Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive207

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Belchfire reported by User:216.81.94.68 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


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


Comments:
Belchfire is coming off his 4th "vacation" and has started edit warring, and even 3rr in this case as well, again. He even tried bullying a editor on their talk page with a warning, something common for belchfire to do. Blechfire has proven he has no regard to editing in good faith and its either his way or none. Please review his past time offs and do not take my word for it, his actions speak very loudly.

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I'll leave a warning for him not to revert again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User:75.183.144.91 reported by - MrX (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Bryan Fischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.183.144.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:00, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Views and activities */")
  2. 21:06, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537763254 by ClueBot NG (talk)")
  3. 21:23, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537764438 by Eyesnore (talk)the youtube video In question has Bryan Fischer actually saying this, on his radio show, if videos and radio broadcasts are unreliable then everything is")
  4. 23:08, 11 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")
  5. 01:44, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537768009 by Binksternet (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

The editor was blocked for almost identical disruptive editing a little more than two weeks ago. They also don't seem to be very fond of the advice that a couple of editors, including myself, have tried to provide to them. —- MrX 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for violation of 3RR and for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:3abos reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Heterophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 3abos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

  1. 00:17, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537789241 by Dawn Bard (talk) The references ARE reliable and do not violate. Nevertheless there is no reason to undo the changes.")
  2. 00:32, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537790807 by Josh3580 (talk) I do not see how opinion is placed in this article? if there is simply remove it.")
  3. 00:35, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537791297 by Eyesnore (talk)IF there is "opinion" in this article, remove the opinion not the whole article. We are supposed to be neutral?")
  4. 00:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537792172 by Josh3580 (talk)This does adhere.")
  5. 05:56, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537822793 by Insomesia (talk)Discussed with various authors and editors. Please see talk page that has link.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • User had also received a "final warning" for violating NPOV on this same article [2]

Comments:

It's also worth noting that an IP showed up and made the same reversion as 3abos after 3abos made their 5th reversion [3][4] Dawn Bard (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Aboutstyes reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aboutstyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8]

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

I also informed the editor of the discussion here, but the editor simply removed the notice without commenting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] This user has switched accounts several times. Previous incarnations were User:Cliptgenus, User:Enemyusuar and others. Editor arrives, makes this change and others. The edits are not usually worthy of an SPI, but if block evasion happens, I will take it up.

I have started a discussion at the project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Image in the grounds/stadium section.
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. (Your diff about trying to resolve the issue isn't; perhaps it's a mistake. In any case, this editor doesn't seem like he wants to talk to anyone about anything.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Griffy013 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Griffy013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [11]

  • 02:51, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537946830 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (Because no specific reason given for revert of cited material)")
  • 02:56, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "(Reverted deletion of cited entry without explaination)")
  • 03:01, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981124 by Bbb23 (talk) (more specificity is needed - there are many sources only delete information that is improperly sourced not a wholesale deletion ))")
  • 03:09, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537981780 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (your editing to make the language more neutral is welcomed - i did not write this - but there are many cited items in this entry)")
  • 03:15, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537982575 by Bbb23 (talk) (be specific and we can talk about it - you are repeatedly deleting a large portion of materials with multiple citations)")
  • 03:19, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 537983007 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) (again, this appears to be cited - is there is an issue with language - change to neutral language)")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

The user keeps reverting. This is a sensitive WP:BLP article and there are serious problems with the material that was initially added by an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He is reverting a large amount of cited information from multiple sources without specific reason or a line item edit. Has not responded on talk page.--griffy013 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2013 (EST)
Despite taking the time to repeatedly remove my re-edits no one will talk to me on the talk page of the page in question. It is removal without discussion.--griffy013 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (EST)
I attempted both to talk to you and to warn you on your talk page, as the diff shows. Also, RedPen tried to explain to you the BLP problems inherent in the material. However, despite three editors reverting you, you continued to insist. I might add that you reverted twice more since I posted the list of reverts above. I'm going off-wiki now, so I will have no more comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
My personal talk page is not the place for a discussion of the page. It does not help future editors at all. See the Vargas talk page. My continued efforts at re-editing smaller chunks of the material you originally removed have been again removed without discussion - the revert is of different, re-edited material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffy013 (talkcontribs) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This incident involved so many reverts that it ought not be allowed to close as "stale". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Article is full-protected)[edit]

Page: Sam & Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
Edit warring about inclusion of primary sourced information.

  • Both parties are edit warring. Rather than block anybody over something this trivial, I full-protected the article. Please take it to the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kpopnz reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Indeffed as sock puppet)[edit]

Page: File:Sam & Cat Title Screen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kpopnz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

After notification of this discussion


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27], [28] and [29]

Comments: Uploading show logo images from fan-sites and replacing an official image from the site of the show creator. No communications


No longer relevant as user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:67.185.8.191 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Traditional marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (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: [35]

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

Comments:
Yes I know the 4th revert is slightly more than 24 hours old, but the full pattern goes back several days and there is an obvious intent to preven any/all changes from his preferred version of the page.

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by User:Airplaneman.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Respectfully, having recently encountered Roscelese at a catholicism based article, and knowing how hard they work to protect the content of these works, this looks more like the IP trying to get their way by removing longstanding text from the work and then blaming Roscelese for edit warring. The only reichstag climber here is the IP user. Good call in protecting the work. FishBarking? 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonofbengal reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2013 Shahbag Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:22, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 21:47, 12 February 2013 (edit summary: "Organized more logically. Removing excess irrelevant/unrelated materials and void references. Edited for neutrality of the article.")
  3. 14:21, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047646 by Sabih omar (talk)")
  4. 14:24, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538047456 by 103.9.114.246 (talk)")
  5. 14:33, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538049158 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) don't edit further until consensus is reached in the talkp page")
  • Diff of warning: [here

Comments:
This user is trying to insert info from This Blog which is WP:Copyrightvio, remove a large part of sourced material Which is WP:Verifiability vio and engage in edit warring with other newbie editors. As a result this 2013 Shahbag Protest article become protected. I think he will start the edit war again just after removal of protection. This account start editing from yesterday and from the beginning try to vandalize the article. Even he vandalize his own talk page [36] [37] [38] [] [], where few users warn him. I think he will be blocked. Actually this is my first 3RR reporting by using this tool, If done anything wrong, please help me to report in write way. Thank you--Freemesm (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The only thing you neglected to do, Freemesm, was to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that and I've also warned the user. However, blocking the user at this point would be punitive as they can't continue to disrupt the article while it's locked. However, once the lock expires, if they continue to edit disruptively and I see it, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kits1972 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page: Catherine of Alexandria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kits1972 (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: [43]

Additional issues of WP:COMPETENT are noted on the talk page

I was notified of this dispute through my involvement at WP:DRN, and have no involvement with the article myself. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely. The editor is either completely incompetent or trolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikpapag reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Nook Simple Touch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikpapag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts at discussion have been made at Talk:Nook Simple Touch and User talk:Nikpapag#Concerning your edits at Nook Simple Touch

Comments:
Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring report. There are issues with the edit that I've explained in edit summaries and on the talk page, but Nikpapag has demonstrated that he has no intention of discussing it, but chooses to edit war without explanation, not even bothering to use an edit summary in the last two diff, and there's no indication that the edit warring will cease. - SudoGhost 02:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking any action on this because I'm about to go off-wiki, so I'll leave it for another admin. I will note, though, that Nikpapag does not talk. Hasn't talked on an article talk page since 2010 and then only a few times. Doesn't do user talk, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion, they may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR violation on Jigai (Result: Semi)[edit]

An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for sockpuppetry/block-evasion.) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected ten days. It does not look good to have an edit war on an article where an AfD is pending, especially when one side of the dispute is an IP-hopper and is not participating in the AfD. The entire article could be a factual error, and perhaps there is no special female way to commit suicide in the Japanese tradition. See the IP's participation at Talk:Jigai#Dubious. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kontoreg reported by User:ZarlanTheGreen (Result: No action)[edit]

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


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

  • 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKendo&diff=538379523&oldid=534786532 Also, on his user page (and this somewhat pre-dates the above attempts): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKontoreg&diff=538200582&oldid=535784166

Comments:

This is the first time I have reported an edit war, so I am not sure if I've done this right. The bits about reverts, are rather confusing, as this isn't a case of 3RR, as far as I know. Please excuse me, for any clumsiness or errors, due to ignorance.

There was some content added by Kontoreg, on Kendo, which was removed/modified by Ffbond. Kontoreg then re-added it straight away. Ffbond then reverted this for it giving undue weight to an unnotable issue. (admittedly, Ffbond has some blame here too. Also, please not that these are not all exact reverts. There is some slight modifications here and there)
All the while Kontoreg also added some information on katas, which was modified to be a bit more coherent.
...all of which was then instantly re-added by Kontoreg.

Having seen all this, I felt I needed to say something. Thus I pointed out to Kontoreg, that such behaviour is wrong, and why it is so. I have myself been involved in a few editing disputes, and even a Dispute resolution noticeboard (which ended up quite well, I must say). All of that, with some blame being on my own behaviour, until I've learned the policies and guidelines (the wisdom of which, I generally instantly understood and accepted, once I understood the policy/guideline), so I didn't wish to be too harsh, but I felt Kontoreg needed to be informed of how things are supposed to be done, and why the things that he/she was doing was wrong.
I pointed out that these things have to be discussed, not just reverted back and forth. This was swiftly followed by Ffbond making a reply there, saying he/she would discuss the matter in the talk page, which Ffbond started straight away, as promised. This discussion was, once Kontoreg entered them, mostly derailed into a discussion of pointless and confused semantics (and I'm not saying that semantics are pointless).

