalism" for removing his censorship collapse tags: [34]
  • Real revert 2: [35]
  • I warned him of 3RR: [36]
  • Personal attack against me: Accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" for giving him a 3RR warning: [37]
  • Effective announcement that he won't let anyone comment in the section he's censoring for "2 to 3 days more": [38]
  • Real revert 3 and personal attack again ("vandalism"): [39] (here he is reverting my attempt to make his straw man attack heading actually represent the opposing views it is a silly caricature of: [40])
  • Arguable incivility toward me: Accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" again, for daring to criticism him and cite policy: [41] (by itself I could let that slide as ignorance of their meanings, since I was quite critical of his proposal and tendentious editing – short of incivil, but admittedly intemperate – but it's part of an obvious pattern of responding to criticism with nothing but attacks)
  • Personal attack against me (accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" again, for nothing other than an oppose !vote that said nothing about his editing at all): [42]
  • I warned him a second time of 3RR: [43]
  • Incivility to an other editor (accused him of "repeated intimidation" simply for criticizing, and this is at least the third time in this debate he's done so in similar wording, to various critics):[44]
  • Real revert 4: [45] (put back the collapse censorship)
  • Real revert 5, via undo tool (about as rude as templating the regulars), and another personal attack on me as a "vandal": [46] (he re-reverted my even more moderate attempt to clean up his straw man, and put it back to his original version at [47]; note it is also a false accusation that I am "vandalising" his proposals)

Today alone, this means 5, (even 7, depending on how to define them) reverts, some of them after two explicit warnings in two places, on top of the NOT, OWN, NPA, CIVIL, AGF and other issues, which the user has also received multiple warnings from various editors about, for many days running (and years, really).

If it's relevant, I can also provide diffs that prove that some of the criticisms and opposition he's censoring pre-date his posting of his numbered summary stuff, so his claim that he's just trying to postpone comments on an unfinished summary is false on its face, but I'm skeptical we need to get into such nitpicks in any depth, when the 3RR and other policy problems are so clear.

Diff of edit-warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on topic's talk page:

  • Reversion of vandalistic edits (whether malevolent or simply negligent) does not require discussion, per WP:VANDAL and WP:3RR
  • Nevertheless, see already-posted diffs for clear edit summaries: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and the warnings cited above already.
  • And, I tried to raise the behavioral issues anyway in talk, but it's probably too late at this point. The user's rampage has already been disruptive to the whole WT:BLP page, and the user's responses to virtually all criticism and requests for moderation, from anyone for the entire history of the debate in this forum and previous iterations, and to user talk warnings, is a consistent pattern of verbal abuse, word-twisting, assumptions of bad faith, and pretense that the critics said something stupid or can't even be understood. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
  • Despite LittleBenW being a whirlwind of negligently incautious editwarring just a while ago and again, 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC), this attempt at BLP talk page discussion, like the one on his own user talk page, has still gone nowhere over two hours later, and BLP talk page posts by others remain censored by him, so enough is enough.

Comments:

I not only think a block is in order, but the weird, disruptive "proposal" mess he's generated as a severely non-neutral, WP:OWNed RfC should be administratively closed as procedurally invalid (not to mention it's already a doomed WP:SNOWBALL anyway, just like last time and the time before).

My own reversions have been solely to remove LittleBenW's attempts to silence other people in the debate by abuse of collapse tags, and I have performed that revert exactly three times as of this writing; he has since re-re-re-inserted them, and I consider it perfectly proper per WP:3RR to continue to undo them, per WP:VANDAL: Not only was the intent clearly to censor others' participation, which is not a permissible editorial purpose, the over-inclusion of unrelated discussion within the censorship was not only willful but editwarred back in repeatedly after multiple warnings, indicating utter disregard for the integrity of that policy talk page.

PS: See also http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons - It's almost all LittleBenW listening to himself talk and shutting everyone else up when he thinks he can. Engaging in sport argument seems like the main reason he participates in WP, and that is a clear WP:NOT policy problem. I've even somewhat defended this user against serious accusations of trolling, because I'm convinced it's a NOT#BATTLEGROUND and NOT#SOAPBOX problem, really. I can't psychically read his mind, of course, just analyze the behavior patterns.

SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Response by LittleBenW

SMcCandlish has repeatedly trashed a heading of the proposal: He unilaterally changed the heading Arguments against adopting the English usage of reputable sources in English Wikipedia to Arguments against forcing all of English-language Wikipedia to use only the bare, diacritics-free 26 English alphabet letters and Arguments against removing diacritics—none of which are what the proposal is about—and he continues using insulting and slanderous language. I have never before encountered him on Wikipedia, but he is making grossly false, stupid and libelous claims about me. He is insulting other contributors by criticizing their English. LittleBen (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That just constituted a legal threat (a claim of slander and libel). I raised that issue at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat by LittleBenW as a matter of process, but user is already blockable for 3RR anyway. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC) It also constituted another personal attack (calling me "stupid"), just for the record. PS: observing that every single thing someone said about language was demonstrably wrong, in a ranty post demanding WP:Biographies of living persons be renamed to WP:Biographies of living people, is not "insulting other contributors by criticizing their English. WP:CIVIL is not "WP:ASSKISSING", and we own our own emotions – if someone is "insulted" by it being pointed out that their proposal based on nonsense, that's their problem, and not WP issue of any kind. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Updates by SMcCandlish
  • He did it again[53], reverting my non-revert third attempt at compromise language that does not demonize those who oppose him. That's at least revert #6 on his part (I remain at 3, and all were in response to his vandalism-by-negligence, so are irrelevant for 3RR purposes). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • He just reflexively reverted again[54]. I just bent over backwards to refactor (not revert)[55] so that LittleBenW can continue to "hide", with collapse tags, the (should-be empty) comments section about his "abbreviated" forthcoming proposals, while moving the already-posted comments on (uniform opposition to) his "summary" proposals, and he just censored them again. His edit summary for this doesn't even make sense, and that's irrelevant anyway. This has to stop immediately. Note also that user ignored attempt to raise these issues in discussion (or, at his talk page, responded with personal attack). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours and warned to future conduct on this page. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, but it should be with regard to future conduct about that issue, not the page, really. Half the reason it's come to this is that his modus operandi is to WP:FORUMSHOP the "diacritics must die" soapbox from page to page, seeking a conducive audience. He may never be back to WT:BLP at all, especially since his proposal has SNOWBALLed there, but will instead just re-start it at WP:VPP, or WP:MOS, or some random article's talk page (he's done that several times). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, fair point, and I will update the warning I left on his talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Factcolony reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


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

  • 1st revert: here was a revert of this edit made by WLRoss at 06:42, 2 November 2012, that added the failed verification tag. Discussion on the talk page has been ongoing since then. Factcolony is well aware of that and participated in the discussion. I reverted the removal here because discussion of the issue is ongoing and the editor does not have consensus to proceed.
  • 2nd revert: here within 24 hours, to remove the failed verification tag again.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See Talk:Hamas#Canada.27s_designation_of_Hamas

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

Comments:
I explained the editing restrictions at Talk:Hamas#Canada.27s_designation_of_Hamas and asked the editor to self-revert, but they have declined. I warned them that I would file a report if they did not self-revert. The article is covered by ARBPIA WP:1RR restrictions and there is a prominent warning at the top of the talk page. Filing reports is very unusual for me. The reason I have filed this report is that it is clear from the tone of the editor's remarks on the article talk page that include several unhelpful and irrelevant personal remarks about another editor, much original research, and from their odd edit summary (e.g. "Undid revision 524339330 by Sean.hoyland (talk) So according to you, Osama bin Laden wasn't a "terrorist" but rather someone vaguely "associated with terrorism"? I don't think so.") and their preference for editing warring over obtaining consensus through discussion, that they are exactly the kind of editor the ARBPIA restrictions are designed to keep under control. I have zero interest in the content issue. I think this editor needs a very clear and unambiguous message that they cannot edit war in this topic area at all and they must gain consensus through discussion to nip this kind of aggressive editing in the bud before it spreads to other articles or issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Tuntable reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned; Turntable blocked 48 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Comments:
Tuntable has systematically been reverting edits to the Windows RT article, regardless of any other edits made, to a specific version prior to any other changes if they do not contain a reference to a factually incorrect claim that "it will only be able to run software that has been certified by Microsoft and placed in the Windows Store" (which is incorrect, since enterprise side-loading is possible, as mentioned), and do not expressly refer to the store as a "walled garden", both of which are loaded terms that are affecting neutrality. He also restores the incorrect statement that the change was for security reasons, despite my revisions using sources from an actual development blog (which was also used to source a "Development" section which was also completely removed just today due to the systematic, POV-pushing edits.)

He attempted to start a talk page discussion, but he canvassed multiple editors with a message about the discussion that was inferred to be biased due to its tone, and he still insists to me the only person whose opinion matters in the conversation—despite my revision which introduced more neutral statements about the restriction being approved by third-parties in the talk page discussion, he still reverted it back to the version with biased wording, and has attempted to brand me as the one who started the edit war, despite the fact that it was technically him.

ViperSnake151  Talk  17:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. There's been no breach of 3RR by either editor, but rather a slow edit-war over days. I've left warnings on both editors' talk pages about battling in the article and noting that if it continues, the editor may be blocked without notice.Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly no. The edit war continues. ViberSnake continues to revert important work, and you can see his comments above to get the flavour of the discussion. I invite other editors to contribute to the poll on the talk. (There was also some vague talk of copyright? Even if it were true it does not justify a total revert. Provide details and they can be addressed.) Tuntable (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Turntable failed to heed my warning and restored their edit, replete with copyright violation. They also plastered editors' talk pages with requests to participate in the "poll".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Saintonge235 reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Watch on the Rhine (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saintonge235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68], [69] and [70]

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

Comments:

Please note edit summary for fourth revert; it would appear that Saintonge235 is attempting to make a connection between an individual's political philosophy and their literary review. The relevancy of which has been questioned by multiple editors, both in edit summary and talk page posting. The fifth revert reinstates the reverted content while the edit summary refers to another component of Saintonge235's edit. Saintonge235 has not responded to any talk page message relating to their activity at Watch on the Rhine (novel) even though they have made use of talk pages in the past. Page protection has been tried; as user Saintonge235 is autoconfirmed and not responding to messages, I'm requesting an indefinite block pending the user's unambiguous commitment to editing within Wikipedia policy. Tiderolls 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

