Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive212

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Geebee2 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Killing of Travis Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geebee2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I locked the article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Engineman reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]

Repeatedly adding the (bolded) text to the following section: "such an engine might also be called a apark-ignited (S.I.) engine, gaseous-fueled engine or natural gas engine."

This is uncited, it's also an error. For those unfamiliar, we have articles on gas engine, spark-ignition engine and gasoline engine (that's the same as a petrol engine for the Brits). All three of these engines are closely related, but distinct. Gas engines are one form of spark-ignition engine, but they are an uncommon form and the terms are just not used, or usable, interchangeably.

Yes, we might call a particular engine a spark-ignition engine, we might also call it a Cummins or Ford engine, we might even call it a bright orange engine. Any of these could be true in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean that the terms become general synonyms for each other, such that they're usable as such in an encyclopedia. I don't understand the editor's mindset here: possibly they don't appreciate encyclopedic wording? The fact that not all spark-ignition engines are gas engines (in fact, very few of them) means that a phrase that's casually acceptable one way round is far from usable the other way round, when we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Maybe they're confusing gas engines and gasoline engines, where sloppy wording does regularly label them as spark-ignition engines, as a shorthand distinction from diesel engines (and again, that's not a statement that's up to encyclopedic robustness).

There's no real discussion of this. There's a Google dump at Talk:Gas_engine#Spark_ignited, but if you can make sense of that, you're doing better than I am.

I'm at 3R. Can someone else please explain that this is either incorrect (ideally, if there are any engineers around, and I appreciate that content issues are outside AN/EW), or at least that a claim like this needs citation, not a proof-by-edit-summary of "I work in the industry".

Given the poor spelling and unintelligible bulk pastes, I'm also wondering if this might be the return of the indeffed Wdl1961 (talk · contribs)?

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The first edit doesn't count as a revert. King of ♠ 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86 reported by User:InedibleHulk (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

Page: WWE Raw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [20]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [21]

Comments: Editor seems determined to add new unsourced/unreliably sourced section devoted to one particular, very recent episode of WWE Raw, over 1,036 others. This undue weight has been reverted by three other editors, and supported by none. It was also brought up here He is now on a mission to tag and delete all unsourced material and anything he considers undue weight, though he didn't care about that before his edit was denied. I've tried several things to help better incorporate his work, by Wikipedia standards, but he refuses, prefering to attack my editorial character. He was warned that he would be warned several times, then when he was formally warned, he instantly deleted them. And almost as quickly edited WWE Raw again. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Here's what happened. InedibleHulk didn't want my sourced edit here, [22], added into the article. The edit relates to how last week's Raw was critically acclaimed as one of the greatest episodes by a majority of professional wrestling critics and mainstream media sources, such as "The Baltimore Sun" and "The Sun." For that reason, given the mainstream sources in question, naturally I thought it was notable.
Inedible starts out by saying my edits have to go because they aren't using independent sources outside of the "WWE." When he found that he was mistaken and that my material ONLY used independent sources, he revised his complaint to instead fuss that it was an "undue weight" problem (as shown [23] and [24])
Mind you, this material was three short paragraphs long, the first two paragraphs being four lines each and the last being one. To support his arguments, he repeatedly presented me with this WP:UNDUE. I continually tried to tell him that this policy he presented me with didn't specify what exact length is and is not undue, but this comment seemed to keep going in one ear, right out the other, as he simply replied WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE. And with that simple statement, he took it upon himself to flat-out remove my material repeatedly.
I responded to all this by pointing out to InedibleHulk that the vast majority of the Raw article was both unsourced and filled with sections far in excess of mine that ought to be subject to this "undue weight" policy and removal since my sourced material of only three short paragraphs was being judged by him as undue and swiftly removed. As just a few examples of the enormously long and largely unsourced material, see here: [25] and here [26]. These sections run for eons, are unsourced, and don't even have anything to do with their headings, etc. Given these examples and the slews of additional examples that abound on the article in question, I questioned InedibleHulk as to his single-minded interest in removing my sourced material of three short paragraphs while having no interest in the rest of this loaded, unsourced material taking up nearly all of the Raw article.
In response, he stated that he had no problem whatsoever if I wanted to trim any unsourced info (as shown [27]). But this was all talk as the moment I began trimming away at the article's unsourced material, he took issue and began reverting on me repeatedly (as shown here [28]).
To get me to stop removing unsourced material, he then attempted to campaign to me personally on my talkpage. And he campaigns with me by stating how Wikipedia policies don't need to be followed all the time, telling me that in fact he's used to flouting and disregarding Wikipedia policies as if there's nothing at all wrong with this (all as shown [29]). I was totally thrown off by these remarks because the whole reason we were having this editing dispute was due to his hounding me about an undue weight Wikipedia policy that he claimed I was violating. It almost seemed as though the user was trying to force me to accept a double standard in which his desired edits didn't have to follow Wikipedia policies while mine did.
I decided to entertain his campaign and discuss the matter over with him in detail. We had a long drawn-out and relatively civil debate on InedibleHulk's user talk page (as shown Here). As you can see, that long-drawn out debate on his talk page concluded with me having to make the compromise in order to keep the peace, that is: (A.) I agreed to cut down my information and place it in a section of the article of his choosing (B.) I refrained from trimming away at the heavily unsourced material within the article in respect to his wishes (which as you'll note, I left alone yesterday and the day before). So, basically, I agreed to be the bigger man.
I cut my material down to three lines and place it in the section of the article that he has requested. He wasn't done there, however, and continued to make further little irksome demands that I just kept accepting to try and keep the peace. For example, despite cutting it down, he then complained I needed at least five sources in addition (as shown [30] and [31]). Anyways, after I've done all this to appease him, he finally approves with a few more gripes about two of the four sources I provided [32]. I handle those gripes and move forward.
Then there's no communications between us for a few days and all is peaceful at the WWE Raw article. Then all the sudden out of absolutely nowhere just this morning, InedibleHulk returned to the WWE Raw article and: (A.) trimmed the three lines I had shortened my material down to all the way down to one line, complaining that it was still undue weight (B.) that 2 of my 4 sources didn't suit him; and (C.) followed up by telling me on the talk page that I was "misleading" for using the word "consensus" in my edit summary from the other day when I added the version of the edit that he and I had agreed on. Also in his comments to me on the RAW talk page, he fusses about how I used the word "per consensus" as opposed to "as per consensus" in an edit summary, complaining about my grammar; and caps this off by telling me he's "scolding" me. (all as shown [33], [34], and [35].
That's the point at which I realized this user was just looking for trouble and that trying to be the bigger man was futile. I communicated to him that he needs to learn how to talk to me and that he will not "scold" me as he put it. I let him know that I was done with the hypocrite, unreasoned, and nitpicking behaviors and antics as well as his talking down to me. I informed him that the edit was going back to the way of the consensus that was reached when we stopped talking for days. I also have picked back up on my cleanup of the article since trying to be the bigger man with him and leaving it alone didn't work. I placed a tag at the top of the article that said the article has serious issues, lacks citation, and has undue weight issues.
InedibleHulk has responded by referring to me with profanities and incivlity, calling me "bitchy" among other things (as shown here [36] and [37]); he's reverted my user talk page with his warnings, which is against wikipedia policy, as shown here [38]. Also, InedibleHulk has a slew of reversions which I can present you with as well. The user seems to be spoiling for trouble and trying to compromise and be the bigger man with him doesn't even work. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Those diffs don't show any obvious violation of 3RR. Indeed, one of them goes back way to April 11. Really, I don't think this belongs on the 3RR noticeboard. There's obviously some issues here that would be better served being discussed at dispute resolution or WP:RFC. A short-term block wouldn't help anything and may only exacerbate the tug-of-war here. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this place for 3RR and general edit warring? I didn't intend this as a 3RR thing. There are a few noticeboards I could have put this on, this seemed suitable. Maybe not. Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying. A request for comment could be an alright idea, if someone else commented. If it's just me and him, it's going nowhere it hasn't already been. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
"Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying." If you're looking for more feedback, then dispute resolution/RFC sounds like the way to go. You both seem to have problems with each other that go beyond edit warring, e.g. arguing over various policies. I doubt that any outcome on this discussion would serve to fix things. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I've warned both editors that if they edit the article at all during the next 7 days, they may be blocked without notice for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

User:50.72.177.136 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi-protected one week)[edit]

Page: Kurgan hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.72.177.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40] (followed by a weird spate of reverting and self reverting, I think intended to make a WP:POINT
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

That's 4 within 24 hrs, but there were a few more right before those 24 hrs too:

5. [43] 6. [44] 7. [45] 8. [46] 9. [47] 10. [48] 11. [49]

That's 11 reverts in a little more than 2 days. Against multiple editors.

Also editing as this account [50]

Some choice edit summaries and comments:

  • get bent. vandalism undone.
  • nope. let's have an edit war.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica reference suggests that Marek and AnonMoos are trolling asshats LOL!
  • adding the sentence before that quote to add clarity for you teenage assholes. lol. oops sorry. i mean dumb pigs. lol.

Ay, just look at the talk page - lots of gross incivility, immaturity, and ranting. This person is impossible to talk to. [51]

the Kurgan Theory proper is NOT popular among those with brains and a PhD to match. (Sorry if this sounds pompous but to hell with it. This discussion is like arguing with insane fundy Christians who don't grasp basic logic let alone evolution.) And you are ignoring Kohl which I cited just to carry on with your POV about what "POV" means. I got your number: You're a failed linguist bedazzled by an obnoxious neopagan outlook by a pop-culture author to annoy people on Wikipedia with your misunderstandings and to get back at society. ROFL! You can "interpret" consensus however your little heart wishes, but the academic references and legitimate facts I cite have long ago invalidated Gimbutas's relevance in either linguistics or archaeology. She is an overpraised quack in my opinion and her theory, as I said, was *never* possible unless you buy into the one-language-one-culture fallacy of racist quacks. Her revisionism discredits both the sciences and feminism but it sure sold books. So this wiki-POV of yours just shows how Wikipedia can never move beyond 1990 user interface design and a barrage of unreasonable, unbending, policy-obsessed controlfreaks.

Hahaha. Really? You don't know? Come on, you crazy "anon" clown. It's just like when the archaeologist Hawass was anointed Vice Minister of Culture of Egypt by a corrupt ousted president: modern politics, modern politics, modern politics. Did you really think that if someone receives praise that it has to do with historical accuracy? How gullible. That just proves the point that I'm sitting here talking to a teenager. Hahaha, thanks for the fun conversation but you are thick

Lol, there is nothing more sour than a lonely couch potato who CLEARLY devotes his whole life to his AnonMoos profile page bragging to everyone about their would-be academic credentials who pushes neopagan POV like a crackpot.

Wow, bringing up **60 years ago** just to argue that she is "widely accepted" in the **here and now** by your decreasing group of neopagans does nothing for your credibility as a... well what are you exactly? An "anon moo", I guess. Okay, fella. Slow down. Take your antidepressants.

AnonMoos, who assures me he has oodles of degrees and yet who has clearly invested many long jobless hours of work into his Wikipedia image, will have to adopt an increasingly paranoid and infophobic stance to preserve the sanctity of the paganist teachings locked within the windmills of his mind.

Nope, that's you, troll.