Sadly Kontoreg made an edit, concerning an issue being discussed, during the discussion, which I instantly reverted, pointing out that it was inappropriate.
This incident aside, we were quickly able to form consensus. Kontoreg didn't agree, but then consensus doesn't require all to agree. Ffbond was good enough to clean up the article, in accordance with the consensus.

Sadly this was then reverted by Kontoreg, in complete disregard of the consensus. I reverted this, pointing out that Kontoreg's edits were going against wikipedia policy and guidelines, but Kontoreg simply re-reverted it. Following this, I pointed out, in the talk page (and also in Kontoreg's user talk page, just to be sure), that the issues have been discussed and consensus formed, and that these edits were against policy and guidelines. I informed Kontoreg that he/she needed to undo the edits, or I would report this as edit warring.

Kontoreg made some more additions to the talk page, and later proceeded to make a few edits on the main article. Edits that, in no way, were an undo of anything. This I took as a sign of refusing, but realising that not much time had gone by, I decided to give him/her some more time. Still, I tried to convince Kontoreg, appealing to the values of Kendo (which seemed appropriate, given Kontoreg's apparent passion for the subject) ...and pointing out that I had written a edit warring report ready to post.

Kontoreg did not respond in the manner I hoped, but rather said that he had made a Dispute resolution noticeboard request. Dispute resolution noticeboard are, as far as I've understood, about better being able to establish consensus and then apply that. However, discussion has already occurred and finished, with consensus having been formed. You need to be able to respect the decisions reached by it. Kontoreg has clearly shown utter disregard for such things. Kontoreg does not seem to be able to accept the consensus, not because of any lack of discussion, but rather simply due to the fact that the consensus wasn't to his/her liking. (and I say this despite trying to assume good faith)
This I pointed out in the talk page, as well as pointing out that the DRN request had been done quite badly (as well as the informing of other editors). I also pointed out the fact that, for all the assumption of good faith, and keeping Hanlon's Razor firmly in mind, I could not really consider this an honest attempt to reach consensus, but rather an attempt to try to get through Kontoreg's own opinion. I am reminded of a child asking for something from it's parent, and when told no, rather than accepting that their request has been denied, tries asking the other parent, to see if he/she will say yes.
Thus I saw the DRN request as nothing more than a further disruptive act. Whether it was intentionally so, is irrelevant. Essentially, whether intentional or not, I see it as, in effect, gaming the system.

The DRN request was closed, as it was badly done, the involved editors weren't properly informed (or even mentioned in the request) ...and quite importantly, Kontoreg pointed out in the DRN request, that he/she was going on vacation the day after making the request (until the 26:th), meaning that no real discussion could happen for quite a while.
This would also mean forcing Kontoreg's version of the article (which goes against consensus) to stay on, for quite some more time, meaning even more disruption, intentional or not.

I do not see this as something to be dealt with in a DRN, or where a DRN would help. I do, however, see it as a clear case of edit warring. Thus I make this report.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to inform Kontoreg. I have done so here (and also on the Kendo talk page). Please do tell me if it's wrong, and how it should be done, if that is so. On the bright side, there's apparently no great hurry to get it right, given that Kontoreg is apparently on holiday.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: No action. If Kontoreg is on vacation until Feb. 26, then the edit war is over for the moment. If this starts up again, make a new report and link to this one. Note that you did not provide the four diffs that are normally required for a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Reason.upholder reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: 2013 Shahbag Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:04, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Added details and organization, corrected for neutrality")
  2. 14:41, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538050137 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) you people are giving pro-government slant to the article destrying its neutrality.... come to the talk page... lets discuss")
  3. 14:53, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538051762 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) theres no point made by shouting vandalism.... provide some non-blog/authentic references... come to talk page lets discuss")
  4. 15:02, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538052402 by Arctic Kangaroo (talk) until otherwise established in the talk page let it have a neutral slant")
  5. 15:35, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "No claim outside references. Check them. I am discussing the matter in the talk page.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] [58]

Comments:
This guy was edit warring on 2013 Shahbag Protest and made it protected. He removed a large number of sourced content and add some something from copying this blog. He don't have any basic idea of editing on wikipedia, thats why he vandalize that article's talk page. I am afraid after removal of protection from that article, he will start edit war again. Moreover I am in doubt that User:Sonofbengal who was reported earlier his sock. I am not quite sure as my experience in reporting sockpuppet is negligible, but both of them start the edit war in similar way. So I am requesting to take action on this guy. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Has not edited the article since the lock expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:84.100.58.203 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: List of fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.100.58.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

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

  1. 21:13, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538252657 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
  2. 21:17, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
  3. 21:18, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
  4. 14:40, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538311224 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
  5. 19:58, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538424923 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

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

Funandtrvl (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. The first three diffs you list above constitute one revert as they are consecutive. Therefore, the IP has not violated 3RR, although there is edit-warring, but by both of you. You also failed to notify them of this report, which you are required to do. I'm not going to bother because I'm declining the report. I suggest you make sure that the IP knows that you want to discuss their edits. You started a topic on the article talk page, which is to your credit, but the IP may not be aware of it. So, leave a note on their talk page about the topic and invite them to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: How I Met Your Mother (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Reversions:

Diffs of edit warring warnings: [61][62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [64][65][66]

Comments:
Back on 22 January, an IP made a minor, and reasonable, change to an episode summary at How I Met Your Mother (season 8), replacing vague information with a specific point about the episode plot.[67] This was later reverted by another IP, who claimed it was a spoiler.[68] As removal was contrary to WP:SPOILER, it was reverted.[69] On 2 February, Eaglestorm reverted the change without explanation.[70] That edit was reverted, with the editor stating quite correctly in his edit summary, "Summaries are supposed to summarize, not tease". Eaglestorm's next visit was 9 February,[71] and since then has been edit-warring over the content. Multiple attempts have been made on his talk page to engage him in discussion,[72][73][74] but these have proven fruitless. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page,[75] and invited Eaglestorm to the discussion,[76] to no avail. After I initiated the talk page discussion, an IP posted to my talk page, explaining that Eaglestorm will not engage in discussion.[77] This claim seems well supported by Eaglestorm's talk page history. There are numerous cases where editors have attempted to engage him,[78][79] but he refuses, instead simply deleting requests with inappropriate edit summaries,[80][81][82][83] calling editors trolls, socks and SPAs. Even my attempts to engage him were deleted as "nothing more than prodding at the behest of some SPA editor",[84] and the edit-warring warning was reverted as "unjustified warning at the behest of SPA".[85] Eaglestorm has now posted at my talk page,[86] but still has not engaged in any discussion over his contentious edits, and his 5th revert above clearly indicates that he intends to continue his edit-warring. --AussieLegend () 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Just noting that after Eaglestorm's peculiar (dare I say "paranoid") post on my talk page,[87], his next edit was to delete the notification of this discussion on his talk page as "harrassment".[88] EdJohnston has since posted on Eaglestorm's talk page requesting response to this complaint.[89] However, Eaglestorm has not edited at all in the 32 hours since he last deleted content from his talk page. --AussieLegend () 07:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Eaglestorm has now edited again, deleting EdJohnston's request with the edit summary, "will not dignify response".[90] --AussieLegend () 06:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass456 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Semi-protected; warned)[edit]

Page: Middlesex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass456 (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: [96]

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

Comments:
Edits are made from several IPs. Edit histories and summaries are clearly the same person.

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected.
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I've semi-protected the article for one week. I've warned the named account. I've reverted the article to the version before the edit-war and the abuse of multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Having just read the above information through, I draw your attention to the following edit made on User:MRSC subsequent to the actions described above to resolve the issue (if I have my time-diffs worked out): here. I have temporarily blocked the anon user for 1 day and I am happy for this to be reverted if any subsequent action to determine whether an attempt to evade the warning given to User:Pass456 has occurred.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:212.183.140.33 (Result: Reporter (IP) blocked; article semi-protected)[edit]

Page: International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [98]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:


Egregious and aggravated edit warring

The 4th edit is outside of the 24h period, but is clearly deliberate and a transparent attempt to game the system for the following reasons:

  • Martinvl had first to organise semi-protection for this page and for Metric system to try to ensure that his POV could not be altered - see these requsts: [105]
  • Martinvl has been warring in this and the Metric system article for some days now, see this warning from an administrator: [106] and the diffs below.
Diffs for the Metric system article which he also got semi-protected first:
  • 1st revert: [107]
  • 2nd revert: [108]
  • 3rd revert: [109] (note the edit summary)
  • 4th revert: [110] (note the edit summary)
  • Martinvl has recently had gaming charges related to these articles brought against him on WP:ANI at: [111]
  • Martinvl freely issues edit-warring warnings himself, so is well aware that such practices are not acceptable in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia.