@Tide rolls, assuming sanctions for edit-warring are warranted, please explain why you think an indefinite block (the editor has never been blocked before) is needed. What policy in particular (aside from edit-warring) has the editor violated, and what makes any policy violation so egregious that we should jump straight to an indef?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. In my mind, lack of discussion when approached by another editor in good faith is borderline unpardonable. It could easily be a sign of "newness" as well, but this user has, as stated above, demonstrated they understand the use of article talk pages. To be fair, Saintonge235 has posted to their user talk regarding this situation. Saintonge235 was invited to the article talk page; a statement on their user talk is practically non-responsive, IMO. Tiderolls 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Follow up. Saintonge235 has now posted to the article talk page but has yet to self-revert. Tiderolls 19:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Saintonge235 is stalling on the article talk page without reverting; the answer to their latest question is contained in my original post in that section. Tiderolls 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
As an editor involved in the content disagreement with Saintonge235, I agree that sanctions for edit warring appear warranted, although perhaps not an indefinite block. It may be relevant to note that Saintonge235 has been externally canvassed – by the author of the novel that is the subject of the article – for the purpose of editing the article so as to discredit reviews critical of the novel; as reported here.  Sandstein  20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the external website because it requires a login. However, assuming someone complained on the Internet about the article, how do we know that Saintonge came in response to the complaint? Is it a WP:DUCK-type thing, or is there something more definitive?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The user has edit warred and refused to self-revert. The impetus for their registering an account seems a tangental concern. Tiderolls 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. At any rate, I registered to obtain a login. The forum discussion started by the novelist includes several contributions by a user named "saintonge", in which the Wikipedia edits made in accordance with the novelist's request by the account Saintonge235 on Wikipedia are reported. The forum comments by "saintonge" are signed with a real name that matches both usernames. That looks like conclusive identification to me.  Sandstein  21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours I've blocked Saintonge for 31 hours for slow edit-warring over several days and for refusing to acknowledge their misconduct. Based on the disputed content issues and the belated discussion by Saintonge, I see no basis for a longer first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Truthisnow reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Neo-Advaita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truthisnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:
Truthisnow added a section on "The Neo Advaita tarp" which, after reading the source, appeared to be more WP:OR than a faithfull reflection of the sources. I've replaced this section by text based on two sources diff, explaining the change at the Talk Page diff2. NB: I've also opened a SPI on Truthisnow Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamthelotus. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Diff of explicit invitation to discuss on the talk page [75] Lova Falk talk 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. There was no actual breach of 3RR. The editor has stopped reverting as of 2 days ago. The SPI investigation is still open.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:46.241.191.141 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Range blocked)[edit]

Page: Nagorno-Karabakh War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
September Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Anti-Armenianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kirovabad pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sumgait pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Armenians in Nakhchivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
History of Nagorno-Karabakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of massacres in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:
46.241.191.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.190.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.171.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.185.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.133.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.149.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.152.87 (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: [79] [80]

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

There's a dynamic IP which is edit warring across multiple pages to insert a very problematic map. Previously 3 articles (Kirovabad pogrom, Armenians in Nakhchivan and Armenians in Baku) were protected because of the edit war by this IP. The IP ignored the invitation by the admin to discuss the problem here: [82], and continued edit warring on other pages. I think the IP range needs to be blocked to stop disruption. Grandmaster 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. According to this tool, 8,192 IP addresses would be blocked based on the three IPs you list.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    That's too many. Is there any other way to stop disruption by this anon? Grandmaster 20:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Assuming the addresses are actually dynamic (Geolocate says they come from a dynamic pool but labels them static), we'd have to assume that blocking them would be fruitless. Therefore, the only effective means is semi-protection on each article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    Here are the rangecontribs from 46.241.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). For the last month it seems to me that this map-reverting IP editor is the source of at least 90% of the anon edits in this range. On that basis I think a block of the range for at least two weeks is worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, it appears that the accounts of Alcallurops (talk · contribs) and Tzir-Katin (talk · contribs) are the same person as these IPs. Tzir-Katin is the uploader of the map, and the first to insert it into an article: [83], where IPs started an edit war to keep the map despite objections from a number of editors, and Alcallurops, who has only 28 edits and a block for 3RR violation also joined the IPs in an edit war at Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: [84] [85] after a long period of inactivity. Grandmaster 07:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Result: 46.241.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked three weeks. If you see any continued reverting about this map by Alcallurops or Tzir-Katin, considering reporting them here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:75.72.168.252 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Minnesota Family Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.72.168.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [86]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

This appears to be a new editor who simply does not understand basic Wikipedia concepts, and chooses to ignore friendly requests to work collaboratively. [92] I see no reason to believe he even knows that a Talk page exists.

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The breach of 3RR is clear. However, no one took the trouble to engage the IP in a discussion of the content removal. I have therefore warned the IP on his talk page. In addition, I note that another editor has now supported the IP and removed the same material from the article. It seems like it's time to discuss the content disputee on the article talk page. Indeed, it should have been done before now.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, your handling of this incident is faulty on two counts: 1. Somebody DID attempt to engage the IP in a discussion, plus he was given a stop sign warning. He ignored both. 2. Concurrence of another user does NOT excuse four consecutive reverts of the exact same content. Ever. Belchfire-TALK 05:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dara Allarah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )[edit]

Page: Aleister Crowley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dara Allarah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [93]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Link to discussion page is not applicable. I am just an external observer. The second party to the edit conflict stopped as soon as they got a 3RR warning. The reported user continued and was this is the reason they got reported. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I only noticed the warning after my last edit and I stopped after I'd read it. I requested that the user who was removing cited material take the matter to the talk page (but he refused), and I've now opened a section on the talk page myself. I won't engage in revision warring again but as I'm fairly new to wikipedia I didn't know how to respond to revert vandalism (I think it's called). Looking at the other ed's talk page he seems to have a history of it - but I realise now that my respond was the wrong way to handle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah (talkcontribs) 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: As the original filer I suggest this be closed as no action. The editor reported has helped clean up the article and even got a barnstar by Yworo. No edit-warring danger is imminent. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Stealthepiscopalian reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: )[edit]

Page: Aleister Crowley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:22, 17 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 523381983 by 66.237.186.98 (talk)")
  2. 22:23, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "The author of the previous edit clearly does not understand Crowley's Masonic history - he received the MM degree in France")
  3. 03:41, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "He got the A&P degrees in Mexico on sight but had not yet received the MM degree which he got from Anglo Saxon and which resulted is his revision of the word")
  4. 04:23, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "correct the source documents you are citing verfiy my assertion and contradict yours")
  5. 04:37, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "The Antient and Primitive confers degrees from the 4th to the 33rd - your assertion is regarding the 3rd or MM word")
  6. 04:47, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "yours is the change you take it to talk - Crowley was made a 33rd in Mexico on sight and did not recieve the MM degree, it happens George Bush is an example")
  • Diff of warning: here

Yworo (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: No edit-warring danger has been imminent from this editor. I suggest this be closed as no action. See also my comments just above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:MrX (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Minnesota Family Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 22 November 2012

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (I'm not a party to the content dispute)

Comments:
StAnselm has been warned on several previous occasions about edit warring and has apparently not taken heed.

Here are some warnings that I delivered to StAnselm myself:

Other users have previously warned StAnselm about edit warring:

StAnselm has previously been blocked for edit warring. They do not seem to accept that this behavior is disruptive to the goal of building an encyclopedia and that it drives new editors away:

A report was filed at AN3 less than 90 days ago, but was not closed by an admin, nor was any action taken:

Thank you. - MrX 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've asked StAnselm to post an explanation here as to his conduct on the article. As I said on their talk page, although I was somewhat sympathetic to the IP's breach of 3RR (see report above), I see no justification for StAnselm's.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, to be honest, I had a look at the edit history, and thought that this fifth edit didn't fall within 3RR. Yes, I know I'm not entitled to 3 reverts, but more than 24 hours had elapsed since the third edit. This is all accepting the numbering system above. My first edit was, in my mind, helping this IP editor out. I didn't remove all the material that was added, just one dubious sentence, and I added what I though was a helpful wikilink. The fact that this wikilink kept on getting removed shows that he or she probably didn't know much about Wikipedia and edit histories. But it's hardly fair to call it a "revert" - I was keeping as much of the IP's material as possible. Same with the second revert - it is quite unfair to call it a revert. A comparison between my versions shows that I kept much of the IP's material (such as the $349,857.25 figure). So my latest edit was, according to my reckoning, my third revert. Anyway, MrX and I have had some past history, and there has been some bad faith between us, which would make me question the neutrality of this report. This doesn't seem to be a report presented reluctantly, it looks like MrX is looking for an opportunity to have me blocked. I have indeed been blocked before (more than a year ago), and that was deserved, but no action was taken on the last report, presumably because it wasn't deserved. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You made four reverts starting at 22 November 00:01 through 22 November 20:47. If you don't think they constitute reverts, then you should read WP:3RR more carefully. As for your coment re MrX, I don't care much about any "bad faith" between you, but assuming it's true, why would MrX advise you not to war with the IP if MrX wants you blocked? You could have self-reverted at the point of the warning, you would have had only 3, and it would have been a sign of good faith on your part. I didn't look at the last report here to see whether there was any merit to it or not. I'm trying to keep this focused on now, or at least the recent now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to go out this morning, so I don't have a chance to read through WP:3RR. It is certainly possible that I have misunderstood things - as I said, I thought at the time that the first two edits were not reverts. If I was wrong, then I am sorry. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've just had a look at it, and I see the "in whole or in part". Yes, that would apply here, which means my fourth edit did indeed break 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Given your willingness to read (reread?) the policy and acknowledge your error, combined with the array of problems on the article, I'm closing this. Please be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:187.36.81.70 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Cisplatine War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.36.81.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [107]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments: The user has no right to delete sourced content from the article, particularly since he bases his position on original research (against WP:OR) and ad hominem attacks on the historian. I request the administrator evaluating this case to return the deleted material to the article.


The poster above has no right to distort the subject of an article by posting a misleading quote from someone who is no authority on the topic in question at all.

This is the quote he so much wanted to post there:

"Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries".|Daniel Stowell[1]}}

Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".

This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.

Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:

  • The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing United Provinces); you can read about these consequences from the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas", http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires.
  • When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.

In short, the quote he so much wants to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed.

Please pay attention another poster also noticed how inappropriate is that quote: "And the unknown editor complaining is correct when he said that it was said by a non-expert. However, I don't believe that the quote is the main issue in here. The article as a whole should be reworked and improved. Removing of keeping the quote won't resolve the main issue, which is the article itself". --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War 187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I don't oppose the suggestion of the user Cambalachero, the quote could reformulated into text appropriate and then cited as a reference. The way it was posted it sounded like some final judgment on the matter, which is wrong, since Stowell is no expert on the conflic, no military historian and he has not even written a book about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War 187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Article protected five days. This is a good opportunity for both sides to discuss on the talk page, and bring more sources. If the IP is contentiously editing one article (as it seems) from multiple IP addresses, he should stop this practice since it violates WP:SOCK. The Stowell book that MarshalN20 found is a curious source for the stated claim. Perhaps MarshalN20 can explain how a book about a Florida planter comes to address the topic of the Cisplatine War, or if it cites any references of its own. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:EditorInChiefSD reported by User:Shrike (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Gaza–Israel conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EditorInChiefSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



  • 1st revert: [114]
  • 2nd revert: [115]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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


Comments:
The article is under 1RR. The user is clearly in combat mode to push his POV in other articles too [117] and [118]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also see EditorInChiefSD's disruptive edits at Palestinian incitement - battling multiple editors. Clearly an out of control editor who needs a timeout... if not something more substantial. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Probably should have been longer. Any repeat after expiration of the block should be met with a block of one year or a topic ban. The POV-pushing and disruptive editing may militate in favor of an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:76.102.172.86 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Józef Piłsudski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.102.172.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [119]

Earlier reverts (before 24 hr period):

In his edit summaries the user referenced "discussion on talk" though s/he has not said anything there. Instead, apparently, s/he was referring to discussion from long time ago, buried deep in the archives [128]. This suggest that this is not a new user but some banned user returning to stir up trouble again.

Previously the anon IP also edit warred (more than 24 hrs) on the Stefan Banach article, until it had to be protected [129]:

That's when s/he moved over to the Jozef Pilsudski article.

The IP has also made racist and bigoted remarks on talk:

  • [137]
  • [138] " Instead of these ridiculous reverts, try doing something that you guys are good at - like fixing some leaking faucets, installing few toilet bowls here and there or introducing us to a hot bloodied Agnieszka or two" - racist stereotypes and sophmoric bigoted jokes
  • [139] "I don't mean stealing cars!" - more moronic bigotry, implying Poles are only good at stealing cars.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Frankfort05 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524795794&oldid=524780495 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524796097&oldid=524795931


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I sent several messages to the user and explained it to them and asked them many times to discuss it on the talk page but they just kept refusing.

Comments:
Pass a method is once again in an 'edit war' on this article. This user has done the same thing several times before, and I think he has been blocked for sort of thing more than once before. I feel that he is ignoring me and just doing whatever he wants to do on the article, and I feel he is attacking me needlessly. I'm pretty sure that he is a well experienced contributor here and so I don't understand why it was so difficult to get him to go to the talk page of the article and talk things out. He has also reverted my edits without even an edit summary. His style is *very* aggressive and seems to get angry whenever anyone objects to something he does. I linked him to WP:OWN, but he still keeps at it. I told him that he should go right away to the talk page because of what WP:BRD says, but he still keeps reverting me instead of discussing it first. What am I supposed to do?? --Frankfort05 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


The first diff was not a revert, it was an addition/woding. The second diff was a compromise where i merely restructured the paragraph to seperate religions from denominations. Hence i made 2 reverts, not 4. Pass a Method talk 14:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC). Pass a Method talk 14:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In addition to the previous edit-warring blocks this year, Pass a Method does not appear to understand WP:3RR, putting aside that one doesn't have to breach 3RR to be sanctioned for edit-warring. The first edit was a revert. Pass a Method changed the material in the article; it wasn't just an addition. Indeed, to the extent it matters, it was a net loss of material. A "compromise" is a change and constitutes a revert; the supposed motive is generally irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
4 clear reverts today. I'd block but hopefully an Admin with more knowledge of Pass a Method's history will deal, particularly considering he's been reported below as well. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Now that an administrator has decided that he was edit warring, can his edit warring be reverted? Can someone please undo his last edit on the article as no one has agreed to it on the talk page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't normally undo in these circumstances unless there's a clear policy violation apart from the edit-warring. It's not only not my role to become involved in the content dispute; except in limited cases, it can make me involved. There are 837 watchers of that article. You should be able to get a consensus from some subset of those watchers as to which content is best. I wouldn't revert yourself, though; let someone else do it if you obtain a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I see. But that seems to allow those who commit edit warring to 'win' though. Meaning that their edits stay. At which point am I able to revert it myself? Oh and where did you get the 837 number from? Is there a link somewhere in each page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a function of winning. WP:3RR is mostly a procedural policy to prevent disruption to articles. Other than the exemptions to 3RR, it's not content-related. Blocking an editor for violating 3RR prevents further damage to the article, but it isn't intended to take sides in the content dispute. In any event, another editor reverted Pass a Method's last change. However, to answer your now moot question, I simply wouldn't touch the part of the article that the edit war was about because you could be accused of edit-warring. Theoretically, you could wait until you're outside the 24-hour period, but some might call that gaming the system if your reversion comes too soon after the period expires. Finally, on any page, when you are looking at the revision history of the page, there is a link toward the top middle, "Number of watchers". That will give you the number of editors who have the article on their watchlists. If you see a hyphen, that means the number is fewer than 30. BTW, when I did it earlier, it worked, but a moment ago, there was an error message. Toolserver is a wonderful collection of tools, but it has technical problems from time to time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I put 'win' in quotes. Just saying that it sometimes might allow edit warring users to get their way.... Oh and one more important question: what should I do if Pass a method goes back to being rude and edit warring when he comes back? Look I even noticed that he just ignored what you said about removing the block notice from his talk page; he's removed it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pass_a_Method&diff=prev&oldid=524804958 ! I mean, how does someone deal with situations like this? --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If Pass a Method resumes edit-warring on the article, you can report them again. Generally, it does not require a brand-new violation of 3RR to block based on a resumption of the same behavior after expiration of the block. As for the removal of the block notice, I've revoked their talk page access so the block notice cannot be removed again. Unfortunately, some editors get very angry when blocked and react badly, although Pass a Method habitually removes notices from their talk page. The removal of most notices is permissible, but not a current block notice. BTW, any more questions you have (and it's good that you ask questions), feel free to post them on my talk page rather than here as this thread is getting kind of long.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Kevin McE (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: 100 metres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [142]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147] (deleted by PaM from his/her talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments: While I disagree with what PaM wants to add, and have explained why I think it inappropriate, it is not a totally unreasonable proposal. But having been asked to discuss the matter, he/she evidently considers the fact of having passed comment on the talk page as licence to change the article again. I note that another editor has also placed a 3rr warning on the user's talk page [149]. Kevin McE (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. This report is a bit more unusual than the report above on Same-sex marriage. The first edit by Pass a Method was in fact an addition; they added an image. Moreover, Kevin acknowledged that his first reason for reverting Pass a Method (removing the image) was wrong. However, Kevin then took a different tack and said the image doesn't belong in the article. After that point, Pass a Method made 3 reverts in a row. If you don't count the first edit by Pass a Method, which I'm inclined not to, each editor made 3 reverts before the battle stopped. That is one of my reasons for declining to block. The other reason is I blocked Pass a Method above for 48 hours for the war at the other article, and I think that's sufficient. It might have been reasonable to increase the block beyond 48 hours, but I decided it was more punitive than preventive. The most important thing for Pass a Method to draw from these two reports is that they need to stop reverting in articles and then subsequently claim their reverts are not reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted that, partly due to a confused edit on my part. PaM did not merely add an image in that first edit, (s)he replaced one, thus deleting the image originally there. Per the definition at 3RR ( A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material) this is a revert. I began editing the caption that PaM put on the second picture, but because I was looking at a related page, I saw the second picture already in situ, changed tack, saved, recognised my error, and then resumed my original intention. At that stage, we had had a simple BR of the BRD cycle (with a slight hiccup at the R stage). Thereafter PaM made three further reversions without waiting for any support towards a consensus.
At the same time, banning a banned user seems pretty pointless, however, it should be on record that PaM has two breaches of 3RR on his record from today, lest he continues with such behaviour (this is evidently not a first offence).
Presumably I cannot now restore the page to the state it was in before PaM's interventions without myself being in breach of 3RR; could someone please do so? Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You are correct; I did misread the first edit Pass a Method made and technically that means they breached 3RR, but your "confused edit" did somewhat mitigate the breach. And I'm disinclined to increase the length of the block. Normally, I would strike my language above, but it would make this thread even more confusing, so, hopefully, the subsequent dialog between clarifies my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for the confusion my error caused. And thanks to Zozo for returning the article to its stable version. Kevin McE (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:CaroOlsen reported by User:Jæs (Result: not blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [150]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]

Comments:

For several months, User:CaroOlsen (also editing as User:70.79.64.73) has reverted no fewer than five other editors to repeatedly reinsert a spam link to a publicity site for a "biography project" she claims to be writing about a notable living person, Léo Apotheker. There is no reliable sourcing indicating she has a publisher, is actually even writing such a biography, or that it is authorized. Even if there was reliable sourcing for all three of those facts, I think it would still be spam. It seems clear that she's going to continue reverting to reinsert her link regardless of objections from other editors or any of our policies. jæs (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the link as inappropriate, and I feel it is inappropriate and BLP violating enough to blacklist the site. My specific comments are on the article's talk page. If another administrator disagrees with the assessment, please feel free to revert my administrative actions (the blacklist) without consulting me. As to blocking, I don't see that she reverted again since the mild warning you gave her; at any rate, the blacklist should prevent that specific reversion. Kuru (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look at this. jæs (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:77.42.209.47 and User:77.42.198.203 reported by User:Zozo2kx (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: Al Akhbar (Lebanon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.42.209.47 (