Lol, cool story, bro. ... You are a nothing. Please get that right. I will pray for you, Wiccan. :o)

And that's him just getting warmed up. There's plenty more of that on the talk page.

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

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

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I semi-protected the article for one week. The IP editor who is edit warring is dynamically assigned an address. Blocking one would serve little purpose, although they are editing other articles (I didn't review them, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links in Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) (Result: Protected)[edit]

There is edit warring at Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with respect to numerous embedded external links. Attention of uninvolved administrators is needed for counsel and possible protection. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I semi-protected the article for 5 days. There appears to be possible sock puppetry associated with the two new and warring accounts. I noted it in my protection basis. You might want to follow through at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
This user has been repeatedly undone edits over a longer period, often bordering on POV pushing and making claims about the nature of the article that have been dispelled in earlier consensus. In other words, ignoring consensus and discussion because he is obviously right? CodeCat (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The edits have been per WP:BLP and the last one was a clear attempt to reach compromise language. Even zso, I did not violate 3RR even if you count compromising as a "revert." CodeCat did not even notify me of this as required, by the way, and the issue is whether calling Santorum's words "anti-gay" is a fact or is an opinion. I suggest that it is an opinion, and that asking for a cite dfor such is required by WP:BLP in the first place. So -- no bright line violation. No "long term edit war" as that is just a silly aside here (I have all of 5 edits on it on well over a full year -- calling that an "edit war" is asinine). And the issue as to whether a contentious claim requires specific sourcing is still at issue -- noting that Nomo has been vocal is assertions that such do not require strong sourcing at WP:BLP/N most recently wrt Shepard Smith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Nonsense. This article has become a coatrack to insert BLP against. Collect's removal of uncited text was perfectly acceptable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Regardless of the merits of the different positions on the content, the edit warring has to stop. If it doesn't, I'll lock the article. As for the warring, everyone should be on notice that I am not going to accept a BLP exemption for anyone's reverts - it's simply not strong enough to justify the reverts. @Collect, you are the only one at three reverts. So, you must stop or you risk being blocked. If everyone calms down and discusses the issues on the talk page, fine. Otherwise I'll take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - and I appreciate you have asked the others to stop as well. Collect (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note that it hasn't even been established that this article falls under BLP policy since it's not about a person but about a campaign. That the campaign is directed against a person is another matter, but there doesn't seem to be much in the article relating to Santorum or Savage as people. CodeCat (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note, everything on Wikipedia falls under BLP, try not to forget it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm uninvolved in this dispute; it only came to my attention because of a post at WP:BLP/N. While I don't condone edit-warring, I think that there is a good chance that this is indeed a BLP violation. Please see my initial thoughts here.[60] Wikipedia tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues and I would say that WP:BLP is more important than WP:EDITWAR or WP:3RR.
So, what I am suggesting is that before issuing blocks against editors removing possible BLP violations, we should first consider removing the offending content and locking the page, so that the dispute can be worked out on talk pages. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering locking the article, but it's unclear what the "offending content" is. I understand that for some there are BLP issues imbedded in the content dispute, but as I said above, I don't see the BLP issues strong enough to either exempt someone from edit warring or for me to choose a version of the article to lock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've locked the article for 3 days so that the content dispute may be worked out without further edits to the article. Expecting that editors would act as if the article was locked was too problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:75.118.133.246 reported by User:Spencer (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Greater Cleveland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.118.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Greater_Cleveland#Largest_Metropolitan_Area_in_Ohio

Comments:
The IP has been reverted multiple times by 4 different users. SpencerT♦C 22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:68.13.80.89 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.13.80.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]
  3. [71]
  4. [72]

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

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

Comments:

Straight-up POV pushing and edit-warring to include Truther agenda. Also warned for 9/11 AE. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

5 reverts, no sign of stopping. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♠ 03:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:201.211.229.223 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result:Blocked as proxy)[edit]

Page: Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.211.229.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]
  4. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Comments: IP is likely linked to [80]. Any reviewing admin should look at both ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Mehmed the Conqueror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ongoing ANI discussion; notification [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing WP:DRN discussion

Comments: This is a long-term POV agenda issue. This user has a long-standing history pushing poorly sourced and tendentious material about the sexual behaviour of historic Muslim ruling figures into their articles. Fut.Perf. 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I categorically dispute the charge of pushing a POV agenda. There is no evidence to support this. Not do I have a history of pushing poorly sourced material. I try diligently to use sources that meet WP standards and criteria. The material I use is not deliberately partisan. I accept that some editors (and administrators) find discussion of issues relating to sexual orientation uncomfortable or controversial, but that does not mean they should not be considered. In addition I would like to make a counter report about Fut.Perf. whose style I find bullying and who has been personally abusive without provocation, and who has accused me with no cause of not knowing what a harem is "after all these years", being "historically ignorant", and using "weak sources". I confess to expecting somewhat more balanced from someone fulfilling the important task of administrator. I have tried patiently to apply WP rules to discussion of the article [{Mehmed the Conqueror]] about getting a balance between coverage, reliable sources and avoiding bias. I am disappointed that this particular administrator seems to have missed the nuances of that. If the suggestion is that I am delibrately targeting muslim historical figures to pursue a personal agenda then the claim is simply laughable. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Previous case, demonstrating the persistence of the same issue – incompetent and distorting use of low-quality sources in pursuance of a sexualization agenda – in an extremely similar case, three years ago: Talk:Ali Pasha#Sources. Fut.Perf. 13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely terms like "incompetent" and "distorting" are deliberately provocative, aren't they (not to mention insulting)? As an administrator isn't it more prudent to use more balanced language when debating an issue? Wikipedia is, after all, manned by volunteers who give of their time to make it as successful as possible, and who don't generally work well when subject to criticism and abuse. Isn't there guidance about remaing courteous somewhere? That the edits were "incompetent" is surely only your opinion - you have no evidence to support that argument. That Ali Pasha was muslim is neither here nor there - my editing of articles is not motivated by religious bias or hatred if that's what you're implying. And what on earth is a "sexualisation agenda" when it's at home? I make no secret of showing an interest in the history of homosexuality. But I am only interested in covering those issues where I come across robust sources that support such an inclusion. I'm hardly working with fringe material. I note you've also chosen not to pursue a complaint against the other editor involved in the Mehmed II discussion, who clearly is interested in ensuring very favourable coverage of the subject, whatever the cost.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also strongly urge others to look at the talk page for Ali Pasha in support of my case. I tried there to be consensual, even handed and conscious of WP rules. In contrast Future Perfect dismissed gay academic journals as not “real history” and used profanities when frustrated in the arguments. There is also the suggestion that Future Perfect is strongly interested in the politics and history of south-east Europe, and I would want to be reassured that as an administrator he/she is being neutral in their approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talkcontribs)

No violation of WP:3RR. On the other hand, User:DragonTiger23 clearly violated WP:3RR. It's interesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't report him.--В и к и T 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23 reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Mehmed the Conqueror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [82][83] (several consecutive edits) 09:11, 16 April 2013‎
  2. [84] 10:09, 16 April 2013
  3. [85] 11:05, 16 April 2013
  4. [86] 05:51, 17 April 2013 4th revert in 20 hours

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see [88]

Comments:

Comment: DragonTiger23 is a POV pusher. He is removing every mention of homosexuality from articles about Muslim ruling figures, but at the same time adding unsourced or poorly sourced material and LGBT categories in articles about Christian ruling figures. See [89][90][91][92]. He probably thinks that homosexuality is some sort of "insult", so he wants to "smear" Christian rulers and to "clean" articles about Muslim rulers. He should be indeffed for this.--В и к и T 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


So much false accusations, are these all sockpuppets of each other, I have nothing against LGBT or adding LGBT to Muslim rulers, But I have problem with falsifying history and pushing POV with selective sources. This is not even about LGBT but how a an Ottoman ruler Mehmed II supposedly was raping numerous boys and this is based on a few Byzantine sources. I have explained all my point of view, the sources very long on the talk page, but people just ignore that. So the issue is raping not LGBT, and my contributions to some other royalty was based on sources, they removed this by calling them weak sources and then threatened me because I edited those pages, I only wanted to see their reaction but since they don't allowed to be added to "some" persons but insisted in adding to others, then we can ask the question who is here pushing POV? DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether to include disputed material or not and I didn't edited the page, so I'm not involved. I reported you because of edit warring and violation of WP:POINT.--В и к и T 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The same pattern: adding poor citations or simply no sources at all I'm experiencing in another article from same user. In this edit [[93]] DragonTiger23 performs a revert and gets rid of the recently added 'sources' tag, however the specific section still doesn't a single source (not to mention the battleground mentality in his edit summary).Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why are you trying to cover up Greek massacres against Turks, Wikipedia is neutral where it is allowed that massacres against everybody will be included. So giving information about massacres of Turks by Greeks is not a crime here, maybe in Athens it is, I don't know. If you would be neutral you would see that I have written that article entirely based on sources, most of that article is based on a report written by a neutral western commission who toured the area for investigation. But you just come and (before reading the article?) add POV, why are you trying to cover it up? Nobody denies here massacres against Greeks. And now you are falsely accusing and complaining here against me, who has here the battleground mentality?DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I see a lot of edit warring from multiple people, so this seems to be the best option. King of ♠ 22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with this solution. On the face of it, it seems the sensible thing to do. But the difficulty for me is that the page now protected excludes the material on sexual relationships. This is the outcome that DragonTiger23 and Future Perfect at Sunrise want to see. There is no incentive on them to engage in discussion about why they believe the sources to be unsuitable (indeed Future Perfect seems to show no interest in elaborating initial cursory comments; and no-one has given any input into the dispute resolution page). When the page protection expires if the other side has failed to engage in debate then surely I should be able to restore the material in question? My guiding light has been WP guidance - if no rules have been broken when including the material on relationships then surely there can be no grounds for leaving it out? I would also like advice on how to hold Future Perfect to account for the fairly liberal use of personal insults directed towards me please. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC
See meta:The Wrong Version. The purpose of the protection is not to preserve their version, but to encourage all participants in the dispute to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit warring. -- King of ♠ 08:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok - thank you. I'll assume good faith then that the others editors will be willing to engage in polite discussion, and support their arguments. My concerns about Future Perfect remain though. I note that they are an experienced editor and know the system much better than I do; but that they also have a track record of using highly discourteous language against other editors. The insults directed at me were not warranted. I want to be reassured that administrators on Wikipedia abide by the same rules they themselves are called upon to enforce. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not pushing POV at all, I am against falsifying and distortion of history. I am only removing the addition of Contaldo80, where he uses few non neutral biased accounts to state that Mehmed raped numerous boys and at the end he only adds a weak refutation. So he is pushing his own POV by cherry picking sources to give credibility to this claims. Future Perfect said he was source abusing, which seems to exactly describe his behavior. I have already tried to explained in the Talk page, but Contaldo80 seems to be aggressive against everyone who doesn't agree with him. He tried to discredit me numerous times by accusing me of having pro Ottoman Turkish agenda. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:JohnClarknew reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Both 24h)[edit]

Page: John Le Mesurier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnClarknew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [95] - as JohnClarknew
  2. [96] - as JohnClarknew
  3. [97] - as JohnClarknew
  4. [98] - as 65.112.235.2
  5. [99] - as JohnClarknew, after this discussion was opened. See also the follow-up comment on my talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] & [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [102] and on my talk page: [103]

Comments:
I have tried to stress the need for using reliable sources in all articles, especially an WP:FA. The user appears to think that as he is adding his own name to the article is does not need it and is prepared to edit war over forcing unsourced additions into an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours JohnClarknew has indeed violated 3RR. However, you yourself have made the following reverts:
Managing to avoid 3RR by 19 minutes just reeks of WP:LETTER. This, along with some incivility (e.g. "THEN PUT IN A FECKING SOURCE!!!" on your talk page), has convinced me to give you a block as well. King of ♠ 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz reported by User:Gwickwire (Result: Indef, later unblocked)[edit]

Nothing more to gain from posting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:41, 19 April 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: User talk:AutomaticStrikeout (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [104] (random revert put here to show the reverts being made)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [105]
  2. [106]
  3. [107]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, but Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talkpage has some discussion about this which K.W failed to respond to satisfactorily.

Comments:


Not over 3RR yet, but this is classic edit warring without explaining policy they feel is being violated. Please note that a collapse does not violate TPG in the literal sense as it is not changing the meaning of any of the comments, only making them smaller and less visible. gwickwiretalkediting 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They've also now warned an editor for doing something one time. If (and when) they revert again, I'll add that. gwickwiretalkediting 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I was also warned by Wolfowitz for this. I have since removed the warning, knowing it was done hostilely. TCN7JM 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I also recieved an identical warning for this when I tried to discuss this issue with Kiefer, despite my direct announcement of my intention to revert. I also removed the warning. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page protection seems unnecessary now as it disallows people from talking to AS if they so need to (for some odd reason or another), and K.W is indef blocked. gwickwiretalkediting 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked by Nick (indef). Personally I was getting ready to issue a block for a shorter duration myself, but not a bad block in the context of his history of disruption. King of ♠ 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Not a bad block? It's a terrible block. Three editors gang up on another editor to collapse his comment and he gets blocked? Ryan Vesey 00:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Hang on, an indefinite block for a 3RR violation? WTF? It certainly isn't a bad block, it's a bloody awful block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that I would not have pulled out the indef; however, as for whether to block, the answer for me is yes. -- King of ♠ 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Then the answer for me is that you're just as culpable as the admin who made this ridiculous block, and I hope that you're both open to recall. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Just to remind you both that an indefinite block is simply a block that can be any length of time - it doesn't need to be for ever, it could be a few minutes in length, if Kiefer can be persuaded to resume productive editing, instead of getting so hung up on a comment that, in all fairness, he probably shouldn't have left in the first place, it can be lifted by anybody at any time. If it wasn't for the various issues swirling around about outing of editors and such like, that discussion on unblocking could be held on his talk page, sadly, it will need to be via e-mail, either to myself, to another administrator or to the Arbitration Committee. You know this anyway, but since it tends to promote wildly cranky conspiracy theories otherwise, I've no previous interest in Kiefer or these various off site things that go on, it was brought to my attention that there was an issue with Kiefer causing disruption on a talk page and when given the option to walk away without being blocked, Kiefer decided to ignore my comments and remove them, remove other comments, continuing this disruptive behaviour that has seen him blocked many times in the past. The fact the previous block in December was indefinite but didn't last for ever points out that it's entirely possible to reach a compromise and it's certainly good to see four months of block free, fairly trouble free editing. I don't forsee any sort of situation where Kiefer remains blocked, but the ball is firmly in his court and he knows what he needs to do to be unblocked. Nick (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I am pretty sure I did no such ganging up against Kiefer and neither did GW or TCN. We tried to talk to him, but he would rather send us final warnings. I dont think we are the ones trying to harass, in this situation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You guys are being ridiculous, if you collapse someone's comments and they disagree with you, don't collapse them again. End of story. Kiefer said he didn't want his comment collapsed, nothing in policy says you can collapse them, so drop the stick. If Kiefer ends up being blocked, the editors taking part in the coordinated alliance of edit warriors also need to be blocked. Ryan Vesey 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Except I'm pretty sure that's not why he was blocked. He was blocked for harrassing Gwickwire and for being disruptive in trying to communicate with us. TCN7JM 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The comment was pure disruption meant to anger AS and anyone who saw it, and meant to demean him. It was a stupid comment which K.W shouldn't have made, and was not conducive to the expected environment on the talkpage of an editor. It was collapsed (which wasn't against any policy/guideline at all), and K.W proceeded to out a user and be incivil and rude when asked for an explanation. That's disruption at it's finest (well, worst). gwickwiretalkediting 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    You're the one who should have been block indefinitely gwickwire; you're nothing but trouble. as I'm sure your admin friends will discover in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I wonder if you'd endorse similar views for me too, Malleus? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Woah, hold up. What exactly did Gwickwire do here that warrants any kind of block, including an indef? TCN7JM 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Ryan, AS left a direct message stating that his talk page stalkers may remove any comment found not benificial, a position 4 editors have already endorsed for Kiefer's comment. Also, I think the block is more about how he dealt with this issue (reverting, his talk page responses, and his warnings to the three users) than his original hatting. I personally wanted to just figure out the policy in question, and would have self-reverted had it been actually a violation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, my problem here is that Kiefer left a comment, and three editors ganged up on him to get him blocked. Instead of recognizing that, an admin cleared Kiefer's talk page and left an indef block notice with no rationale. Ryan Vesey 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You say that as if we were trying to get him blocked. We simply wanted to know what kind of policy we were breaking. Kiefer never told us and was just being purely disruptive. TCN7JM 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, we did not ask for a block. Nick blocked Kiefer himself looking at what happened. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You should know as well as anyone that there was no constructive purpose to that comment. Kiefer did it only to disrupt and try to hide the real problem from being brought up (and now has incorrectly claimed elsewhere that they've been "personally attacked" in the hatting). It was pure disruption. gwickwiretalkediting 00:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Look, my problem here is that Demiurge (correctly, IMO) hatted Kiefer's comment which he reverted. Now when I tried to talk to him about it, he was not at all helpful. Instead, he was evasive. Because of which I decided to revert, and announced this on Kiefer's talk page. Upon which I was met with a "Last warning". Would you consider that ganging up? Who do you think is doing the harassing here? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer caused some trouble since he chose not to be communicative; however, he was in the right in this situation. See WP:TPO which says "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection" Emphasis mine. Kiefer objected to the hatting of his post. We are to avoid editing other people's comments as much as possible. You ganged up on him when the three of you re-hatted his comments against policies of avoiding editing others' comments. You gamed the system of 3RR by spreading the reverts among yourselves and then reporting Kiefer. Nick was in the wrong when he made his first threat to block Kiefer. I cannot confirm what happened after that, because it was removed; however, it certainly wouldn't have happened if everybody had followed policy. Ryan Vesey 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You say it as if we have planned it amongst ourselves. We did not. It was three independent reverts.
I wonder what you have to say to Kiefer threatening to block us. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hatting. This is going nowhere and just getting more and more hostile. TCN7JM 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC).
(ec) Streisand effect. Hatting to keep the discussion to the actual thread. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know who oversighted 3 versions of that page? I am not sure why it was done. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Nick did it because Kiefer was harrassing Gwickwire. TCN7JM 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Harassment that went to the point of WP:OUTING. I'd ask that we refrain from making further comments on that (Streissand effect and all) and remember to use editors full usernames with no modifications if there's some resemblance to a real name potentially. gwickwiretalkediting 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    How do we know he was if it's been oversighted? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    He was. [I am not sure if you believe my word, but even if you don't, there is enough evidence of his behaviour in his warnings et al] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    You may be quite certain that I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Gwickwire, change your freaking username if you're going to call it outing if someone modifies it, sheesh. Ryan Vesey 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'm under no obligation to do so, but I probably will sometime soon. They still deliberately separated it to out me and harass me. gwickwiretalkediting 01:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    We need a stipulation in WP:OUTING that if morons people reveal who they are, they have outed themselves and can't accuse anyone of outing. Should I go around screaming WP:OUTING every time someone calls me Ryan Vesey. Ryan Vesey 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    Calling gwickwire a moron is a personal attack, Ryan. Why is it all of these discussion turn out to be so hostile? TCN7JM 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)You make it obvious your username is a name (real or not, doesn't matter). I have mine in all lowercase wherever possible, and there are multiple explanations (a play on the superhero Quickwire using the common q-g switch in slang today) that would explain my username. Therefore it isn't obvious, nor outing myself. Calling me a moron is a personal attack, albeit a minor one. Please strike that now. gwickwiretalkediting 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Guys. Stop. Please. This subpart of the thread is a non-issue and must be hatted immediately. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If your name is a play on the superhero Quickwire, stop complaining about outing when someone misspells your name. Ryan Vesey 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have temporarily bypassed my self-imposed lock out to return here and make one thing very clear: Kiefer is not to edit my talk page. Period. Under any circumstances. I want his comment left hatted. I explicitly stated that my talk page stalkers had "full permission to liberally remove any comments from this page that are not beneficial." Consider the definition of beneficial and then consider that Kiefer's comment has led to a chain of events resulting in his indef-block. I don't want it (his comment) removed in this case because it has already been replied to. It should remain as it is, hatted. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 02:03, 19 April 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:Bluerules reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: PP 72h)[edit]

User being reported:Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): He is at it again. He is still continuing to become a disruptive editor as seen in Olympus Has Fallen on how the cast should be ordered and continue to violated consensus. This guy has a history of blocks in the past, including the most recent one. Here are the diffs on there.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [109]
  2. [110]
  3. [111]
  4. [112]


There is no consensus. You said it yourself that the cast order should follow the ending credits. That's what I'm making them reflect. Bluerules (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Both of you are at it, but not at the level required for blocking. I have protected the page for 3 days in the hopes that you two will work out your differences. King of ♠ 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Btadrian2001 reported by User:Jimmy_Bergmark (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Dialog Control Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Btadrian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [114]
  2. [115]
  3. [116]
  4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:

This is my first try to create this report, hope I got it all right. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The editor has been adding a WP:SPAMLINK to two articles and then edit warring over it. However, they were never warned. They've now been warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Spc 21 reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: 2013 World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spc 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:
Two of my reverts were made because you added badly worded English on to the page. If you didn't have to have last word on every snooker tournament article the problem would not have started. Spc 21 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust has reverted the work of different editors 4 times already. I may also be in the wrong as I have reverted the page. Armbrust was warned a few weeks ago for the same reason as can be seen here when he reverted this page a total of nine times. Spc 21 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to the reverts? Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked. I blocked both editors for violating WP:3RR: Armbrust for 2 weeks and Spc 21 for 48 hours. The durations are equal to their last edit-warring blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, Armbrust only reverted three times and Spc 21 four times, but Armbrust has got the much longer block on the sole basis that he was blocked for two weeks a year ago. The fact that Armbrust brought the case to ANI strongly suggests he probably wasn't going to continue reverting, so I think the extended block is slightly excessive in this case. The snooker world championship starts this weekend and the two most active snooker editors are now blocked, which isn't ideal. May I suggest reducing both blocks to 24 hours, and restricting both of them to 1RR (except in cases of clear vandalism) on this article for the duration of the championship? If either of them violate that then they are both out until the end of the championship? Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Armbrust reverted 4x. His filing of the report and his comment asking for diffs of his reverts show very little insight into the policy he's violating. Spc 21, who filed a retaliatory report (I combined the two), shows just as little understanding of what they're doing or how disruptive it is. Nor did I regard Spc 21's personal attacks (vandalism, poor English) against Armbrust favorably. As for the amount of time, Armbrust has a horrible record of edit warring in this area. It's true that the last block was not recent, but it wasn't a year ago but 8 months and there's a string of blocks preceding it. If they want to be unblocked, show some understanding of what they did wrong, and promise (believably) that they will stop editing disruptively, they know how to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786 reported by User:Evlekis (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page:


User being reported: Qwerty786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This is a sensitive article and deep within the ARBMAC area. Bilateral developments took place today (19th) which this user has taken upon himself to report on several articles information to the effect that Serbia has recognised Kosovo despite no such declaration having been made. Several editors have communicated with Qwerty on his talk page and on the talk page of the article as well as in other places but this hasn't prevented this user from making four changes to the above article all to push the one point he was primed to make with his original contribution.

  • Original tendentious contribution
  • [120] First restoration
  • [121] Second restoration
  • [122] Third hint at "independent country" club for Kosovo
  • [123] Finally, he interferes with this long-standing piece which he twists to sell the original "Serbia recognises Kosovo" viewpoint.

Conversation to explain the circumstance to this editor has taken place here and here, not to mention on his talk. Take notice of the slimy POV-driven remarks this editor produces in his justification posts. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on what was in the agreement I posted a conclusion but not one that was explicit and will wait to edit an article or talk page on this topic until the very soon and near explicit comment of recognition comes which is guaranteed. I will just wait until it is explicit to ever edit another one of this articles. It shouldn't be too long like a few weeks or months but whatever. I ban myself from editing these articles until the inevitable is explicit- totally and completely explicit! I ban myself from all Kosovo related articles. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
All right don't go bananas, nobody said "ban yourself editing Kosovo related articles". If you say you won't push that point any more I accept that and am happy with it, and can recommend that this discussion is closed immediately. I am not a monster. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:Venus_fzy (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Cinema of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Evlekis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [125]
  2. [126]
  3. [127]
  4. [128]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:

Speedy close. There has been no violation of 3RR from any editor within a 24-hour frame. I am personally on 1RR sanctions and I did by mistake make an error of reverting within 24 hours[130] because I became confused by the time in Britain where I am and UTC which is being used on the system, it threw me off course. Upon realisation I immediately cancelled my own contribution[131]. My next revert passed the 24-hour deadline and no revision by me since that edit constitutes a revert. The suggestion that I am editing from the anonymous account is unfounded but I believe if further interest in this case be taken, focus should switch to Venus fzy who is very knowledgeable for a new user with this campaign. He was the author of the article he takes objection to and is part of a nexus (one IP and one duff account) pushing for a severe breach of naming conventions within ARBMAC territory. Note that approval by User:Bliss 1.618 here does not constitute a "consensus" for this deliberate violating of WP policy. The editor has made no edits outside of this subject so his agreement cannot be taken with the same authority as something involving more seasoned editors on Kosovo subjects such as User:WhiteWriter or User:Antidiskriminator. Take notice that I have attempted to explain procedure to all editors involved, particularly following WP:AT which is the governing factor here: [132]. The opposition evidently rejects wider consensus, WP:AT and common English as proven here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation But everyone should stop edit-warring over the names. King of ♠ 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Protecting the page pending further discussion wouldn't be a bad idea. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now, people seem to have agreed to stop edit warring, so that is not necessary. However, I may protect it if the edit warring resumes. -- King of ♠ 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. No fear from me! :) I cannot make a change to that page for some hours so my hands will be clean (except if making copy-edits which don't interfere with the disputed content). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:R. fiend reported by User:Alansohn (Result: )[edit]

Page: White Horse, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [134]
  2. [135] at 20:53, 4 April 2013
  3. [136] at 11:18, 7 April 2013
  4. [137] at 11:27, 7 April 2013
  5. [138] at 11:32, 7 April 2013
  6. [139] at 11:05, 8 April 2013
  7. [140] at 08:38, 10 April 2013
  8. [141] at 16:37, 10 April 2013
  9. [142] at 20:58, 10 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

User:R. fiend has advocated that any material regarding White Horse Circle cannot exist in Wikipedia based on the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle, a discussion that took place eight years ago. As I have pointed out to R. fiend, Wikipedia policy allows for merging content from deleted articles into other articles and creating redirects. R. fiend has repeatedly deleted content from the article for White Horse, New Jersey even after the material was repeatedly expanded and additional sources were provided. He has also marked the redirect at White Horse Circle for speedy deletion, even after the deletion was challenged with an appropriate explanation. Other edits made by User:R. fiend include such pointy edits as "The only notable aspect of White Horse is a rotary" at White Horse Circle and "Flemington is also home to Allen St., which runs north-south, starting at North Main St. and ending at Court St. in the south." at Flemington, New Jersey. I have attempted to explain my position based on the use of sources, but User:R. fiend has threatened to continue edit warring (see here for "In the meantime, as I pointed out, we have a clear consensus that states, to paraphrase 'fuck that shit'. So don't be surprised if I remove it again.") and followed through on his threat. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Added additional revert. User:R. fiend has seen this 3RR notice, he just assumes that he'll get away with it by repeating his belief that an AfD from eight years ago of another article has relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Added an additional revert, as the edit warring continues in the face of rather clear consensus for retention. The fact that User:R. fiend refuses to address his policy violations here doesn't bode well for a solution that doesn't involve administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Added two more reverts. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is quite clear. An edit war, where one party may well have a good point content-wise but uses inappropriate means to drive the point home. The other party has, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be dragged into it and while it is true that R. fiend has one revert more than Alansohn, both are guilty of edit-warring (seriously, Alansohn--a frigging roundabout? Seriously, R. Fiend, an anxient AfD is to decide a content question here?). Both of you should be blocked, but I'm not about to block two valuable longtime contributors just because they happen to act, in this one article, like complete turds. Next admin, if you block either one of them, or both, per EW or 3R or BOOMERANG or WHATEVER, you are correct. But will that do any good? Drmies (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can I just say that the reason I cite an (I assume you mean "ancient") AfD in this case is because it is literally all we have to go on. A significant consensus of users clearly stated that this is trivial minutiae that is not worthy of an encyclopedia (that and common sense, which states you don't devote 40% of a town's article on an insignificant intersection). If there was any sign of a change in consensus on the topic we'd have a completely different situation. But we don't, and aren't likely to, as I've noticed WP seems to have gotten less tolerant of trivial cruft like this over the years, in that many articles that failed to reach consensus for deletion back then have been renominated and deleted with little opposition more recently. Alansohn seems to think deletion is merely moving content from one article to another until no one notices anymore, rather than actually honoring a consensus about what is or is not encyclopedic. If there is a consensus that the old AfD is not longer appropriate, and this material is a significant part of White Horse, NJ, then I will by all means back down. But right now Alansohn is saying that one other person person on the wiki agrees with him, therefore consensus. That's not how it works. And I'd like to add that we have about 8 reverts over the course of about a week, which isn't a 3RR violation on anyone's part, so blocking either of us seems unjustified. Maybe some good will come of this and we'll get more eyes on this article and we can see if there's a consensus one way or the other. Right now no one seems to be looking at the article at all (which is hardly surprising, as it's basically an article about a rotary). -R. fiend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes you can, but it's better placed on the article talk page. Start an RfC if you like. I wouldn't block you for 3RR but for edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • No one looks at that talk page, so it's hardly a great place to try to get a discussion going. (Or if anyone does look at it, it's likely because they're rotary enthusiasts, who don't represent general opinion on Wikipedia.) An RfC is a shitload of red tape for something as banal is this one article, especially when there's already been an established consensus (an old one, yes, but a consensus nonetheless). If an RfC can set the standards for traffic circles and the like on all pages in which they appear (which seems to be not many, and generally confined to NJ, but there are certainly other examples) it could prove useful, but I don't know of that's going to take off. In the meantime, can someone give me some reason why a 8 year old consensus would be void when there's been no visible change in the state of affairs since then? -R. fiend (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
          • This is not the place for content discussions. You know where the place is; you've been here long enough. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • To rebut both of R. fiend's contentions:
    • 3RR - This is a 3RR violation. R. fiend made four blind reverts from 11:18, 7 April 2013‎ to 11:05, 8 April 2013‎ (within the bright line of 24 hours) and three more blind reverts on April 10. On several occasions I added sources and additional material to further demonstrate notability, and other editors have opposed R. fiend's actions, while all of R. fiend's reverts all went back to exactly the same point.
    • Consensus - Consensus for eight years has been to keep the material in the article. It was added in this edit on October 1, 2005, immediately after the close of the AfD for White Horse Circle. R. fiend attempted to delete the material twice over the next two days (here and here), but in each case another editor reverted the blind revert. The material had been in the article for eight years before R. fiend started blindly reverting the content, upsetting a status quo that had been maintained for eight years. He has stuck by his irrational misinterpretation of policy, perpetually edit warring over material that is reliably and verifiable sourced.
  • User:R. fiend is an editor who is self-described as devoting his time on Wikipedia to "being an asshole", as he proudly notes on his user page and he has certainly played the part in this one article over this eight-year period, battling with five other editors who have added the sourced material. He stands alone, spitting in the face of consensus and Wikipedia policy. Consensus has consistently supported retention of the content for eight years and R. fiend has no case here in denying the 3RR violation as every one of his dozen edits has been a blind revert in his ongoing edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There has never been any consensus to keep the information in the article. Saying that a few people defying the consensus to delete it is a consensus for it to remain is simply false. Basically no one paid attention to the article after the AfD in order to enforce the consensus to delete, except me, and it fell off my radar years ago until I happened upon it again. Anyone can see details about an intersection are beyond trivial and unencyclopedic, as was clearly stated by more than a dozen editors at its AfD. If there is a true consensus on Wikipedia to include detailed information on every rotary in the nation in their cities articles, please show me where it is. Don't say "me and a few others have made some editors over the years and that's a consensus." It isn't, and you should know that. Your argument is that the information has been there long enough to have gained squatters' rights. No such policy exists on Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor who bears a grudge for eight years and has blindly reverted the same content in two different articles some 15 times isn't going to walk away and leave the content alone, despite a half-dozen editors disagreeing with his unsupported claims that an ancient AfD irrevocably requires deletion of any related content in any other article. He's violated 3RR here and is entirely unrepentant. Any suggestions on dealing with the R. fiend problem? Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the best option is discussion (possibly with the RFC imprimatur) on the article talk page. If the two of you find that you can't discuss this without edit warring, the article could be full-protected. My own opinion is that the topic of the traffic circle should not be expunged completely from the article (this traffic circle does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the place), but the amount of "road geek" detail in that section is excessive.
Note: After reading the article and some of the sources, I created a "History" section to tell about the origin of the name "White Horse". That history previously was discussed only in the traffic circle section. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, and one that I would be happy to participate in. The problem is that User:R. fiend has indicated that he believes that an AfD for another article irrevocably taints any content related to the White Horse Circle no matter where it appears or what material or sources are added. I'd love to work this out, but R. fiend has made it clear that he is not willing to accept any alternative to deletion of the sourced content. If only there were a negotiating partner here, we might have more luck. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:70.19.122.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: )[edit]

Page: Horus Heresy (novels) (edit | talk | history |