Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive88

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

Noticeboard archives


PlainHolds reported by Warren (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2] 09:53
  • 2nd revert: [3] 10:06
  • 3rd revert: [4] 10:15
  • 4th revert: [5] 10:38

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

New editor claims the article has no sources, but is repeatedly removing the sources which back up the statements made in the article. Warren -talk- 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note: 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TinseltownCNK reported by User:PatriciaMeadows (Result: warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [12]

User has been invited to participate in the discussion of the Talk page, but has not done so. Also, see this revision for evidence that user represents Cinemark (use of first-person plural).

Would like to invite WP Admins to help resolve. Patricia Meadows (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Newbie. No reverts since your warning. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reported by Plrk (Result: blocked/s-protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [18]

The user is the same person as User:, and has also been editwarring on the Swedish wikipedia (where the user has been blocked) Plrk (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, s-protected. If he continues to evade the block, we can do a range block. --B (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LuvataciousSkull reported by Spinecraft (Result: No vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]

Like most other edits that do not commend him, he has continuously removed the proposed deletion / speedy deletion tags placed upon his largely uncited, self-promotional vanity article (user LuvataciousSkull, the article's creator, is Larry West himself).

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

Civil discussion was attempted on the article's discussion page, but no expressed points, from myself and others, were properly addressed nor contested. He has thus far been the sole arbitrator in the validity and necessity of this article, as well as his mentioning in the article Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007. Spinecraft (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation User:LuvataciousSkull has reverted only three times. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. In any case, this page is not eligible for speedy deletion, since it has survived an AfD. It is worth it to try improving the article's sources. If you can't find any, ask for help on the article's Talk page. If the editor you mention resists improving the article, you can follow WP:Dispute resolution. It seems that the article has a promotional tone currently, and the editor LuvataciousSkull may be the article subject, according to the Talk page. The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be able to help you with that. If all your efforts fail, you could try a second AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ClaudioProductions reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Lee Hasdell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:21, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 21:10, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262293280 by Aktsu (talk)")
  3. 00:24, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262382180 by Orangemike (talk)")
  4. 00:42, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 262422613 by Aktsu (talk)")

Ignoring consensus, see article talk and his talk. There is a thread about it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_ClaudioProductions_on_Lee_Hasdell_article, but no response from any admins yet. Thanks.

—--aktsu (t / c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 reported by Jeremy (Result: Editors warned about tags)[edit]

Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{disputed}} and {{POV-section}} tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for other histories of this user

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Could you provide diff links please? — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as Kuebie (talk · contribs), and KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--Caspian blue 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per WP:Truce, and am working on a mediation request, etc..
  • Comment - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the 3R policy, his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to disruptive editing. The sum total of his behaviors is edit warring which is the problem we are dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.

Please note that I asked for a

Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Response - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute disruptive editing and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.
Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here[[24]].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be respected, but no-one is bound by it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point but this block of editors are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who are disagreeing with them and are revert warring, and stonewalling discussion in the talk page. This is why I suggested that we try to come up with a list of issues to be mediated and move this into formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would support WMC's suggestion that if he continues, I think he should be blocked. This would imply that M2 would be blocked the next time he restores the tags. His commitment to WP:Dispute resolution is very hard to discern, given that he was the only one to reject the mediation. He seems to feel that he is entitled to do infinite reverts because mixed views were expressed in the last RfC. *Active* search for dispute resolution should immunize an editor from blocks for warring, but just sitting around and repeating the old reverts is not actively seeking consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just false. I have worked hard in trying to move the discussion toward dispute resolution protocols and have refrained from making changed to text or moving the subsection in the talk page. If you take a careful look in the talk page sections about Christ's mediation request, I explained that while I agree with mediation, I do not agree with the "issues to be mediated" listed in that particular request. I also proposed we take our eyes off the article in WP:truce and suggested that we work together on a issues to be mediated list TOGETHER and file another mediation request. That truce had worked and was in effect until Jeremy instigated this last spat of reverting. Unfortunately, the block of editors sitting on this issue are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who disagree with them(ignoring RfC results) and Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, just promise that you would not persistently revert to include the templates from now until the dispute is settled. If the other two editors who support your view reverted to your version, you may have stood on a better positon. However, they just left their onions to the talk page. The content itself is not disputed, and you're against its "categorization". However, the templates serve for "content dispute". So please present your solution for the dispute rather than reverting at this time. Chris has tried to compromise with you as changing the header, Staple foods to Foodstuffs, but you have not shown anything to end the dispute. I think further insistence only may invite you a block.--Caspian blue 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually suggested that we create separate section for "fringe food culture" that includes dog meat along with other fringe foods to no avail. Instead of relevant responses all I've been getting is Jeremy and other revert warring and refusing to even bother consider that categorizing dog meat along with vegetables is factually inaccurate. I honestly think categorization and subsections qualify as being "content". I've been working hard to move this discussion toward a resolution and have held back making changes to the text of the article or moving the "dog meat" subsection without consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're currently shooting your feet. Drop it now.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The editor attempting to remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article, and his/her supporters, state that it's not eaten every day in Korea. Neither is sujeonggwa or many other dishes or drinks mentioned in that article, yet they are highly notable and worthy of mention. The section heading was changed from "Staple foods" to "Foodstuffs" at the urging of Melonbarmonster2, in an effort to generate consensus, but that still was not enough: s/he wishes all mention of dog meat to be removed from the article, despite the significant tonnages slaughtered and consumed per day, the thousands of restaurants, etc. We either aim to be encyclopedic or we do not. Excluding, or censoring content because it makes editors from certain ethnic or national groups feel bad about themselves due to being seen in a negative light by other cultures (ironically, this editor claims that s/he supports the legalization of dog meat consumption and sale) is not a business we are in at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have never asked for censoring or exclusion of content. But this is the strawman that this block of editors have created for themselves. Even in spite of my many explanations that this is not my position they've ignored my real position and have repeated this false mantra over and over again stonewalling any progress on this article. Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Badagnani is deliberately saying such the untruth from bad faith. It should be noted that Badagnani and Melon have made a long-term rivalry over one year which is indeed disruptive to the article. As far as I've known, Melonbarmonster never claimed to exclude the whole section, but the section should be moved to appropriate space. Unlike your false claim, Sujeonggwa is mentioned in the article (see Korean cuisine#Non-alcoholic beverages) Also your comparison is totally false. It has been sold in canned item for over 10 years, can be found anywhere in any grocery store, convenient store, or vending machine unlike dog meat. It is also irony that Badagnani was blocked for disruption at the article by Jeremy's report.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have said most of what I have wanted to say on the talk page for Korean cuisine. As stated I compromised and changed the heading for the "staple foods" to foodstuffs, which I actually agree was a good change. Melonbarmonster2's argument is that dog meat is not equal to the other animal proteins as it is not consumed as often as they are. I say, let's ask the Buddhists in the country then if they feel that any of the animal proteins should be consumed, they might argue that their version of Korean cuisine should not have any meat included in the Korean cuisine article. The issue here though is not content dispute, it is the fact that Melonbarmonster2 is not actively discussing what he/she wants done to the article, only that they feel that dog meat isn't presented properly and continues to just repeat it over and over and over again while reverting the tags a multitude of times. Maybe it wasn't in 24 hours, but as the policy states, multiple reverts outside of the 24 hour time period constitutes edit warring, which is held in the same context as the 3RR. The editor refused to take part in the mediation I proposed, stating they did not believe the issue was represented properly, although all of the other editors agreed, and then their contribution to the Rfc was pointless as well as they made a statement, but made no academically sound rebuttal. Instead he/she is just instigating edit warring, wehter intentional or not, they have been given ample room to expalin themselves and they have not. As I am involved with the content of this article, I do not feel appropriate in enforcing any Admin. responsibilities as it would be a conflict of interest.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I specifically stated that I agreed with the mediation but not the issues listed in that particular request. I've stated this clearly from the beginning.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think that this report should have been on ANI, not here. Well, Jeremy, Chirs and Badagnani reverted more than once (twice or triple) for the templates which are also edit warring.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So, you disagree with how the mediation request was framed. What initiative will you take to reach the next step? Believe it or not, when there are more people on the other side sometimes that indicates that *consensus* is against you. ("Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.") EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ed, RfC results clearly show I'm not alone in feeling this categorization is factually inaccurate. I also proposed from the VERY BEGINNING in the first mediation request page that we should come up with a list of issues to be mediation that is acceptable by involved parties and file a new mediation request. But discussion is currently stonewalled, not by me, but the block of editors are refusing to move beyond strawman positions, claiming consensus in spite of at least 3 editors who have voiced dissent and refusing to acknowledge different views. They are not even acknowledging my good faith disagreement on the edit issue because they outnumber me and they are trying to push their POV through on technicalities. I really wish we could get beyond claiming consensus by ignoring dissenting editors so that we can move forward to dispute resolution protocols.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Melon, if you agree not to revert the article for your POV, this issue would be already ended. I think you're not currently acting wise. --Caspian blue 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy and willing to agree to stop edit warring on these tags. Specific edit issues on tags or other content should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop doing things that go against consensus, independent contributors have agreed that this is what is causing the whole issue.
You will need to do the following:
  • Stop posting the tags;
  • Actually engage in the conversation as opposed to stating your opinions over and over;
  • Stop parsing words, in the case of the mediation request join in and put your reasons why you disagree out there. Ask that the proposal be modified to address your concerns if you feel something is missing from the request, and tell us why;
  • Please insure that your reasoning meets the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:PSTS. Also, please do not engage in WP:OR.
and finally:
  • Accept that your position may not be the winning one, and let the result stand.
If you had done this from the first, none of this would be going on. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
More claims of consensus in spite of RfC results and multiple editors expressing dissent... This is why we need mediation. Jeremy broke the WP:Truce and instigated this last spat of reverts. You need to take your own advice and stop your disruptive behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I made no claims. I am stating what we expect of you: good behavior and civility. What I am saying is that if things do not go your way, you will be expected to live with it. Can you do that? Can you work well with others? Can you assume good faith that what my purpose here is to help the article? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
When you tell people to not to "go against consensus", you are assuming consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Close? I suggest this thread be continued elsewhere, perhaps on the article Talk. In the near future, if any dispute tags are changed on the article without consensus to do so first being obtained on the Talk page, I suspect that one or more admins will take action. We won't know for sure until that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston, the only editors who have been "changing" dispute tags have been Jeremy and his friends. Their position is that there is "no dispute" and I am not respecting consensus(ignoring dissent of multiple editors) and so the dispute tags are inappropriate. That is why they have repeatedly removed the dispute tags.
I admit to my part in the revert war. But Jeremy and others who have left comments here have been fully engaged in revert warring. Progress to discussion has been constantly stonewalled due to Jeremy and his block of editors who are refusing acknowledge, respect the dissent of other editors and are reverting dispute tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We should know, Dog meat is not considered as normal Korean diets, most Koreans don't even try Dog meat. Even Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos all consumed more dog meats than Koreans but they don't included in their cuisine topic. I think we all know person who edits Korean cuisine to includes Dog meat is to make mockery on Korea. --Korsentry 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)
I am closing this report with the result, Editors warned about tags. Anyone who adds or removes tags, after first explicitly verifying that that there is a consensus on Talk:Korean cuisine in support of their changes, has nothing to worry about. Those who have not yet found a consensus but revert anyway may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Stealthound (Result: Link removed, no 3RR vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [25]

  • 1st revert: [26]
  • 2nd revert: [27]
  • 3rd revert: [28]
  • 4th revert: [link]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

the source is [30]. It uses google's cache to circumvent the blacklist filter placed by Wikipedia. It additionally fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This source is discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Associated_Content.2C_gettin.27_paid_to_spam. Please help. Stealthound (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have asked Badagnani to undo his last edit, the one where he restores the Associated Content link to the article. He is only at 3RR so far. If he puts the link back again he would be at 4RR and possibly in violation of WP:SPAM as well. A block would be logical at that point. There are ways of getting a link put on the 'local whitelist' if you can show it is appropriate for a specific article. Associated Content as a whole is blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article, that's the only source I can see that has much information on the subject. Discussing the issue on the talk page would have been a good thing, although there was some back and forth in the edit summaries. Is there a question about the accuracy of the content provided in the source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We are not supposed to bypass the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist without getting approval. The page about Douglas Spotted Eagle, while informative, is hosted on a forbidden domain,, that has been used for spamming. You can request approval for individual links. See Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Associated Content links Fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Additionaly, Associated Content articles;
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Would think that repeated reinsertion is disruptive per policies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's the Linking policy on Restrictions on linking, See #2. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. However, with the other prominent content issues, there is little chance it will be whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: Link has been removed, there was no 3RR vio. Thanks for cooperation, and thanks Hu12 for policy advice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reported by Curtis Clark (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [31]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

User has edit warred on Clade as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 24 hours - this user's IP seems to be semi-static. If he evades the block by moving on to another IP, please note that here or ping an admin so that the next IP can be blocked and the articles can be s-protected. --B (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: Article is being restore from a redirect. He's adding more of the old page as he's reverting. First attempt is here.
User violating 3RR on Yumi Ishiyama as well. warned again here. This edit, this one and this one are the first three. At least 3 more reverts after that. prashanthns (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 31 hours - looks like 8RR on two different articles. That's an accomplishment. --B (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tanninglamp reported by User:Baseball_Bugs (Result: indef)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

The user has evidently been in a long-term edit war over this one item he keeps trying to insert into the article despite consensus and BLP concerns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 72 hours --B (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanninglamp has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly 2 years now: [44] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering upgrading it to indef. Anyone interested in opining can take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tanninglamp. If he were making all of these edits from a logged in account, we would have indeffed him long ago, but unless we're going to range block his IPs (don't tempt me) incentivizing him to edit from dynamic IPs is only going to make it tougher to track him. --B (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason not to indef based only on the logged in edits. User has 3 blocks after only 44 edits made with this account. Only motivation here appears to be to post negative information about Rick Reilly and Keith Olbermann. --OnoremDil 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm convinced after fully reviewing everything. Indeffed. --B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully support the indef. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, even if it's spread out over almost two years. And we'll deal with the fallout like we always do: one sock at a time. — Satori Son 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully support the indef. He's a classic POV warrior, unwilling to listen or discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:SmoothFlow reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SmoothFlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:56, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "sorry, couldn't sleep.")
  2. 12:36, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "Subheading")
  3. 17:40, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* Research */ why does this person keep reversing my addition? That makes, like, three times in a day!")
  4. 02:05, 8 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry */ I am talking - are you listening?")
  • Diff of warning: here

OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more information. User:SmoothFlow appears to be a single purpose account editing Syracuse University. Some of their edits, such as this one, are borderline vandalism to an article undergoing an FAC. I would suggest an extended block for more than edit-warring, but also for disruptive vandalism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a revision to this in that User:SmoothFlow is still at 4RR within the 24 hour period, including two reverts after the warning. Can someone please deal with this disruptive SPA? Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss SmoothFlow's behavior with him, but I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere. Subsequent to the reverts OrangeMarlin posted above were these three edits, which contained a partial revert and a copy/paste from a source website. I am an involved administrator so I cannot make a block myself, but I do suggest that this seems to not be heading in a helpful direction. --B (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring. I am leaving it to some other admin to decide whether Orangemarlin ought to be sanctioned as well. (See the matching 3RR complaint below). As I stepped through all the edits, it was hard for me to believe that SmoothFlow was making a good-faith effort to improve the article. Orangemarlin must have believed he was reverting vandalism. I know the feeling, but these edits are not exactly vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. The article is up for consideration as a Featured Article, and SmoothFlow was adding eccentric stuff which seems (to me personally) unlikely to assist in its reaching that status. Numerous people were reverting his changes, not just Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow was hardly making much of an effort to persuade others to support his view on the Talk page. I am making this 48 hours due to Smooth's extreme persistence, after being reverted, and his apparent lack of clue regarding the opinions of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Concur with this and with no block of Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow I think is acting in good faith, but he seems to be around 14 and so his edits just aren't very useful. (Apologies if I guessed wrong and this isn't to say that all 14-year-olds are too young to edit Wikipedia, other disclaimers as appropriate.) he is very inexperienced and his edits are not helpful. --B (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edito*Magica reported by Garion96 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [45]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

I am involved since I removed the templates in question. But this is getting to 5 or 6rr by now. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This is not the only instance of this editor's edit warring. He is imposing his idiosyncratic style onto various articles about British sitcoms. Delving into his history shows similar disputes with other editors. The JPStalk to me 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Anthonykimfan reported by - Barek (talkcontribs) - (Result: blocked for spamming)[edit]

Anthony Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anthonykimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:38, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  2. 16:45, 5 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  3. 20:49, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  4. 23:06, 6 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  5. 02:59, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  6. 15:24, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  7. 20:16, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  8. 22:31, 7 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  9. 00:19 8 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
  • Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthonykimfan has been blocked for spamming in response to my WP:AIV report. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla reported by Oakshade (Result: Protected one week)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [51]

This user has been attempting to change the opening sentence to this article very much out of consensus and has now broken 3RR in doing so.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Protected one week - both sides violated 3RR and could be blocked (translation: don't whine that the other party isn't being blocked). This has been going on for a while and is a lame argument. Talk it out on the talk page. Figure something out. --B (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Backin72 (Result: No violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [57]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

QuackGuru is a chronic edit warrior (see his block log) and abuser of talk pages with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The first two reverts are part of an ongoing effort by some editors to push the "pseudoscience" label as far as possible, no matter whether the sources meet NPOV's pseudoscience labelling policy. The last two reverts appear to be tit-for-tat; regarding the just-mentioned debate of label-pushing, I've been objecting on the talk page to some of QuackGuru's sources, so now he is reverting the NPOV inclusion of mainstream groups like WHO and NIH to balance out the opinions of advocacy groups like CSICOP. Thanks for your time, --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not 4 reverts. Making consecutive edits ([63][64]) are not reverts. Making false 3 RR reports is not productive. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Backin72 has not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. I have asked more than once how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience label without any direct reply to my question. The article should not turn into a dumping ground for irrelevant non-specific references.[65] QuackGuru (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the "consecutive reverts", but hold that your two rapid-fire reverts that followed, taken together with your history, still violate the spirit of WP:3RR and deserve sanctioning. "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." As for the relevance of the sources to the article, that's for the article talk page; whether or not an editor is "right" is never an excuse to revert war. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
According to Backin72 it is sanctionable for making reverts. Backin72 has made several reverts within the last few days. Backin72 has vanished but has returned to Wikipedia with his old account. When Backin72 thinks it is santionable he thinks he should be santioned because he has made many reverts. I hope Backin72 is not using his old account to try to get editors blocked. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My (in-process vanishing) on WP is irrelevant; I've got a couple loose ends to tie up, and that's my prerogative. Your insinuation that I'm gaming by using my old account is baseless, and I request that you retract it (unless you can produce evidence). Furthermore, linking me to my old handle is harassment, and you should stop it immediately. As for sanctioning for edit warring, your block log is awful, which justifies a block for edit warring. I've never been blocked because, although I'm not perfect, my mistakes are minor and infrequent. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The evidence is that your still editing with an old account. I thought vanished editors were not allowed to continue editing using old acounts. If you believe reverts is sanctionable then you believe you should be sanctioned. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. I changed accounts, and am free to edit with the new one; once I've tied up some loose ends, I'll leave. What is relevant: I reiterate that your block log shows chronic edit warring issues. --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. The accusation re my editing with my old account is false, and QuackGuru has produced no evidence (because none exists). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
3RR was not violated, but the edit-warring must still stop. As a reminder, the list in question falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which means that any uninvolved admin can place discretionary sanctions as needed. If the reverts continue, restrictions will probably be placed, so please, cut it out, and just stick to the talkpage, or try to make compromise edits, rather than just reverting back and forth. Remember, edit-warring is completely ineffective in terms of making longterm changes to any article on Wikipedia. A much better way to proceed is to engage in discussion, and try to find a compromise, which will lead to much longer lasting changes which are of better use for our readers. Thanks, --Elonka 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Closing as no violation per Elonka --B (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Portayla and reported by Agricolae (Result: Portayla indeffed, not blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [66]


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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Word being restored by User: Portayla was originally placed in article by a sock-puppet of banned and blocked User: Yorkshirian, who has previously used sock-puppets to violate 3RR on this page. Pattern of edits and edit summaries suggest Portayla may be another Yorkshirian sock. Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Checkuser requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yorkshirian. If Portayla is Yorkshirian, then reverting the edits of a banned user is an exemption from 3RR. Decision deferred until then. --B (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Portayla indefblocked as a sock of a banned user. The IP is not blocked as reverting edits of a banned user are exempt from revert limitations. --B (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 3 Jan
  1. 4 December, 22:51 ("reinstated old...")
  2. 5 December, 01:44 ("data ... reinstated...")
  3. 5 December, 14:05 ("undid...")
  4. 5 December, 21:36 ("rv...")

Experienced user, no warning necessary.

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology with a nationalist agenda. Has been pushing this agenda for years. Long previous block log, please treat with utmost severity. Fut.Perf. 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Has form; incivility. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"extremely problematic POV editor", "pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology", you are not talking about yourself, are you Fut. Perf? ...Walnutjk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for playing "Give Deucalionite A Free Vacation" (sponsored by Krinos Foods). Deucalionite (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin reported by SmoothFlow (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Syracuse University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


One -

Two -

Three -

Four -

Five -

Six -

Seven -

Eight - —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoothFlow (talkcontribs) 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I try to add something, this person keeps removing it. Plus he's reporting me now, apparently. What can I do about this? SmoothFlow (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he is reverting your edits because they are about 20% useful and 80% unhelpful. For example, "it's funny" is not a good reason to add nonsense to an article. --B (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
See the case one above this one, unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'm just going to close this. (Nobody has touched it in the nearly 24 hours it has been here.) 3RR is about deterring edit warring, and OM was not edit warring. At this point, this is stale anyway. --B (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Doktorspin reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Protected by VirtualSteve)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [77] - after he first changed the dates to BCE/CE. The article was previously stable as using BC/AD, until someone added text using BCE/CE. After this was changed to conform, Doktorspin changed the whole article to BCE/CE without discussion[78], and has reverted to this version 9 times so far.

Note the edit summaries!

(rolling reverts, with the first & last 4 of the 6 both within 24 hrs. Warned after 4th revt.)

The same revert has been made a total 9 times since December 25th, lastly today [85]. There has been extensive discussion with several editors at the talk page: Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus#Dating_should_use_the_neutral_scholarly_BCE.2FCE...

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [86], and by uninvolved admin [87] ("another editor" was not me btw). After a lull of 3 days, he has reverted again today.

Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Protected by VirtualSteve - why a British/American solution won't work here (BC/AD in Christianity articles, BCE/CE everywhere else) is beyond me, but in any event the article has been protected so nothing else to do. --B (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to be dealing with the issues involved. --spin (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod's reverts:

  1. [88]
  2. [89]
  3. [90]

Carl Bunderson reverts:

  1. [91]
  2. [92]
  3. [93]
  4. [94]
  5. [95]

Quite a tag-team combo. Nice communications, boys.

People who prefer to maintain errors by exploiting rules while overlooking aims and purposes of the Wikipedia institution are themselves violating the spirit of learning. So Johnbod has himself undone the dating system change three times, yet invokes the 3RR rule. Ironic.

He cannot provide a rational response to the three reasons provided why the change to BCE/CE is necessary and improves the quality of Wikipedia. Briefly,

  1. BCE/CE is the scholarly system;
  2. BCE/CE is not biased against other religious positions; and
  3. BCE/CE doesn't have an inbuilt error (Jesus being born in 4 before himself).

If one cannot deal logically with the argument for the change, one shouldn't engage in edit warring. It is merely abuse of the system. The notion of aiming for scholarly standards should be seen as improvement and should not be shunned.

To understand the scholarly situation one should consult indiscutably scholarly sources -- such as peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see what they do.

Ignore All Rules simply and specifically says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --spin (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You should see my comment in another report - the article was protected; both sides violated 3RR so complaining that the other party wasn't blocked is not a good idea. --B (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I normally go about my business of trying to improve Wiki. I'm not up with all aspects of Wiki management. I merely thought perspective on the issue would be useful. I said nothing about the other party not being blocked. --spin (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My 3 reverts were over a period of 2 weeks, so I have not reverted 3RR. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice. But then you had Carl! Getting reason out of you two was impossible. --spin (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reported by RolandR (Result: Blocked for other reasons)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [96]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

RolandR (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Stifle (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reported by Pedrito (Result: Already blocked.)[edit]

IP-User keeps trying to remove category tags established by consensus.

  • Previous version reverted to: [105]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [113]

The edit summaries are a good indication that this user knows Wikipedia policies well. Perhaps a case for Checkuser? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 11:11

We know the user's IP, so what could checkuser do? For some reason, my identical report above, which appears in page history and which can be edited by clicking the section link, does not display properly. And the user has been blocked following my ANI report of edit-warring on several articles, and abuse on my talk page RolandR (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser might ferret out what account the user originally used, but will probably be declined on the magic pixie dust ground. Anyway, Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result: warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan
  1. RV 1
  2. RV 2
  3. RV 3
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist