Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive233

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:La Avatar Korra reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked; Davidmichaelscott warned)[edit]

Page
Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
La Avatar Korra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "the user Davidmichaelscott should the respective consensus, is making changes on the article. see the history"
  2. 00:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "should be left in the previous version"
  3. 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "clean"
  4. 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "undid."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ariana Grande. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has violated WP:3rr here and is also close to violating it at Ariana Grande discography. This user frequently edit wars on both of these articles. STATic message me! 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The user Davidmichaelscott is already looking consensus on discudion page. I'm no changes, we discuss the user to make consensus and that's what is done. ([1]) not if you have something personal with me or the article, but must seek dialogue with me with your words, not just automated messages erroneous. you are the one who make me ill interpret my problems and issues. Thanks. Attentively. Connie (A.K) (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ps: sorry for my english, sorry.
WP:3rr is very clear and you have been notified numerous times about it, yet you ignore the obvious rule we have. STATic message me! 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
sorry I do not speak much English and I can not explain better. I just want to say that static has been misinterpreting my edits, is the only one that does that to me, he does not seek dialogue. Static at almost every opportunity violated that rule. In this case, I was reversing editions of other user that made without consensus , and to reach consensus, leave in the previous version. In the discussion of the article is consensus. Static, please understand that I have been reversing the earlier editions of the user who made no consensus. Sorry for my english, thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I am also warning Davidmichaelscott that future violations of WP:3RR will lead to a block. I'm not blocking you this time because my reading is that your edits were in good faith and you were not warned. In addition, you do not have anything like Connie's disruptive history.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding, sorry for any trouble caused. DavidMichaelScotttalk 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Arms Jones reported by User:Werieth (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arms Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590511557 by Flax5 (talk) However you see it, your solution gives the following Doctors the wrong numbers."
  2. 17:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590513486 by Zythe (talk) exactly, so don't try to give him a number"
  3. 20:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590541194 by Ebyabe (talk) I have already made my point on the talk page, but since you don't want to hear about that I don't take your edit seriously. So I revert it."
  4. 20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590561417 by Rubiscous (talk) The War Doctor is still not = the Ninth Doctor. I'm just setting the numbering straight."
  5. 21:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 590568061 by Takuy (talk) Still no reason for the wrong numbering without saying anything about it on the talk page first."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated reverts of several users Werieth (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I added a 3RR warning to the user's talk page[2] about seven minutes after the most recent revert. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have made my position clear on the talk page of that page. None of the others are interested in discussing. User:Ebyabe even deleted my friendly note to him that I actually had used the talk page - which is the reason I reverted his revert of my revision to the page. User:Werieth is only reporting this because he doesn't like my opinion in another matter. Arms Jones (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
A single post to the talk page does not exempt you from following WP:3RR (a list of acceptable exemptions is listed). You are unquestionably edit warring. You need to get consensus on the talk page prior to restoring your edit (there is no timeline, give it a few days, even a week or more to see what consensus develops). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have made two posts on the talk page. Others have urged me to use the talk page without doing it themselves. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the issues and previous case where I had to take this user to ANI about edit warring over non-free media, I was just keeping an eye on them for a few days to ensure that no further NFCC issues cropped up, and I stumbled upon this edit war. Reporting it has nothing to do with NFCR. its just a case of 5RR. Werieth (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure it is. You still don't know the nature of non-free media. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards, Ive got probably 25k edits in regards to non-free media enforcement. If you take a look at the discussion at NFCR there is a significant consensus that usage of non-free media in that gallery is unacceptable. You have made a point of not listening to what others say, and making mis-quotes about what others say. So again what defense do you have for edit warring twice in a few days time span? Werieth (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Two different situations which can't be compared. Your history of enforcement doesn't make you an expert. You still don't get the nature of legal protection for coats of arms and started to revert things there without any discussion, while I had already made my point on the talk page just before my revisions and I had to take the matter to another discussion because you just didn't care to; the discussion is far from over so you can't say there's any consensus for any solution yet and the matter of free or non-free images is not the main point in that discussion. Here, I tried to talk from the start but noone took part in the discussion until this situation came up, even if some of the others had urged me to talk, they didn't see I had already started a discussion (one person obviously didn't even want to see that). Arms Jones (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned. The user made five reverts (all marked as 'Undid' in the history) within 24 hours at Doctor (Doctor Who). As User:Barek has explained above, none of the exceptions to WP:3RR apply to these reverts. User would have been blocked but for the fact that he did not receive a timely 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Mr Whoppit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also Robin (magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Contested deletion of sourced article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. user generated / non notable
  2. there are alternatives to deletion
  3. no summary - PROD as " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"
  4. (since ANEW) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit

Two blankings and redirections, one prod for " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"

This is a minor article, but part of the overall story for Donald Campbell. Donald Campbell isn't well-known on Wikipedia and has already been repeatedly blanked from Land Speed Record, but in the UK he's still very well known. Mr Whoppit was his teddy bear mascot, Robin (magazine) was the comic in which it first appeared.

Red Pen is a self-confessed arch-deletionist. See the many other articles that have encountered his editing, or his bright-red editing history. Unusually, he rarely deletes articles outright, but prefers to delete them piecemeal. In this case though, he's attacking a sourced article, twice blanking it with a redirect (and of course no, he didn't attempt to merge any of this content into another article, just blanked it) and then prodding it - almost instantaneously. The prod is on a basis that is simply lying (and very obviously so), " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". There are 9 references cited, some of which are stronger than others, but two are utterly robust: David Tremayne's biog of Campbell Donald Campbell: The Man Behind the Mask, generally considered as a canonical text by an author WP:Notable enough for their own article and also the Daily Telegraph, which describes a family feud and included Whoppit's part in that. Campbell's widow, Tonia Bern-Campbell also discusses Whoppit in her autobiog My Speed King, but no doubt Red Pen will describe that as "COI" on some dubious grounds.

The coverage of Whoppit was removed from the Robin article twice no edit summary [3]. This was not a GF cleanup of that article, as most of it consists (and still does) of a list of redlinks with no sourcing whatsoever. However Red Pen didn't go for any of that, they just went for the Campbell content, which was linked to the sourced article.

There is no credible ground for blanking this article, especially not without any attempt at discussion. This is a regular style of editing by this editor, an editor with a broadly corrosive influence on WP editing for others. If an editor wishes to delete an article, we do of course have AfD - a route that Red Pen has been invited to consider for this article, but they appear unwilling to expose themself to the consensus of others.

This is not about a contested deletion of one article - we have AfD and its many eyeballs for that. This is about a regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour by Red Pen.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. This is not the right place to bring up a pattern of behavior unless it involves a recent violation of WP:3RR or clear edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Synsepalum2013 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: )[edit]

Page: Voice to skull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
An unfortunate case of a new contributor who seems not to understand Wikipedia policy, and an article which frankly should never have got past AfC (deletion looks a near certainty [9]). While technically we aren't at 3RR yet, the contributor seems intent on adding claims from individuals concerning a supposed conspiracy involving supposed 'torture' via a (hypothetical) device for transmitting sound to their heads via microwaves. The material, or material much like it, has repeatedly been removed by other contributors, it has been explained that such claims are afforded no credibility by the sources cited - though the specific claims made in the latest edits appear not to be directly supported at all in at least one of the sources cited. While I'm reluctant to ask for a block for a new contributor who would never have been put in such a position if the AfC process had worked properly in the first place (the article, when approved, was a dreadful mess of WP:OR/synthesis [10]), I suspect that without such a block, the contributor is going to carry on adding dubiously-sourced claims of conspiracies until the article is finally given the boot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


User:50.138.249.164 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: List of original programs distributed by Netflix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.138.249.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]
  6. [17]
  7. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments: Repeated reverts without using an edit summary or participating in talk page discussion to rally a consensus for user's edit. IP disruptively undoing reverts by multiple trusted editors.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I have left a formal warning on the IP's talk page that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. For other administrators, the block should be of sufficient length to take into account the IP's sporadic appearances at Wikipedia. I understand the disruption. Every time the IP has edited, even though it may have been days since their last edit, they have done nothing but revert in that article. That said, they have not been warned recently (last time was in December), and it's possible that they were unaware of the talk page discussion. It's generally better to alert an editor, particularly if they're new, that a discussion is taking place.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Mixture)[edit]

Page: Hotel California (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Muthalathu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]

Repeated blanking of a substantial section of an Indian film review because Red Pen would appear to not like the quality of the review sites cited as sources.

Whether this edit is right or wrong, we have a policy against edit-warring because edit-warring is of itself disruptive. We relax this in some copyvio or BLP cases, but we do not relax it over minor content disputes. This editing (on an article I admit I have zero interest in) is just the latest example of Red Pen's arrogant editing style: he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored. I see no attempts at discussion on the article talk: or any obvious user pages.

No doubt this is not bright-line 3RR owing to careful timing between reverts. Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details. However WP:EW is quite specific: edit-warring is edit-warring and it's not necessary to breach 3RR for it to be so.

Do we still care about tendentious edit-warring?

Multiple attempts at opening communication at both the user page [27] and his ip page [28] resulted in [29] and [30] Andy's petty revenge for me nominating his Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit are a bit sad and juvenile, but not unexpected.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the suggestion from [31] EdJohnston I will not edit the article for a week.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I admit I discovered this article of yours when looking at your edit history re: another article, where you're trying to delete an article with a dozen sources for failing WP:GNG. However six repeats is six repeats, whatever else you're up to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet another example of Andy wikihounding and harassing users he is in a disagreement with. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) isn't impressive either, with 5 large repeated blankings over recent days. We are not supposed to work by simple edit-warring and repeating the same deletion over and over. Even if we're Red Pen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I saw this report late last night right before going to bed and took no action because I was tired. I strongly suspected that there was sock puppetry involved and probably would have blocked based on WP:DUCK. However, Dl2000 filed a report at SPI, and a CU has confirmed the socking. Therefore, User:Muthalathu, the master, has been blocked for a month, User:MattAtMallu, the puppet, has been indeffed, and 108.173.141.99 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a month. I can't speak as to whether there are other users besides TRPoD, but Andy Dingley's filing of this report against TRPoD was made in bad faith, particularly after the first report he filed earlier. As I stated in that report, either take the issues he has with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. Continuing to harass him may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23 - this has nothing to do with the earlier report, but whether you believe me or not, I can still count to 6. Red Pen is edit-warring. He is doing this whether I report it (at your earlier request in your closing comments before), someone else reports it, or no-one reports it and it's (yet again) ignored. If you think that reporting edit warriors for edit-warring is harassment, then you know where ANI is. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I do, and I'm considering it, although I don't have to go there to sanction you if I think a sanction is warranted. That is why I warned you. Phrases like "Red Pen's arrogant editing style", "he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored", and "Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details" do not help your "cause". I get the impression that at least in this instance TRPoD is more interested in improving Wikipedia than you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's hard to get worked up about these cases given that the other party to the edit war is a proven (and now-blocked) sockpuppeteer who was flagrantly disregarding WP:RS despite repeated polite invocations of that policy by TheRedPenOfDoom. I suggest that this case be closed with a friendly reminder to TheRedPenOfDoom to resolve problems such as these with means other than revert-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Red Pen, no doubt bolstered by having been green-lighted for edit-warring twice, is now proceeding to blank sources from the previous article at Mr Whoppit and edit-warring to repeat this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Animesh.roark and User:213.253.216.248 reported by User:Claw of Slime (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Advanced Encryption Standard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), AES implementations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Animesh.roark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 213.253.216.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Advanced Encryption Standard 2014-01-14T22:57:15, AES implementations 2014-01-11T09:47:27‎

Diffs of User:Animesh.roark's reverts on Advanced Encryption Standard:

  1. 10:09, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590792723 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)")
  2. 11:19, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Spam removed")
  3. 11:22, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "")
  4. 15:27, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Removed spam")
  5. 16:06, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590829321 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) One more time You spam, and you will be reported & permanently banned!!")
  6. 17:07, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590838938 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) Repeated SPAM")

Diffs of User:Animesh.roark's reverts on AES implementations:

  1. 10:11, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Removed SPAM")
  2. 11:24, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Removed spam")
  3. 15:28, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online Text Encryption */ removed spam")
  4. 16:04, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590829144 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) do not spam, this is your final warning & your IP will be banned If you spam again!")
  5. 16:26, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Miscellaneous */ Added another unique example for an AES based Application Implementation.")
  6. 16:55, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Rectified some grammatical errors & spellings.")
  7. 17:08, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590839125 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)")
  8. 17:09, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590839037 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)Repeated SPAM even after Warning!")

Diffs of User:213.253.216.248's reverts on Advanced Encryption Standard:

  1. 10:33, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590795124 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
  2. 12:18, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online demo */")
  3. 15:41, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590827407 by Animesh.roark (talk)Removed spam")
  4. 16:55, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590832698 by Animesh.roark (talk)")

Diffs of User:213.253.216.248's reverts on AES implementations:

  1. 10:33, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590795291 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
  2. 12:20, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
  3. 12:21, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
  4. 15:40, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590827611 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
  5. 16:56, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
  6. 16:56, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: to Animesh.roark, to 213.253.216.248


Comments: Worthless edit war by changing external links. Animesh.roark insists that his edits are just "Removed SPAM", however, both edits should be stopped.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Strangely they both appear to be edit warring over their preferred spam link. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Historical2013 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page
Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Historical2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC) "Previously agreed to detail disagreement in summary. This erased. Fact is Ramsey is NOT a chemist nor historian and is not qualified to deny other evidence."
  2. [32] "Added comment as to why age of cloth is not settled matter. Numerous leading researchers disagree with 1988 conclusion." (this involved deleting other material). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. 17:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC) "Deleted Jack Nichols reference. The original STURP team included Phd's in Anatomy and death related disciplines . Jack is not qualified expert. Comment is unsubstantiated opinion."
  4. 18:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) "Amended comment. Statement was a distortion of the facts. 11 tests by STURP clearly established blood. McClure measured paint left by painting overlay."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[33]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Various discussions between myself, another editor more involved with the article, and this editor can be seen at the talk page.

Comments:

User:Clubintheclub reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] [41] (via ANI due to combination of BLP violation and edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] (discussion initiated by ClubintheClub on my talk page)

Comments: Six times in a bit more than 24 hours, User:Clubintheclub has added an inappropriate section to the Woody Allen BLP entitled "Sexual Abuse Allegations". The section is redundant to the more even-handed and less inflammatory treatment of the same events in the article at Woody_Allen#Marriages_and_romantic_relationships, in the Mia Farrow section (of which the other edit is plainly aware, since some of the text is repeated verbatim). The section was initially (and quite properly) removed by User:Binksternet, then removed by me when ClubintheClub added it back without seeking consensus. It came to my attention as a pending changes reviewer, and I removed the content under that rubric over BLP issues several more times, as ClubintheClub restored it (sometimes with associated material removed). This is highly sensitive material, and ClubintheClub should not have initially disturbed the longstanding consensus treatment of the matter without reaching consensus. It was certainly and plainly inappropriate to include two overlapping discussions of it. Per BLP policy, once the contentious material was added and removed, it should not have been restored (not to mention WP:BRD, which carries the greatest weight in the context of "bold addition" of contentious content to a BLP. CintheC continued to add the material back, repeatedly breaching 3RR, even after I raised the problem (and associated matters) at ANI. (Note that I claim the BLP exemption to the 3RR limit, especially since the disputed edits were flagged as likely BLP violations by an edit filter, which CintheC disregarded, and because the edits were also flagged for pending changes review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The user was not warned. I saw your contention at AN/I that this was a sock; I don't see sufficient evidence of this. I have warned the user about 3RR, and about BLP (which is a far more serious matter). I choose not to suspend AGF and to treat them as a newbie. I assure you that I will not be so lenient the next time. --John (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


User:Jacob Javits reported by User:DMacks (Result: Warned; subsequently indeffed as a sock)[edit]

Page: Institute of Technology (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and dozens of other "Institute of Technology" school articles
User being reported: Jacob Javits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diff history:

  1. [44] JJ's edit
  2. [45] my undo with expl
  3. [46] JJ's unexplained reversion of me
  4. [47] and accusation that my edit was vandalism


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See poor response to my mentions of WP:V and WP:EW on his user-talk page. Note also pattern of unsupported-content revert-warring against multiple editors at Stevens Institute of Technology, which is what originally prompted my EW warning (note, JJ has now hit 3RR on that article).

Comments:


This editor started blindly reverting all of my edits; he/she removed my updatings also here.--Jacob Javits (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I got tired of rewriting the same explanation (uncited/unsupported and sometimes contradicting rest of article, or incorrect use of hatnotes) for my removal of the boilerplate you pasted into over a dozen articles. I did use WP:ES on some (as did others...as I noted on your talkpage, there are multiple editors who dispute its inclusion). DMacks (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You could've just moved it to the "See Also" section as was done on Stevens Institute of Technology. And there is no excuse for this edit of yours--which is equivalent to vandalism, but I'm assuming good faith, unlike you.--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
And I 've no problem with your removing of the hatnote, that is why I didn't revert you here--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Javits appears to be a new editor with 70 edits. Suggest posting the particular problems on the article talk page. Follow the WP:BRD process. @Jacob Javits, the edits were WP:NOTVANDALISM. Please take some time to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, do NOT make accusations of bad faith. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Stevens is a "Technological Research University" [49]. @S. Rich, this edit is equivalent to vandalism as it removes updates.--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Jacob Javits, your editing pattern since recently creating this account has been disruptive. Although you have not breached WP:3RR, you clearly have no understanding of policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. I suggest you read some of those policies and guidelines, pay closer attention to the guidance of editors who are much more experienced than you, stop unjustifiably attacking other editors for vandalism, and stop reverting on many, many articles. This is your only warning. If you fail to heed it, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of indefinitely based on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Warned both)[edit]

Page: Noel Estrada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mercy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

background

Since its creation back in 2004, the article about composer Noel Estrada claims that one of his compositions is "the most widely known Boleros in Puerto Rico" without providing a reference.

I tagged the article for reference improvement yesterday ("Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.").

After that, User:Mercy11 changed the lead to say, also without a reference, that the song is "one of the most widely known songs around the world".

the revert war

I reverted back to the less exaggerated original referenced claim, and since them a revert war has started. User:Mercy11 has reverted to his version at least four times

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]


(with me reverting back to the original version) In the last two reverts, he added a reference he claims covers the claim, but it does not.

An unfruitful discussion was started at the article's talk page.


I don't know if this edit war counts as a 3RR or not. What I know is that I'm having trouble with User:Mercy11 quickly triggering his revert link apparently in any article I touch. And discussion is rarely fruitful with him. I prefer some Admin (or non-Admin) to step in and resolve the issue. It's being stressing. I'm sorry if this is not the right venue for such complaints. --damiens.rf 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. It's hard to understand how an editor with your history does not know what constitutes WP:3RR. In addition, you should have notified Mercy11 of this report; I've done that for you. In any event, both of you have easily violated WP:3RR, and I'm struggling to understand why you both shouldn't be blocked for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Damiens's fixation appears to be my person: as you can see he reported me here despite the fact that he himself admits, "I don't know if this edit war counts as a 3RR or not". Fact is he is himself currently under investigation for incivility and Wikihounding at ANI and yet Damiens continues his relentless attacks on Puerto Rico articles and images, even though the matter has already been brought to his attention by another editor. A fourth editor yet has also pointed out to him how his delete nominations use language about Puerto Ricans than can be offensive to people of the Puerto Rican culture. So, there a long history of attacks that he continues to fester. Interestingly, when I warned him of the 3RR's at the Noel Estrada Talk Page, Damiens wasted no time and -instead of actually engaging in a fruitful discussion about the dispute-- simply turned that around and reported me "first" as if being the first one is somehow a winning score over the editor who, unlike him, has provided citations and is interested in discussion. As he has already shown elsewhere, Damines is not interested in discussion; he interested in being Pointy. Either way, my reverts are legitimate because the cite proves that his charge of exaggeration is invalid. His version is also invalid because it was uncited and, per policy, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." BTW, a new editor User:Jacob Javits has now entered the edit war scene, reverting -no edit summary- to Damiens uncited version. Mercy11 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Mercy11, the discussion at ANI is all over the place. Here, though, you appear to have a signicant misunderstanding about WP:3RR. Your reverts are not exempt under the rules, not even close. Therefore, I have no confidence that if you're not blocked, you will not repeat the same behavior. Both your edits and Damiens were very disruptive to the article, although toward the end you at least added a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Mercy11, it'd be great if you had addressed my concerns instead of continually refining your statement above. Nonetheless, the edit warring seems to have stopped, and I painted myself into a corner by not blocking you both from the get-go. So, I will warn you and Damiens.rf that if you resume reverting for any reason other than one exempt by policy, you risk being blocked without notice. I also urge both of you to read the policy more carefully because neither of you understands it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be great if an end to the edit war could be reached through your warnings which are well merited. I only wish that that someone would tell Damiens to discontinue his rampage against Puerto Rican related articles. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The sheer volume of edits is beginning to concern me. As an example, his editing history shows 7 edits at 18:25 on January 13, 2014, followed by 8 edits at 18:26. This represents 15 edits in 2 minutes. They're not in the Puerto Rico history articles, but Damiens.rf does seem to target the Puerto Rico articles -- performing hundreds of edits within a 24-hour period. So in general, and in the PR articles, perhaps Damiens.rf needs to slow down and read the articles (and Talk Pages) more carefully. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:187.38.65.148 reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Brazilian Expeditionary Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.38.65.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

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

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

Comments:

Was told on the article's talk page, that the User User:Coltsfan should clearly justify his repeated reversions (later with accusation of Spam), what he has repeatedly refuse.
Not satisfied with this, he have used threats on this talk page. If someone can mediate, would be interesting. Thanks. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Threats? Those are standardized templates to warn you (and it was ignored) to stop with your disruptive behavior. Coltsfan (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here you go again, trying to impute to others your disruptive practices. Yes, I understand this as threats, since when observed the article's revision history, who at 17:22, 15 January, started revertions without justification, refusing to explain clearly and unequivocally why the insistence on delete the remaining link of those you had previously deleted, going right to "warnings", I can not understand it otherwise. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't understand how wikipedia works, do you? I was deleting obvious spam. You were warned several times on two different wikis and still refuses to acknowledge. Coltsfan (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Here you go again with "because I say so" argument. Look, if it was that "obvious", you had proved long ago and we wouldn't be here. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, here we go again. You were doing so much spam on the corresponding article in the portuguese pikipedia that forced the syops over there to protect the page. And I did explained, but you ignored. Coltsfan (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I became curious on your complaint about the equivalent article in Lusophone Wikipedia, and I checked (please mediators, if you don't know Portuguese, use online translator), and noticed that you used there the same policy. As other unregistered users didn't agree, I can even understand your paranoia to accuse me of being all of them... apart from other unreasonable accusations.
I noticed that there too you and only one other user (perhaps another self), refused to present evidences and arguments on the talk page.
So, despite your attempt to divert the focus of discussion, among other attempts, I ask again, where is thy plausible explanation?187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"Appear" is quiet different of "Definitively". Anyway, let's see how will unfold the discussion on Talk pages in the next days.187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I will, again, remove all links that fails the WP:EL (and also to preserve the right version). Probably the IP will choose to revert it rather than discuss it, but we'll see. Coltsfan (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You who have refused to unequivocally clarify your point of view, appealing to others mister, not me. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Just remember: if you add it one more time, whether today, next week, or next century, it will be removed as a failure of WP:EL, and you'll also be blocked for edit-warring. This isn't rocket science ES&L 00:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And there you go (diff). Coltsfan (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You will want to undo that, as YOU are about to be blocked for edit-warring as well ES&L 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I did stop now. I'm trying to preserve the right version. But it doesn't matter. The IP won't stop reverting, so there is no point. I'll wait to see what the syops will decide to do. Coltsfan (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Whereas you not satisfied to delete the link in question, deleted others in the same "because I say so" "argument"... 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. In lieu of blocking the both of you. Seriously - both of you need to learn WP:BRD. I will reiterate, do not add that link back to the article, or else there will be no choice but to block for a long-term edit-war. Read WP:EL ES&L 01:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still a tone of links there that does not satisfy the WP:EL. There is even a dead link there. What's to be done? Coltsfan (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Make your argument for removal on the article talkpage the way you're supposed to. Obtain consensus. Period. I'm adding the article to my own watchlist ES&L 01:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
But, as you could see, the IP not even used coherent arguments. To obtain consensus with someone that is not willing to talk it's kind hard. Coltsfan (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So what? As per WP:DR, the fact that one party won't discuss does not give you free reign to break the rules yourself. You should be ashamed that you're still trying to justify your own edit-warring. Before getting into an edit-war, follow WP:DR - which may include requesting page protection. However, never take things into your own hands - YOU should bloody well be blocked along with the IP. ES&L 01:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"the IP not even used coherent arguments. To obtain consensus with someone that is not willing to talk it's kind hard."
This is not true Coltsfan. For example, about dead link, obviously I agree. Related to others, I believe (again) since you prove yr arguments, as for those eventually outside Wiki standards, or otherwise be inappropriate to the article, no problem. But you have to show this clearly, in a way that anyone can understand. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop. You want to discuss links on an article, go to the article talkpage - consider yourself fortunate that you're not blocked for this fiasco that you created. None of your links meet WP:EL, and you've been formally warned not to re-add them ... your links and arguments are not to Wikipedia standards, but either way, take it somewhere else ES&L 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 128.178.197.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 128.178.197.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • Number zero': [56], 22:15, January 11, 2014, three additions by Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar, not a revert
  1. [57] 07:26, January 15, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.62, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
  2. [58] 15:20, January 15, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.62, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
  3. [59] 17:16, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
  4. [60] 17:29, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
  5. [61] 17:36, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
  6. [62] 17:40, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] 17:37, January 16, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64], the start of the discussion thread Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#math text book?

Comments:
User Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar edits many articles about Switzerland. The IPs are from Lausanne, Switzerland, and appear to be Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar editing anonymously. Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is adding material drawn from a math text book, which seems odd, and the website http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/, which is a self-published website, forum and wiki, therefore not reliable. Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is greatly increasing the emphasis on an autopsy suggestion of multiple attackers, placing the following sentence in the lead paragraph as the third sentence: "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person." Since the article concludes with a conviction of one murderer, this autopsy suggestion is not conclusive. Note that 144.85.164.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from Geneva, Switzerland, has also been editing the article, favoring the material brought by Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar, though 144.85.164.231 has not made a revert. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. I indeffed the named account and blocked the three IPs for a month, all based on sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zack1189 reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
The Promenade Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zack1189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC) to 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) to 01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 01:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Blanked the page"
  7. 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591057930 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
  8. 01:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  9. 01:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"
  10. Consecutive edits made from 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) to 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on The Promenade Shopping Centre. (TW)"
  2. 01:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Promenade Shopping Centre. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "mv discussion from User talk:Dwpaul"
  2. 01:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ wl WP:CITE"
  3. 01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ add mention template"
  4. 02:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ +reply"
  5. 02:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ rm errant wl"
Comments:

See User talk:Zack1189 and Talk:The Promenade Shopping Centre Dwpaul Talk 02:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. I have blocked for 12 hours. the block will be renewed and extended if the behaviour persists. Ground Zero | t 03:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog‎ reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Problem of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

< 02:04, 30 December 2013‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,344 bytes) (-3,871)‎>

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17 Jan 2014 Jytdog
  2. 15 Jan 2014 Jytdog
  3. 15 Jan 2014 Jytdog
  4. 02:04, 30 December 2013‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,344 bytes) (-3,871)‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning stated clearly on Talk page of this wikipage, and on the Edit History summary line of his/her serial reverts and section deletes on the page history itself.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page was initiated and BRD rules were invoked to see if any consensus was forthcoming. No one has supported the serial reverts by User:Jytdog who has been informed that he/she is at 3RR and edit warring. Previous user appears upset that no one is supporting his/her serial delete of full section and is trying to force the section delete without any consensus. Normal BRD attempt has failed and User:Jytdog appears to want to force the serial section deletion by serial reverts past 3RR.

Comments:

User Jytdog has been given the option of obtaining consensus on the wikipage Talk page for his/her section delete but none has come forward for this isolated opinion with no consensus. Previous user is apparently upset that no one has offered any consensus for his/her edit and has again started serial reverts by deleting entire subsections of this wikipage against two editors. FelixRosch (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, there are now comments by previously-uninvolved contributors on the talk page - I suggest you resume discussions there. One thing I'd like clarification on though is your reference to 'two editors'. I can't see anyone except you reverting Jytdog - who is the second editor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:70.29.241.206 reported by User:Josh3580 (Result:Blocked )[edit]

Page
Alex Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
70.29.241.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phone number was posted for 'source'. I'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified.(talk)
  2. 01:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phone number was posted for 'source'. I'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified. (talk)"
  3. 01:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phonI'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified. original research or phone numbers(talk)"
  4. 00:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591200778 by Bbb23changing facts. Note: It`s not my "say-so", feel free to contact him yourself. (talk)"
  5. 00:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591192987 by Bbb23changing fact. Note Not that I'm John Haarmann, but that he's the source (phone contact). The 70 on GCN are signed, the others are unsigned.(talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC) (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alex Jones. (TW)) "
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Caught this via my watchlist. Blocked 31 hours. -- John Reaves 01:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnohedinnit reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Herpes genitalis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:10, 16 January 2014 (edit summary: "restored perfectly valid sources and important edits")
  2. 16:15, 16 January 2014 (edit summary: "added references")
  3. 00:54, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "added references")
  4. 06:21, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 591067786 by Zad68 (talk)")
  5. 14:40, 17 January 2014 (edit summary: "added more references, highlighted unsourced material")
  • Diff of warning: here

In each one of these reverts, Ohnohedinnit re-adds a large number of unacceptable sources, for example you can see the addition of the self-published website "chastity.com" to support biomedical information in each one of the edits. Sourcing issues were explained to Ohnohedinnit here, again here, here, and in explicit detail here. Flyer22 has been trying to help explain the sourcing issues as well but with no success. There are a few helpful things in Ohnohedinnit's edits but they are largely problematic. Attempts to get Ohnohedinnit to engage with the WP:MEDRS issues pointed out are met with reverts back.

Zad68 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This wildly misrepresents my edits. In response to concerns of other editors, I have added additional sources from journal articles. Yet User:Zad68 continues to revert. User:Zad68 and User:Flyer22 continue to use an unsourced quotation in the first paragraph - a point that I have continued to raise but has not been addressed. If they are so concerned about adequate sourcing, why not just delete the unacceptable references? The text is supported by medical journals, which I have added, in addition to the popular press. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After this report was filed, the problematic edit was reverted by Alexbrn and Ohnohedinnit reverted back:

edit summary "improved language, removed 'popular press'". Although a few bad sources like chastity.com were removed the edit still used NPR, CNN, Village Voice etc. for sourcing so it's still not fixed. Either way the issue is the continual reverting instead of leaving the article alone while the challenged edits are discussed and engaging in material discussion on Talk page. Zad68 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, if the sources are really so problematic, I'll remove them. I'm confused why the editors who take issue with those sources can't just remove them and leave the text in tact. The text itself is accurate, verifiable, and supported by journal citations. Why revert to an obviously inferior version just because there are sources from popular press? Anyway, I've gone ahead and removed the sources that have created this issue in the first place. Hopefully that will resolve this matter, though why this couldn't be done by the editors concerned instead of a wholesale revision leaves me questioning their intent. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why should we take care to maintain the decent material you've added to that article when you don't take care to maintain the decent material in it, such as the WP:MEDMOS format? You speak of wholesale reverting. Look at your reverts. You repeatedly added back in material without care, format changes and all; if you are only focused on particular aspects, then your edit should reflect that in this case, instead of bringing all the bad aspects with it. And do read WP:BURDEN. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Over the Orwell reported by User:Blackberry Sorbet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Guto Bebb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Richard Bacon (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Steve Baker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tony Baldry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Harriett Baldwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stuart Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
David Amess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gregory Barker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
John Baron (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Adam Afriyie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ben Gummer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Richard Benyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
David Amess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: