Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Chealer (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[1]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "WP:Lede requires that only material in the main body of the article may be put in the Lead section.Please stop edit warring WP:EW & violating WP:3RR. Four editors have asked for your reasons on Talk. You have no support on Talk."
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warn"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[4]

Comments:

This can be considered as a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive252#User:LawrencePrincipe_reported_by_User:Chealer_.28Result:_No_action_.29 the August 1st report about the same user, which was handled by User:Tiptoety.

In the previous report, I asked for moderation, and the consequence was an imposed self-reversion. After the user suggested he was going to comply and made an edit with the appearance of the self-reversion imposed, the case was closed. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the previous report, the edit turned out to be a hand-crafted revision which only reverted one part of the violating edit. After the intervention of a bot and myself to complete the reversion, the user reverted against the ruling, with no justification but one of the same arguments he had made then had refuted many times. At this point, I did not reopen the case right away, but rather reverted, which - perhaps unsurprisingly - proved useless. The user re-re-reverted, before I issued a final warning on the article's Talk, since the user had requested so. I'm opening this now that the user re-re-re-reverted invoking no argument which hasn't been refuted already, rather implying that I violated the 3RR and pretending that 4 editors have asked for my "reasons", without even specifying which. Moreover, in that last revert, depicted as a simple reversion of my previous edit, he also reverted a recent change without giving any justification.

Reviewing an edit from Folklore1 made me realize that the above statement is misleading. It remains true that the last revert was more than what the edit summary suggested, but the extra part was not what I initially read (a revert of one of my edits). Even though it technically does revert that, I failed to notice that it also removed the fragment ' "more than 50 official policies" ' LawrencePrincipe had added. This fixes an important problem. It constitutes a concession, and certainly was not a reversion of my edit in spirit.
I do not withdraw my complaint and recommendation for sanction, but the statement now italicized was a big mis-characterization, and I apologize for that. I should have praised that change, not blamed it. @LawrencePrincipe: I apologize to you in particular, although I recommend you avoid mixing such changes in a single edit in the future. If you choose to proceed in such a way anyway, make sure your edit summary reflects that.
Note to self: Keep assuming some good faith... --Chealer (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC), corrected 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must re-amend the above after giving a new look to the diff with a much-needed cooler head. I surely understand the analysis error I made now, but I probably understand LawrencePrincipe's error too. I now believe LawrencePrincipe's change to content of the lead's last paragraph was unintentional, which would mean that my original interpretation of the edit was basically correct; LawrencePrincipe intended to discreetly revert my change, but unintentionally removed his own addition while removing my request for clarification, which explains why the sentence was left broken.
If that was not case, then I maintain my apologies. --Chealer (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While a week has gone between his last reverts, it should be noted that Wikipedia was locked for 1 week during that period, for reasons not unrelated to this user's behavior. (By the way, this case may be a good opportunity to review the page's protection status. It appears that setting full protection has ironically now brought the article back to No protection rather than the previous semi-protection which it seemed to have, which is bringing more problematic edits than anything else. I would recommend semi-protection or Pending changes.)

In the original report, I wrote I was "sure he [could] become/remain a useful contributor". I am sorry, but I hereby fully retract this statement. Although I will never deny that LawrencePrincipe has already contributed useful work and can continue to do so, his signal/noise ratio has exploded, now that he's opened an RFC and directly tried to get so many people involved. More importantly, his conduct is very mischievous. He repeatedly feigns ignorance and tries to change the subject. I consider several of his comments (such as the edit summary discussed above) as personal attacks. I can only hope that this will change, but have no evidence to that effect. I recommend a meaningful block.

I would probably take an extra day of redaction and an extra hour from your time if I tried to point each error and deceitful behavior I have seen from LawrencePrincipe. Instead of that, I am offering a single example. Unfortunately, although extreme, repeating an error for the nth time, while in the act of quoting me pointing out that n was already >= 10, is far from unrepresentative of the behavior LawrencePrincipe currently displays.

Less than 2 weeks have passed since this case was opened; LawrencePrincipe is surely and understandably not much more skilled with this Wikipedia's language and its conventions. However, these can't explain all the apparent confusion he has shown, and one can hardly use carelessness and inexperience as defense after having opened an RFPP and resorted to important canvassing. A large part of what looks like confusion/inexperience is intentional deception. I have never dealt with a contributor conducting himself so poorly/inconsistently, and I have probably been here for too long already. I honestly wonder who LawrencePrincipe is, and am still unsure at times about an apparent confusion's genuineness, but it is high time to put an end to this.

I realize the above contains lots of accusations and judgments which are not fully substantiated. This is not really intentional. If your review of the situation does not make the reasons behind a certain claim obvious, I am sorry and will be happy to elaborate. --Chealer (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no admins want to address this (same with the ANI post). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale User LawrencePrincipe has not edited the article since August 14. Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked two weeks)[edit]

Page
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "the' also on kjiev side is many ..' is kind of pidgin , and not the subject of the article anyhow"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC) to 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    1. 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622066536 by Jirka.h23 (talk)check the title - the subject of the article"
    2. 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "its not 'according to prof' ok - many Russians is common knowledge anyhow"
  3. 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "its not t'the prof ' saying this, he presented the programme - the tanks has a bbc june ref also - your Russian statement is not reffed"
  4. 13:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622056440 by Jirka.h23 (talk)the refs are at the end of the passage"
  5. 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622052445 by Jirka.h23 (talk)voice of Russia better- 4real? - neutral RS source would be better"
  6. 12:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622047296 by Jirka.h23 (talk)just looks lke a Russian propaganda source - is there not a better RS for numbers"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
oh goodness me rgloucester, I felt to leave the page with an illiterate and irrelevant sentence was useless - and also the other editor had left it with ' the prof says -' which wasn't true, he obviously hadn't listened to the podcast that the Boston College professor hosted merely, , -can not some common sense be used here please and over reaction avoided- minor footling with the language, not major edit war -Sayerslle (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You will note that with your final revert you did not just remove that sentence, but also wholesale reverted all of the other editor's changes. I will also note that I warned you about 3RR on your talk page. I will also note that this article is under Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, which I also notified you about. I also warned the other editor about 3RR and discretionary sanctions. Whether something is "true or not" is the definition of a content dispute. You are an experienced editor, and experienced in editing in contentious areas. You should've known better than to keep reverting, rather than moving to the talk page. This is especially true after I warned you, and even more true because this article is under discretionary sanctions. There is not much else I can say. RGloucester 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
'wholesale' 'all the other editors edits' - which you make sound something massive - a few footling changes - one total illiterate irrelevant sentence removed -you are always exaggerating - to remove 'also on kjiev side is many' was nothing really was it ?-'there is not much else I can say' - - well, lets hope so, certainly as regards me - youve called me childish, and a crusader, and an adder of nonsense, and impossible to understand without the Lords help, now you've warned me too - bit much really. - the edit war is over as far as i'm concerned- if illiteracy or inaccuracies about who said what are added, I will have to try and address it on the talk page - the other editor seemed unwilling to listen - my edit summaries told him the prof wasn't the source and the sentence was irrelevant - but back it went - so I assumed debate wasn't going to be listened to really. Sayerslle (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither party's conduct was particularly good in this edit war, but you took the extra step of reverting again after I'd warned you to stop edit warring and take it to the talk page. RGloucester 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks John (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Page
The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Newmancbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622038398 by PiCo (talk) See the talk page and write your complaints there"
  2. 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622019117 by Dougweller (talk) The Ipuwer section was not listed under archeology at all, but under historicity, it has been now moved to its on section"
  3. 05:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622018575 by Zero0000 (talk) Excuse me? The statement 'no archeological research has been found that can lend support for the Book of Exodus' is WP:OR given the Ipuwer. See talk"
  4. 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "Somehow despite a lengthy explanation the reader is left knowing actually very little about this text or its contents, added the passages from the papyrus in question"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned for 3RR at [5] and later warnings by another Admin for edit-warring at other articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Discussion on his talk page and Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus as one of the issues is the papyrus. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor is a WP:TLDR respondent on talk pages, and shows no zero knowledge of the subjects he edits on, and appears to be pushing a fundamentalist POV with extraordinary alacrity over the past few days (see Israelites). There's a limit to how much time editors should be expected to spend wasting hours in handling crank editing over multiple pages. It may be a first time offence, but he needs a strong warning, given the ignorance of basic protocols, to propose edits on the talk page more often.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
After replacing some copyvio removed by another Admin he is at 3RR at Ipuwer Papyrus. He seems to have a habit of accusing other editors of being prejudiced when they disagree with him. He's now going through articles replacing "Yahweh" with "YHWH" as he believes that "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation)". Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
After seeing this (saying in the middle of an article "his is an article from the Christian perspective and should use links to their terms"), I was about ready to start gathering diffs and go to ANI to bring up a topic ban or a WP:NOTHERE block. I'll still do that if the blocking admin doesn't indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This editor brings nothing to Wikipedia except strong opinions and appears intent on making the encyclopaedia conform to those opinions regardless of any other considerations. Zerotalk 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I predict there will be longer blocks unless the editor changes their approach. John (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

5.221.222.174 reported by User:2001:470:0:CA:0:0:0:2 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Ali Javan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.221.222.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user makes disruptive edits. He doesn`t use Talk page. If you will check Talk page, you will see, that compromise was found with other users. However, I am not sure, if it is edit warring or vandalism (maybe somekind of trolling, because he became more active after compromise was found). P.S. He also violated 3RR.
UPDATE: Now he began to vandalize other pages. He just deletes all Turkish and Azerbaijani names from articles. Some of his actions have no logic. For example, he replaced Ottoman Turkish name for Baklava with Persian name, but Persians not even claim that Baklava is of Persian origin. Now, I am sure that his actions are actually vandalism.

Comments:

User:Arjann reported by User:Vivvt (Result: No action required right now)[edit]

Page
Kaaviya Thalaivan (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arjann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621913435 by Vivvt (talk) I'm not doing any personal analysis. I've just written what the source says. Just the representation is different"
  2. 12:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "The total length parameter is getting violated."
  3. 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ I have not listed anything that is unofficial"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kaaviya Thalaivan (soundtrack). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Inspite of asking user to discuss the issue on the talk, he keeps on reverting the changes. Also, undid the warning given on the talk page. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


The matter could have been amicably solved. If the user Vivvt has some issues, he/she may discuss it with me on my talk page. She/he (User:Vivvt) must write on my talk page and not mentioning or initiating the talk/discussion in the comments. It may be well noted through the user pages that no discussion has been initiated by Vivvt. User Vivvt has problems with me since I came on Wikipedia. My constructive edits were always regarded as disruptive by her/him. And I don't think for such matters a block or administrator intervention is so essential. Arjann (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment It's not like that Arjann. You created the article, and it would be natural for you to feel some amount of ownership of the article, which is what may be resulting in the other editor perceiving your unilateral reverts (with not fully logical edit summaries) being disruptive. But I appreciate your logic, that you're ready to take up discussion on the talk page of the article and that this report was perhaps filed in haste. Why don't you start the discussions yourself, instead of waiting for other editors? It will give evidence of your clean hands. I'm closing the report here now, hoping you'll take the lead in initiating conversations with other editors. Wifione Message 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: Both Blocked)[edit]

Page: All Hope Is Gone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure how to fill this out but you should no what I mean The user mentioned above has been removing the only Genre in the infobox on this album and another. Saying that they should be removed because they are not sourced which is fair enough but I said that it should be discussed and a consensus reached on talk page first before just removing. He has reverted 4 times and I have (I thought I had only done so 3 times) I have asked him to start a discussion on the talk page, he has put a few simple words "explaining" why but not waited for a consensus (he knows about 3RR as he mentioned it to me.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He also broke 3RR on the 18th on the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) page I made a report out but removed it once he started to discuss after but he is doing it again this time with another Slipknot album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Luke per WP:BURDEN it is incumbent on anyone adding new info to an article, or an infobox, to provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source that is verifiable regarding that info. This includes genres. You have not done that. Also, you can be involved in edit warring even without 3rr having taken place. Also A has started a discussion on the talk page for AHiG and you have not, at this time, posted there. IMO you are edit warring so you might want to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD I suggest you open your eyes, I never added the genre it was on there ages before I ever even edited the page and under (BRD) it is on him to seek a consensus and explain why an edition that as been on the article for years should be removed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He is claiming to have discussed on the talk page but hasn't he just explained a few of Wikipedia's guidelines on the talk page. I have said he should of explained why he thinks Alternative Metal should be removed and then waited for another user of Wikipedia (not me or him) to fill in on their opinion and take it from there (because you can't reach a consensus with just 2 users.) I know Andrzejbanas means well and that is exactly why I removed my previous report of him but he should do it differently than just removing a genre without a consensus or discussion first. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also MarnetteD unless you are an administrator who has come here to sort this mess out I don't care about your opinion, I haven't broken 3RR he has. And as for a proper discussion, waiting for a reply and a consensus no he hasn't started one just explained a few guidelines I already knew. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. User:Lukejordan02 has been warned on their talk page about their edits: here, here, here, and on their talk page here and here (which was removed and ignored.) I've made discussions on the talk page of the article with no notice from the user [Talk:All_Hope_Is_Gone#Genre_3 here]. I'm dealing with someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue and no matter what I do point them towards the rules, or discuss with them, it just gets reverted without care. I think I was within my means here.
FWIW my eyes are open. First, just because a genre was in an article does not mean that it should stay see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Next, I am allowed to post here and other places whether you like it or not. You have edit warred whether you made three reverts or not and you did not respond when talk page threads were started. Maintaining this kind of attitude does not bode well for future editing. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss because if you'd had sources, i'd be totally good with them. You've also removed tags i've added before on other articles like here: [6]. In fact, in that edit you've also removed genres without a discussion first. You don't have to discuss things on wikipedia when there is no grounds for keeping an item. If you want something up here, find a source for it. Sheesh! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said to you in reply on my talk page - the removal of the tag was completely by accident, I reverted a user who added new unsourced editions and reverted to a version before you added them, you simply re-added them and they are still on there now, and I removed the genres he added under BRD. The genre you are trying to remove is the articles only mentioned genre and has been on there for years so I reverted your removal again under BRD due to the length of time it has been on Wikipedia (years) and I never added it, it was on here for years before I even joined Wikipedia. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked. Lukejordan02 for 2 weeks. Andrzejbanas for 48 hours. You both have been blocked earlier this year for edit warring. Please read Wikipedia:Edit_warring appropriately and try to stick to not breaking the 3RR line again. Arguing about the genre of an album is alright, but not breaking 3RR. If there's a BLP issue, take it to BLPN, especially when it's about something like the genre. Wifione Message 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Northern94 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page: Erigavo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Northern94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 16:39, 20 August 2014
  2. Revision as of 17:02, 20 August 2014
  3. Revision as of 14:01, 21 August 2014
  4. Latest revision as of 18:42, 21 August 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
Hi. AcidSnow (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. Indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:151.225.63.6 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Sam Parnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.225.63.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]
  6. [16]
  7. [17]
  8. [18]
  9. [19]
  10. [20]
  11. [21]
  12. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Other warnings

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]
  4. [27]
  5. [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

And

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]

This editor has also apparently been making the same or similar edits from multiple IP addresses. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (semi) for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know if a semi for 10 days will adequately address this. It seems this editor returns to the article monthly or so and uses multiple IPs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with MrBill3. This user is tenacious and certainly hasn't been put off by having to wait a week or two, or numerous editors reverting their 'Truth'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.8.113 reported by User:semitransgenic (Result: )[edit]

Page: Electronic dance music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.137.8.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]
  6. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[40],[41],[42],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments: This report concerns the following related IPs User:166.137.8.113, User:166.137.8.78, User:166.137.8.79, User:166.137.8.75, User:166.137.8.128 and one IP possibly connected with same user, User:104.33.147.32.There has been constructive input from other editors on the talk page, but no engagement from the IP user. Semitransgenic talk. 10:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)



User:Anaphylaxis2014 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Materialization (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Anaphylaxis2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Scientific views */"
  2. 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622222104 by LuckyLouie (talk) Marking a citation as dubious does not require a consensus, cut the b.s."
  3. 11:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "1) Your new source does not address paranormal materialization per se => original synthesis. 2) Do not remove "dubious" tag until this is really solved."
  4. 11:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622323858 by Alexbrn (talk) See talk page."
  5. 11:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622325415 by Roxy the dog (talk) Original synthesis and dubious source. See talk page and ANI page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[44]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Original research */ cmt, see WP:Parity section of WP:FRINGE read NPOV for understanding then take it to WP:RSN"
  2. 10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Original research */ r"
  3. 11:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Original research */ r"
  4. 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Original research */ r"
Comments:

As explained here [1], a citation is dubious and all "reverts" I am accused of, are only made to maintain the dubious flag. It is amazing to see that nobody would allow a simple flag to stay in place and thus being unable to simply challenge a source. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • That is untrue. Three reverts removed a newly added source that has received support on both the talk page of the article and the ANI discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If you read the talk page again, you should notice that simply linking to other wikipedia links such as mass-energy equivalence or transmutation was prohibited on the ground they did not address psychic materialization per se. There is no reason (but maybe you will explain me otherwise) that one "original synthesis" should be refused and the other one accepted. I didn't try to put my paragraph back into the article once I was told it was "original synthesis". Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for a content dispute. The issue here is you have repeatedly reverted the contributions of other editors. Removing a source I placed and two other editors restored after your removal. You repeatedly reinserted a tag that had been removed by several editors and was not supported on talk. To answer in brief consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Edit-warring over the placement of a tag is still edit warring. Zad68 12:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IP hopping IP editor reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Russo-Georgian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These editors are clearly all the same person, who is IP-hopping using a variety of Italian IPs. He/she is not necessarily in Italy.

The editor keeps making the same edits over and over again:

  1. 22:48, 21 August 2014 by 95.75.123.225
  2. 12:49, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
  3. 13:49, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
  4. 14:31, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
  5. 16:37, 22 August 2014 by 95.75.110.99
  6. 16:58, 22 August 2014 by 95.75.110.99

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:34, 22 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russo-Georgian War#Official Russian POV pushers --Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
--Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am protecting the page from anon IP edits for 72 hours to allow people time to work this out on the talk page. BCorr|Брайен 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Shotgunz reported by User:VeNeMousKAT (Result: indeffed)[edit]

Page
Jacob Faggot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Shotgunz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 10:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622320092 by Frosty (talk)"
  4. 10:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622320454 by VeNeMousKAT (talk)"
  5. 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Jacob Faggot. (TW)"
  2. 10:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jacob Faggot. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

It looks like he tried to avoid the 3 revert rule by editing the article manually and adding what was reverted so that it was reverted without actually undoing it, if you go to the page's history you will see that he added the same line 5 times. (Also he reverted the warnings on his talk page so he definitely saw them). VeNeMousKAT (talk|contribs) 14:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely. This wasn't edit warring, it was vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
LGBT rights in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
11raccoon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622369201 by CombatWombat42 (talk)"
  2. 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Pure speculation, no reference, and bad grammar."
  4. 14:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  • They're all over the editor's talk page.


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • In my opinion raccoon is certainly guilty of edit warring and is begging for a block. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's another one, from just now. Bbb23, where art thou? Drmies (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Dsr70 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Andrea Tantaros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dsr70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46] 15:42, August 21, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."
  2. [47] 21:08, August 21, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."
  3. [48] 21:11, August 21, 2014, removing the whole paragraph about "bullet to the head" comment
  4. [49] 22:02, August 21, 2014, removing the whole paragraph about Malia Obama
  5. [50] 09:07, August 22, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51] 23:31, August 21, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
Dsr70 has been trying to lessen the impact of negative reaction in the media to a comment made by Tantaros about Malia Obama. Dsr70 has been adding text drawn from sources that do not mention Tantaros, to try and put Tantaros's comment in perspective, to give it more of a positive context. The effort is unfortunately a violation of WP:SYNTH since this is the Tantaros biography, and sources ought to discuss Tantaros. Dsr70 has been grimly resistant to any wholly negative assessment of the comment by Tantaros, despite the complete absence of positive commentary in the media. Dsr70 has resorted to edit warring behavior to make sure the paragraph is not wholly negative. Some 4.5 hours after being warned against 3RR, Dsr70 reverted one more time.
As well, Dsr70 has been very resistant to a paragraph about another Tantaros comment where she said that a "bullet to the head" would solve the Muslim problem. This is a separate issue, with discussion from a separate group of editors. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As Tantaros is a political commentator engaging in thousands of hours of, by definition, inflammatory comment, highlighting a single comment in a biography for the purpose of painting her as extreme, or contradictory, or controversial isn't balanced. As discussed with user Binksternet, political opponents do not determine what is controversial. Indeed, all her comments are controversial for that matter, there is no debate about that. Selecting quotes, such as "bullet in the head," without context makes wiki articles drive-by political attacks, both left and right. As written, the paragraph on her Malia Obama comments is balanced and puts her comments, and her opponents', in proper context. Nonetheless, I do not believe a commentator's comments warrant highlight, but accept the paragraph as currently written as a fair play on both her and her opponents' positions.
Further, user Binksternet has shown minimal willingness to see that the original paragraph was nothing more than an attempt to malign Tantaros in the spirit of the cited Media Matters reference, rather than as the paragraph it now is, factually stating and citing the genesis of the "controversy." He is engaged in an edit war against attempts to balance the article. Dsr70 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dsr70: I'm somewhat concerned by the fact that you only have four edits outside of this article, and those are from several years ago. Are you willing to disclose if you have a connect to Tantaros, or have a personal stake in the way the article reads? Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No connection. I happened to look her up and was immediately taken aback at the tone of that paragraph. Wikipedia is my go to and I was very disappointed. I don't want mocking and sniping in bios, it's that simple. Does the current para that I wrote not strike you as balanced?
The "confusing the FDA and USDA" comment is inappropriate, as it's a mocking use of an obvious gaffe. There is no citation of Obama's 57 states comment, for example, in his bio, nor should there be. This is on par with that. Dsr70 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just reverted a rather ridiculously non-neutral set of edits by Dsr70 which means I won't block for any EW violation (they are certainly guilty of longterm-edit warring in this article). As far as I'm concerned, though, Dsr should be blocked or banned from this article, since they appear to be incapable of editing neutrally--see this ridiculous bit of commentary, for instance. I wonder if Coffee has any light to shed on this. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The user also seems to be editing while not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong) reported by 108.169.69.162 (Result: No violation; IP blocked)[edit]

Ryūlóng (琉竜) has repeately violated the 3 reverts rule by edit warring and POV pushing over 17 edits during a period of less than 3 hours on August 17, 2014 on the article Taipei.

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation by Ryulong. I Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked the IP for 72 hours for disruptive editing at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Christopherharttoss reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Christopher Hart (novelist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Christopherharttoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) to 14:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    1. 14:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622335224 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
    2. 14:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622333892 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
  3. 13:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622329353 by Materialscientist (talk) I have edited MY OWN PAGE chrsitopher hart and all facts are correct"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Christopher Hart (novelist). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor, whom claims to be the subject of article, continues to add contentious unsourced content to article - despite warnings not to. I have discussed with the editor in question, as to why their edits are inapropriate; however, they've resorted to personal attacks + have continued to edit war despite warnings not to. —MelbourneStartalk 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:107.199.168.97 reported by User:Orange Suede Sofa (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
King James Only movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
107.199.168.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  2. 06:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  3. 06:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  4. 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  5. 08:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  6. 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  7. 07:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "too biased"
  8. 13:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC) "too biased"

...and many more

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See User_talk:107.199.168.97

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.244.91 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected )[edit]

Page
Image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
166.137.244.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622411877 by Martin451 (talk)"
  2. 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622415079 by RolandR (talk)"
  3. 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622415228 by RolandR (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Image. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is also edit-warring on Report, and is clearly the same as the previous IP blocked earlier for the same edits. RolandR (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also involved in this. I have requested semi-protection and given a final warning to the IP as well as reverting two five of his vandalisms. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The same edit has just been done by 166.216.165.90 looks like this IP is dynamic. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Report has just been semi-protected. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.216.165.62 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
166.216.165.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Yet another IP making the same disruptive edits for which several IPs have already been blocked RolandR (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeffferrell reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: )[edit]

Page: Eden (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeffferrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]
  4. [57]
  5. [58]
  6. [59]
  7. [60]
  8. [61]
  9. [62]
  10. [63]
  11. [64]
  12. [65]
  13. [66]
  14. [67]
  15. [68]
  16. [69]
  17. [70]
  18. [71]
  19. [72]
  20. [73]
  21. [74]
  22. [75]
  23. [76]
  24. [77]

This low intensity edit war has been going on for almost two months, so there have been intervening neutral edits and the text over which the parties are warring has changed in detail, although not in substance. The war is over the inclusion in the lead of the sentence, "In 2014, the non-profit organization Breaking Out reported that they had found Kim's story to have no basis in fact", as well as the wording of an earlier sentence in the lead and the inclusion of a final paragraph in the Critical reception section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:

I stumbled on this low intensity edit war a couple weeks ago. I warned Jeffferrell on his talk page (the editor whose edits Jefferrell keeps reverting had already tried to engage with him on the article's talk page, but received no response). Nothing happened for a while, but Jefferrell is back to reverting every few days, though not often enough to violate the letter of the 3RR. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just a bystander, but believe someone needs to do something to stop the conflict. This is the first time I've used this process, so I hope I've done it right. Let me know if you need any clarification. Worldbruce (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I agree that the user is edit warring, and the fact that he has not violated 3RR doesn't change my opinion that his behavior is sanctionable. It's the only thing he does every time he comes on Wikipedia. That said, the last time was on August 20, which is four days ago. If he comes back and reverts again, I'll block him, but, otherwise, in my view, this report is Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. However, my view should not prevent another administrator from blocking the user now if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:211.40.106.166 reported by User:Bcorr (Result: Semiprotected )[edit]

Page: Talk:Race and intelligence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 211.40.106.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]

This user only has three contributions -- all reverting the same edit within 30 minutes. the last edit was after I posted a warning on the user's talk page: Special:Contributions/211.40.106.166

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]


Comments: Simple case of 3RR

BCorr|Брайен 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: The article talk page has been semiprotected by User:Dougweller. The IP's edit summaries have been removed by an oversighter. EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:78.181.143.198 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Turkish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
78.181.143.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Enough of your Armenian propaganda. You ruined every article about Turkey with your one-sided and biased narration of historic events."
  2. 06:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "The "Crusader mentality" has never died and will never die."
  3. 06:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Armenians must be the most inferiority complexed and mythomaniac nation on the planet. As for the "Crusader mentality", look at the map of the Crusader states and compare it with the post-WWI map of the Middle East, circa 630 years later."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He made a first revert some minutes before, with another IP address, but most probably is the same person. Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:b10b:900d:b945:d20a:9451:85d reported by User:Comitus (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Deutschlandlied (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:b10b:900d:b945:d20a:9451:85d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1st
  2. 2nd
  3. 3rd
  4. 4th (diffs from previous report, version reverted to is identical)
  1. 5th / 1st
  2. 6th / 2nd
  3. 7th / 3rd (< made after I told him I was reporting him for edit warring again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Comments:

I reported this user for the same reasons 5 days ago. That report was archived without a solution. I've since re-added my sourced material and have added new sections, also with references.

Nevertheless, this user continually reverts my additions without discussing his issues on the talk page. He says that the information is unsourced (which it clearly is not) and removes it. My greatest frustration here is that he refuses to list his (specific issues) on the talk page and just reverts my edits. Ideally I do not want to see him blocked, I just want him to discuss the matter instead of reverting. Me starting a talk page discussion is impossible because I don't know what he wants and his only complaint sofar ( in his edit summaries) is that the information is unsourced ... which it clearly isn't.

Could an admin please tell this user to present his issues or leave the article alone, possibly by semi-protecting the page against IP's if this user refuses to discuss the matter? Thank you. Comitus (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Both warned. You and the IP are both edit warring. The material you want to add looks to be editorializing or WP:Original research. You don't have a reference to show that anyody writing about the song in a reliable source has made these observations; they are your own personal theory. Whether they are a correct description of the geography of central Europe in 1841 is not the issue. So far nobody on the talk page supports your change and there is one editor against it. See Talk:Deutschlandlied#Speculation about references. Whichever of you reverts the material again (before getting a talk page consensus) may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:146.90.55.4 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.90.55.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [84]
  2. [85]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Comments:
All articles on Israel/Palestine are under 1RR restriction, as everyone knows. These are two different reverts by the same IP within 24 hours. I reverted him once with three edits offering detailed summaries to thoroughly explain why his POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources was undue for the lead, but he reverted me back. He had earlier reverted my rephrasing of a misleading statement to better reflect the cited source. In neither case did I respond, but the IP has justified both his refusal to address my concerns with any concrete response and his uncontested 1RR violation by claiming that my earlier rephrasing of sourced material was also a revert (I was not aware of who wrote the original text at the time). If that is so, and we are both guilty, then I will accept any appropriate punishment. However, I believe the IP bears primary responsibility for this situation, and am willing to take that chance in the interest of ensuring our rules are actually followed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the correct venue, but since this dispute two new IPs have popped up to make strikingly similar edits to the same sentences this IP crafted. There may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry at foot, particularly considering this IP's first edits are by no means the work of a novice. On the other hand, perhaps these are all well-meaning folks whose IP addresses change occasionally and who edit sporadically, who happen to share the same opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. 146.90.55.4 and 87.112.106.223 geolocate to the same place and are dynamic, meaning problably the same person (although I have't looked at the edits), but I wouldn't call it socking as they could have been assigned different IPs each time they edited. The other IP geolocates to a different continent and is static. Geolocate is not always reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't intend to respond at length to the wall of text below, because this is now about conduct rather than content, except to point out that the sources are being used selectively (Buzzfeed, which is way out of date considering new developments, also says "Other Israeli officials have argued that the Islamist movement was behind the deaths of the three teens") and in other cases blatantly misrepresented (how can an article from August 6 cast "doubt" on a statement from August 20?, how can a former Israeli human rights activist's blog or a European politico speak without attribution for the intelligence community?, ect). My earlier comments are not retroactively discredited because my opponent has just now added a new source in which Hamas finally makes its official position clear.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Israeli human rights activist, actually an ex director of B'tselem is putting forth his opinion being as he has expertise in that area, you seem to think he has no expertise for some reason.The European politico, as you put it is a member of the European Council on foreign relations, a think tank and a reliable source by wikipedia standards, they are quoting him in the Guardian newspaper.I am sure he knows what he is talking about otherwise why would they quote him? Your excuse here seems to be that these people are not worthy to be included in wikipedia articles but you have not presented a valid reason for such a claim.Your claims on dates, I do not really get? Has every source got to be todays date? Because you can go go back and changed the whole wiki article to news items from today. The links provided cover the statements that were posted.My view is that you reverted them because you did not like the actual content and I get that from your excuses for reverting which are very flimsy.You cannot just revert things that you do not like if they are backed up with proper sources, which the statements were. GGranddad (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
I do not see anything wrong with what was posted on the article.All that was posted was backed up in the links provided. Your excuses for reverting it twice were not very good, one of your excuses was that you did not feel the sources were right but it is not up to you to decide if main stream sources are right or wrong. Just so long as they actually back up the written word of the editor should be all you are worried about.

Your first revert excuse to remove the Buzzfeed link was this:

A Hamas activist says they would have used the kids as hostages, but this was a hostage situation gone awry. Buzzfeed says Israelis are divided and the investigation is ongoing with commonplace qualifiers. Source is way out of date.[87]

Actually the Buzzfeed link backs up what was stated in the wiki article.The wiki article say that the Israeli security services doubt Hamas were involved. This is the actual quote:

Last week, Israeli intelligence officers told BuzzFeed they had not found a direct link to Hamas in their investigation into the kidnapping. “If there was an order, from any of the senior Hamas leadership in Gaza or abroad, this would be an easier case to investigate. We would have that intelligence data. But there is no data, so we have come to conclude that these men were acting on their own,” said one intelligence officer.

So there you are deleting a perfectly good source which backs up what was posted in the wiki article. Your excuse for doing so is feeble as far as I can see.

You then changed this piece in the article:

Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts, other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.

to this

Other Hamas officials have declined to confirm or

Your excuse this time was this

Hamas has not denied involvement. If your sources say so, they are wrong. They praised it, but will not confirm or deny. Guardian cites one European politico, not "all Israeli intelligence and expert opinions". Blatant misuse of source in bloated lead.[88]

Fact is Hamas have denied involvement,a link has been added to the article stating this. Also the claim that Hamas murdered the Israeli teens was doubted by experts, Hamas officials and the Israeli security services. As can be seen above from Buzzfeed link, that covers the Israeli security services, the Guardian link covers experts and the Israeli security services and Hamas.The Telegraph link covers yet another expert in the field.

Buzzfeed link [89]

Guardian link [90]

Telegraph link [91]

Israelinationalnews link [92]

All those links cover everything that was posted in that section of the article as in

Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts,other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.

There is no denying that really.

The other piece you took out was this

Mitchell Plitnick, former US director of Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, dismissed Mr al-Aruri's statement in a blog post, saying that Israelis had already identified the al-Kawasmeh family as being responsible "So all al-Aruri said was what we already knew: the Kawasmehs carried out the act."[93]

Your excuse for taking that piece out was that you considered the guy to be wrong, that is not an excuse to change something in wikipedia. The guy is the ex director of the Israel human rights group B'tselem and I am sure he knows much more than you do about what is what. Anyway, this was your excuse for removing that section

This man's willful blindness may belong in the article, but not the already massively undue lead. [94]


That piece has been edited down to just the link now as he is an expert. So, I cannot see why you have removed anything that was posted because it was all backed up with links from reliable sources. GGranddad, talk, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month, due to edit warring by IPs who don't participate on the talk page. Since this article is under WP:ARBPIA we expect that anyone who participates there will make special efforts to get consensus for controversial changes. Someone who doesn't join in discussion at all (like the IP reported here) is not showing good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis reported (Result: Malformed report)[edit]

Edit war currently going on in RealClearPolitics 198.147.191.15 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Declined as a malformed report. (See the instructions at the top of this page). This may be the same dispute as the one described below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison reported by User:Fearofreprisal (Result: No violation)[