The aggrevating circumstances, and the fact that he clearly engineered semi-protection for these articles to assist his mission demonstrate, beyond doubt, that these are clearly pre-meditated and egregious attempts to force a POV by relentless edit-warring and bad-faith accusation-throwing and failure to engage in civilised discussion. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me be blunt about it, I believe that the complainant is a sockpuppet of the banned User:DeFacto who has recently change ISP so that he hops IP address every time that he logs on and that he is out to cause trouble. At the moment [an SPI for another] of his alleged sockpuppers [[User:Bill le Conquérant] is awaiting closure. In this edit he wrote "Also, do you have a source showing what the socio-economic mix of Asda customers is, and how that compares with the UK population in general? (this is my first contribution to this debate)" (My emphasis). Why would he write something like this? If one looks at this sequence of threads:
one will see that an enormous amount was written about Asda. I think that the complainant knows more about Asda than he lets on, I think that his statement "this is my first contribution to this debate" is proof that he was a major contributor to the Asda argument and that he is DeFacto. That being the case, I was reverting work done by a sockpuppet of a banned user, something which is permissable. Furthermore, I got the locks on the articles in question as a means of getting him off my back and off Wikipedia's back. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That discussion is clearly a response to your reply to this contribution from another editor, in which a BBC article is cited, an article which refers to the Asda survey and which you commented upon yourself in that thread! To claim that there was some other rationale, seated in some historical dispute is clearly a crazy notion. You are disrupting Wikipedia and will clearly stop at nothing to defend your own, transparently POV-motivated actions. Did you revert the two articles mentioned here, contrary to the edit-war prevention conventions and for your own purposes? You clearly did. Throwing around unsubstantiated accusations, with no regard for the harm they might do to other, innocent editors, is not a dignified way to try to defend yourself, now please stop it. And looking back at the rest of that thread, his "" remark was clearly to distinguish himself from the other 212.183 editor involved in the same thread. Martinvl, please avoid starting your own conspiracy theories. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure it's quite 4 reverts - I only see two matching edits. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Semi-protected by User:Materialscientist for 3 days.
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. Reporter (212.183.140.33) blocked for one month for sock puppetry (confirmed puppet of User:ROBERT TAGGART). As for the IPs who may be DeFacto, the SPI was inconclusive, although I'm inclined to believe they are. Thus, either further semi-protection or a range block may ultimately be necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
BB. That tag was put there on 1 June 2010‎. The chances of this IP being Taggart is pretty slim. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
DS, very hard to sort out. The IP is supposedly static (I don't know how accurate Geolocate's labels of static and dynamic are). Also, this particular IP was not listed in the latest DeFacto SPI. If they are static, then I have to go with the confirmed SPI from 2010. If they are actually dymamic, then I would be inclined to believe they are a sock of DeFacto. Either way, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well it is not static as it is different every time he logs in :o) I use the same ISP, am I a sock of Defacto as well? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want me to block you, I can. :-) I've raised the technical issues at the DeFacto SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:09, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 70.44.58.168 (talk) to last version by Bbb23")
  2. 05:31, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 538669028 by Nomoskedasticity: pls get consensus for these changes, particularly in light of earlier discussions. (TW)")
  3. 06:56, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538671586 by Yworo (talk) BLP violation -- see WP:BLPN")
  4. 07:05, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "WP:BLP violation")
Note: the claim by Nomoskedasticity that his reverts are exempt under WP:BLP are false, as it is he who is inserting false information.

Yworo (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad-faith report, failing to mention the fact that I started a discussion at WP:BLPN and have explicitly invoked a BLP exemption to 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing "false" insofar as it is rooted in Vargas's statement "I am an American". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not an independent, third party reliable source. We err on the side of caution by omitting controversial or disputed claims, not by including them. "When in doubt, leave it out". Please provide a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject's own article published in the NYTimes Magazine is an excellent source for the subject's own self-identification regarding ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Again "American" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality, and people don't get to choose their nationality. Therefore a third-party reliable sources is required to establish it, not a claim by the subject, who doesn't have that power. Yworo (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"Filipino-American", however, is an ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And by insisting on that, you prove yourself not to be following WP:OPENPARA. His specific ethnicity is not important to his notability. It's his citizenship of one county while residing in another. If he were an ethnic Chinese (or Italian, or Jewish) Philippine citizen in the US without resident status, he'd be just as notable. He was born in the Philippines, he's a Philippine national. It's his natal nation. Yworo (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The core issue here, the basis for claiming a BLP exemption to 3RR, was given at BLPN: "Again, usually the edit in question comes from a particular POV, designed to discredit Vargas's claim to be an American and to reinforce his status as an "alien". As such, the edit is a BLP violation." It is therefore disturbing that Yworo subsequently repeated his own edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in discrediting anyone. I am simply trying be accurate, in a clear and concise way that does not mislead our readers and does not include a claim which has no supporting citations, namely the implication of American citizenship or legal resident status. The wording that states his nationality and separately states his country of residence is simply the most accurate. Yworo (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record (fwiw), I have no intention of reverting again. Nomo's already hit four reverts, and I'm not the only editor he has reverted. (added) He has stated that he intends on continuing to revert on (imo false) BLP grounds. That's why I reported him, because of his stated intent to continue reverting. Yworo (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Without knowing that a report had already been filed, I commented on the edit-warring issue at WP:BLPN. As I stated there, I am WP:INVOLVED and cannot act administratively on this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article needs long-term semi-protection. Beyond that: what appears to have happened today is that Yworo (whom I have had disagreements with before) has my talk-page on his watchlist and saw that an IP editor had posted there today about Vargas; he then repeated the IP's edit, knowing that I would get to the limit of 3RR before he did. Yworo has not edited the Vargas article before today; I see no other way to account for his interest in it -- so there is also a bit of WP:HOUND here. In any event, the claim of a BLP exemption was made in perfectly good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You have been wrong about ethnicity issues before. That's why it caught my attention. There's no "hounding" involved in good faith efforts to correct WP:BLP issues. Cheers, it's my bedtime. Hope you come up with some better arguments. Yworo (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This article has been stable for a long time with the opening "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino American journalist..." If it is to be changed, it should happen via discussion and consensus, not via Yworo jumping on the back of an IP edit, repeating it 3 times including once after I opened a BLPN discussion indicating the nature of the BLP violation involved. Yworo's post immediately above confirms my notion of how he got here; even the timing (3rr report filed a mere 2 minutes after my last article edit -- surely begun before that last edit) suggests a path motivated by a desire to stir things up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:LONGTIME is not a valid argument. Yworo (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sure -- but WP:CONSENSUS is. Anyway we're not discussing deleting the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose that both Nomoskedasticity and Yworo stop editing the article until this matter is resolved in a manner other than edit-warring. Meanwhile I don't see an offence by Nomoskedasticity that couldn't be charged as much against Yworo, so this case should be dismissed. This board is not a place to gain support in content disputes. Opinions of uninvolved persons would be welcome at WP:BLP#Jose Antonio Vargas as the question is somewhat interesting. Zerotalk 13:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yworo appears to have rejected your proposal [112]. I've requested semi-protection -- that would help matters, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We are going to stir up the least amount of surprise by labeling him with a term that has understandable applicability. Readers from different positions on the spectrum of opinion on this and related topics may have differing reactions to this term being applied to this individual—ranging from support to rejection. But we need to be concerned with representing the subject of the biography. We don't accomplish that by severing the two parts of the term (Filipino-American) into its components. "Filipino-American" is the term to describe Vargas. Is he "Filipino"? Yes and no. Is he "American"? Yes and no. We should be taking the least controversial stand on the question at hand. I think the Principle of least astonishment should be our main concern. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The dispute involves possibly valid BLP claims, which may exempt some of the reverts from the 3RR rule. Neither party has reverted since 17 February. It would be sensible for both editors to avoid the article for a little while, until such time as a clear consensus is reached at BLPN or on the talk page. The comment above by User:Bus stop might offer a way forward. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Belchfire reported by - MrX (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: The Bible and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:27, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? */ Non-encyclopedic section removed per Talk discussion.")
  2. 05:20, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Leviticus 18 and 20 */ (edited with ProveIt) Ch to NIV, in conformity with the rest of the article. Added cites for verses, slightly better formatting for readability.")
  3. 05:22, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538669890 by MrX (talk) Fails verification, reverted per WP:V. What version is this from? Figure that out and provide links before reverting.")
  4. 18:23, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Other Epistles */ The Greek words are useful to connect the quotes to the surrounding prose, but we can't simply omit partions of a direct quote and substitute foreign words in their place.")
  5. 22:13, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* References to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible */ This word is in the source and is necessary, as omitting it changes the meaning of the sentence.")
  6. 04:03, 18 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538790914 by MrX (talk) Rm off-topic content. Paul's credibility is not relevant here and sourcing doesn't change that. Perhaps this should be added to Paul of Tarsus.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Many editors, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor to convince him to work collaboratively to build articles instead of edit warring. He routinely accuses others of edit warring and POV pushing, but then exhibits those very same behaviors himself. Belchfire's talk page is a testament to not playing well with others in the sandbox. After four blocks, most recently about five weeks ago, he still doesn't seem to accept that he needs to take a measured, collegial approach to his editing. He was also warned about edit warring a week ago by User:Mark Arsten. Obviously this warning had no enduring impact.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Timeouts aren't having the desired effect. Recidivism is evident within days of him returning to editing after each time he has been blocked. Nevertheless, I am requesting for an admin to review Belchfire's history, and the recent tendentious editing, and take some sort of action that will have a lasting effect for the sake of the project.

This is really getting old.

Thank you. - MrX 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It might also help the project if civil POV-pushers like MrX would stop trying to game the system as a tool to silence perceived opposition. This report is, in a word, bogus. There are, in fact, just two reverts to be found on MrX's artificially trumped-up list (#3 and #6). The rest are, quite obviously, additions and improvements to the article. Diff #1 was a removal made pursuant to this Talk discussion, wherein a consensus of editors agreed that the section was prolematic. (Important to note: Roscelese's objection was posted after the edit.) #4 and #5 are additions, not reverts. There is nothing "tendentious" here, other than the EW report itself. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support 1 month block. Belchfire, you were warned twice, once at 15:34, 14 February and a second time at 04:15, 18 February. As I've repeatedly said, your use of this account appears to be primarily for the purpose of edit warring and disruption. Perhaps you should consider starting a new article and working on that for a while instead of obsessing about homosexuality. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I don't believe I can act here. I argee that #4 is not a revert. #5 is on the fence; it's the addition of a word but it changes the meaning of another editor's content. The others are reverts per policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional clarifying information corresponding to the diffs above.

  1. Removed an entire section: "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" which was added in this edit by Hongsy.
  2. Changed two existing Leviticus 18 and 20 quotations from from King James Version to the New International Version.
  3. Removed: "Still others have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due in part to the positions (or lack thereof) that he takes on slavery and women." and 5 sources, added by me here.
  4. Re-added the phrases "those practicing homosexuality" and "men who have sex with men" which I previously removed in this edit
  5. Re-added the word "unambiguously" which Roscelese had removed in her previous edit. (Also, what happened to the IBAN that was supposed to keep Belchfire away from Roscelese? Update:Yes, there is an IBAN and he was notified.)
  6. Removed: "Others interpreters have argued that Paul's writings must be considered fallible, due in part to his views about slavery and women." and 5 references.

- MrX 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MrX, for taking so much trouble to illuminate more of the history. Based on the above, I now believe that #4 and #5 both constitute reverts. In addition, I agree that Belchfire has violated the interaction ban ("edit in contradiction with Roscelese on any page"), which is indefinite and has apparently not been lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one month Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Susanknowledgeguru reported by User:Tarage (Result: Locked)[edit]

If the parties want to continue to discuss with one another, take it elsewhere. We are done here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Previous version reverted to: [113]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] I was unable to diff because this is the first post in the user's talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:

I started by removing a section on the Asymmetrical Warfare page that had been inserted by an anonymous editor. The anonymous editor then proceeded to revert the removal and subsequent removals by myself and User:Rjensen. I decided to back off hoping they would lose interest and four days later removed the section again. A second anonymous editor then reinserted the section. After reverting back and forth, the user registered the name User:Susanknowledgeguru and continued to edit war. We both went to the discussion page for the article and I tried to explain that the section was not relevant to the article and three separate users had reverted their edits, but the user refused to listen, and admitted to also being the first anonymous editor by stating that they were the who inserted it in the first place. They reverted again, there by totaling 6 revisions over the span of 8 days. I've run out of patience trying to explain to this user that without consensus, they cannot simply continue reverting edits by multiple editors. Since they refuse to listen, I've come here for help. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User Tarage seems to think that he has the authority to determine what stays and what goes in an article. I was the user who added the section in question to this article in the first place. I did so without being logged in and therefore it showed my IP instead of a username. When Tarage made the accusation that I was engaging in an edit war (even though Tarage was deleting my section multiple times without a valid explanation), I registered for the username that I have. I initially attributed the deletions that he was doing to vandalism and I added a section to the talk page to work any issues out. Instead of attempting to work any issues out, Tarage attempted to intimidate and threaten me as is documented on the talk page. I should point out that the deletion that has been made to this article since I edited it is 3 different users deleting the section I wrote. Note that 2 people besides myself have made an edit to this section(one added a tag, one undid the deletion of this section). The consensus regarding the section being in the article is indeed 50/50. Since no one has made a strong case for why this section does not belong, it does not make sense why it should be deleted. I should not be accused of engaging in an edit war, when the users deleting sections from this article are by far more provocative than I have been. For crying out loud, I was the one who added a section to the talk page. I clearly attempted to diffuse this situation from the beginning, however, several users, especially Tarage think that they have the right to bully other users around. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am honestly confused by the above statement. Susan admits that they were both anonymous IPs, yet claims consensus is 50/50 despite being the only editor who believe the section should be included. I don't quite understand how they can then claim that multiple editors support the section when they all were Susan. The section has been deleted or otherwise contested by four users now. This doesn't get any more clear cut. --Tarage (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It is quite clear which of the anonymous IPs was mine. Since I edited the article in the first place as the anonymous user, just look at the edit history to see which IP belongs to me. As for other users both adding and deleting content, I cannot speak for them as they are not me. Until Tarage will stop making groundless accusations that I am more than one user, I am not going to waste my time defending myself as there is no reason to. Tarage needs to go review the edit history again. It is clear that 2 other users besides myself have made edits that would be in support of the section that I created. One user named Dale Arnett added a main tag and an anonymous user undid a deletion by Tarage. That make three who have made edits in support of the section that I created. Tarage, Rjensen and one anonymous user have deleted the section I created. Note that one of the anonymous users who deleted the section said that it was being deleted due to an ongoing edit war. That in and of itself is not a reason to delete anything. As I said, that means that a 50/50 consensus exists on whether the section I created belongs in the article. I don't see what is unclear about that. The facts speak for themselves. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Article fully protected by User:Toddst1. Susan, once the lock expires I suggest you move more slowly and restrict your edits to the talk page. First, you are new and you are not abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When an editor reverts your content, your next course of action is to go to the article talk page and discuss it (WP:BRD). You should not reinsert the material without a clear WP:CONSENSUS for doing so (50-50 is not a consensus). The burden is on you. Also, don't use terms like vandalism when they don't apply; such comments are often construed as personal attacks. Finally, I'm not persuaded that the second IP (User:139.182.130.61) is not you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Toddst1, first of all, I will make no further edits to the article. If whether the section belongs or not, I will let others decide. I realize that I should not have repeatedly undid the deletions that several users did. It is important to note, however, that I was the one who added a section in the talk page for the section in question. Tarage or any of the users that delete my section without giving a valid explanation, never went to the talk page first. These users deleting the section created were also engaged in the same type of behavior as I was. That being said, I was the one that took steps to diffuse the situation. I am a new Wikipedia user and I am still trying to understand all of Wikipedia's policies. Instead of helping me, all I have received from Tarage is personal attacks. Lastly, Tarage has made several accusations about me using multiple IPs. It seems you are agreeing with him on that. I am upset about this accusation, and if I continue to run into this type of character assassination, I will plan on leaving Wikipedia for good. I will state one last time what I did. I was the one who added the section in question to the article, using an anonymous IP. Nothing wrong with that. I later registered for an account so I could address any problems with the section that I created. It is clear which anonymous edits were made by me and which edits were made under my username. As for all the other edits, I see edits from other users and other anonymous IPs. None of those people are me and I find it upsetting that you try to claim a certain anonymous user is me. Please do not make such claims unless you have a way to prove it. I have been straight forward about who I am and I have nothing to hide. If I am playing games, like Tarage has said than why would I have registered for an account in the first place? The very action of doing so associated anonymous edits I made with my username. Again, do not make such claims, if you or Tarage insist on doing so, I would expect to be presented with some sort of proof. Those kind of claims put me in a bad light and it does not make me feel very welcome here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talkcontribs) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(You are responding to my post (Bbb23), not to Toddst1.) I appreciate your long explanation. I also understand your resentment at being "accused" of something you say you didn't do. However, you have to understand that a lot of editors do bad things on Wikipedia and then deny doing them. Administrators (like me) don't have to have "proof" to make certain judgments; proof, unfortunately, isn't always easy to obtain. The best thing you can do at Wikipedia is to edit constructively and in a way that doesn't provoke controversy, particularly in the beginning. It's one thing for a new user to come in and make a small change to an article, e.g., corrrect a spelling error or a grammatical error, but when your first edit is to add material about a recent notorious event, you obviously run the risk that you may get into a dispute over whether that material is appropriate to add, or whether the wording needs to be changed, etc.
I'm glad you've decided not to battle for your material once the lock on the article expires, but even if you want to discuss it, try to do so in a way that focuses on the content, not on the other editors involved. Even if another editor says something about you that you don't like, ignore it; in so doing, you will only enhance your credibility.
Wikipedia can be a tough place for a newcomer, particularly one who, like you, jumps right into the thick of it. Rather than insist on things, listen to what more experienced editors say and try to learn. I understand that being experienced doesn't mean you're always right, but there are ways on Wikipedia to seek help if you feel you're being unfairly criticized or attacked without getting into a battle yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation Bbb23. I will attempt to get a better grasp on Wikipedia's policies before doing much more editing. Sorry for any trouble that this has caused you. I really didn't mean for things to escalate so far. I would have expected the more experience users to take steps to prevent that from happening, but since that didn't happen like it should have, I will keep to my word and restrain from making any edits to the article until the issue is resolved by a consensus of other users. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Susan, I'm not taking a position on the content dispute, but I thought your latest post on the talk page was great. Now you just have to be patient and wait for others to respond. Don't assume consensus by silence. If you feel like you're not getting anywhere, take a look at these dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record Susan, someone disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Please learn to put distance between yourself and your edits, as an attack on one does not mean an attack on the other. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I never intended for things to get out of hand as they did. I have backed off as is evidenced by my conversation with the administrator. I do expect the same thing from you. I think we can admit that we both went to far and I hope you realize that the were things that we could have done much sooner on both ends to diffuse the situation. Having said that. I will not be editing the article once the lock is removed, though I do plan to contribute to the talk page regarding the content of the article. I hope we can put this behind us and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talkcontribs) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are hoping I will claim fault, I'm sorry to dash your hopes. I only wished to explain the difference between attacking someone's edits and attacking someone. At no point did I insult or attack you. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Tarage, I feel that you certainly do owe me an apology, however, I do not expect one from you. My intention in writing the above statement was not for you to admit fault on your part. I want to be able to move on and work together, especially since we have a mutual interest in the article in question. I have given both you and the Administrators my apologies and word that I will not edit the article after it is unlocked.
All I expect from you is that you will back off with the insults. Your groundless accusation that I have edited the article as multiple anonymous users is one example of that. I feel that a statement such as that is insulting to me and could possibly considered attacking me. Saying things like that have nothing to do with the content of the article. Anyhow, can we just move on now? I really don't wish to argue about that anymore, it's not going to go anywhere and I don't have that kind of time to waste. You don't need to apologize to me, you don't need to admit fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talkcontribs) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bhicks77 reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Howard Stern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bhicks77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [122]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

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

  • Bhicks77 has repeatedly uploaded non-free images of a living person and has been warned that that this is a copyright violation on his talk page, in edit summaries in the article and in the Commons.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahendrl reported by