Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive90

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Mervyn Emrys reported by Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result:no vio)[edit]

Summary:3rd revert done after the user was told here done after being warned at 03:29, 30 January 2009 and the user responds he that he will continue to do so and after replying at 03:45, 30 January 2009 and does the 3rd revert at just a few minutes after replying to the other user.The user was clearly warned and did the 3rd revert knowingly .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio; three reverts is not a 3RR vio; you need four for that. No reason I see to apply an edit warring block for only three in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by L0b0t (talk) (Result: both warned)[edit]

Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 07:30, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; OK, since he was a physicist but his pubs were also essentially in cosmology, the simpler form is still better. (TW)")
  2. 15:56, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; Edit made for purely personal attack reason does not address the point. (TW)")
  3. 16:08, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; My edit on your talk page suggested that you AGF, and explained the reasoning; you ignored it. (TW)")
  4. 16:09, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* The Big Bang Never Happened */ physical cosmologists is perhaps a better inclusive category")

L0b0t (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one. Your edit summaries verge on PA, e.g. [1]; please be more cautious and civil. You are both edit warring, over what appears to be trivia, and both risk being blocked for it. DL gets credit for discussing on talk; L0 a demerit for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


205.240.70.10 reported by Darwin's Bulldog (Result: no vio / stale)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [2]


  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

In regards to the U.S. sales figures of Metallica's latest album, Death Magnetic, to date, the most recent reliable figure has been 1,570,000 copies, reported by Billboard on December 31, 2008. (See: "Lil Wayne Notches Top-Selling Album of 2008".) I have assumed good faith with this user, as he has been updating the sales figure without reference, but his edits have been going on for about a month now, and its obvious that he's either guessing or using very unreliable sources for reference, as the figures he'll post will change and numbers will fluctuate high and low from week to week. (For example, he put over 1.6 million a few weeks ago, and his most recent edit was 1,599,000.) Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

.10 has precisely one revert, which you've reverted. Why are you bringing this here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This has been going on for over a month, and has been reverted more than once (see references listed above). This was brought here to resolve the issue so it doesn't continue for another month. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rave92 reported by Nikola Smolenski (Result: 24h each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [6]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

Apparently also broke 3RR on Oj, svijetla majska zoro by editing anonymously (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92). Nikola (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at this, and the song, and its plain you are both edit warring. On the song, neither of you has even pretended to discuss things on the talk page. So you both get a block. You should know better William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake3 reported by Truco (Result: prot)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [12]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

This case is a bit unique. Mshake3 is a great user who contributes to Wikipedia with marvelous images of wrestling events. However, as of late he has been disruptive with edit warring causing the above article to be fully protected. The case is that he believes that because WWE.com (on the middle right) has an upcoming calender that states WWE One Night Stand has been changed by WWE to WWE Extreme Rules, however, WWE has not formally announced that this name change has occurred. Last year WWE Vengeance was to be changed to WWE Night of Champions, however, we waited until WWE posted a direct link to the ticket and promotional information here. Originally, the edit warring began on the WWE One Night Stand article, which Mshake reverted 3 times. This caused a full protection. As a result, WP:PW began to discuss this at WT:PW#One Night Stand, but Mshake did not want to discuss and he began to change the name of the article at the List of WWE pay-per-view events. There he reverted 4 times, and avoided the discussion at WT:PW. In addition, he began to change the name of the article in an infobox here. He was warned by User:TJ Spyke for adding original research here, and then for 3RR at the link I placed above. He, however, removed those warnings. It would help if he was given "time off" to avoid the disruption he has added.TRUCO 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Time off to avoid the disruption" sounds like "cool down block" which are not allowed. iMatthew // talk // 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean it like that, I meant that he needs to have time off so the edit war can stop.--TRUCO 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The pages can't be full protected instead? iMatthew // talk // 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
They already have, but he finds other ways to avoid the discussion and add his own input to related pages like at Judgment Day (2009).--TRUCO 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Mshake's disruptions have already led to 2 articles being fully protected (WWE One Night Stand and List of WWE pay-per-view events). He has disrupted multiple other pages that link to those two and based on his comments at WT:PW I tend to believe he will continue his actions once those pages are unprotected. He is ignoring the consensus (which is to leave the current name for now). He shouldn't get a long term block, but has is just being a disruption to Wikipedia right now and not being the constructive editor he has been in the past. TJ Spyke 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I know that he passed 3RR, but you were all edit warring. You should have stopped at the first or second revert and contacted an un-involved administrator for input. By continuing, you were all involved in the edit war. iMatthew // talk // 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
We were just enforcing consensus, which is why I seeked protection for both articles so we would stop the edit warring.--TRUCO 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both sides need to take a huge step back. The change to a new name is almost definite, and it has been reported by a reliable source (Dave Meltzer). The WrestleMania example used by those who don't support MShake3's version is not a good comparison, as it deals with a completely separate issue. It also wouldn't make sense for WWE to give One Night Stand the same subtitle for two years in a row, so the change seems like a sure thing. There hasn't been a press release yet, however. So both sides are right in their own ways. Punishing a valuable contributor like MShake3, however, would not help anything. I suggest that this report be withdrawn and that everyone realize that this is about as trivial as it gets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Even Mshake has said he can't find where WWE ever said last years ONS was called "One Night Stand: Extreme Rules". The official site only calls it One Night Stand and the only place they mention "Extreme Rules" is on the DVD cover. This leads me to believe it was just another tagline. If this was just one article, I would agree with you. But this has spread to multiple articles. TJ Spyke 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-28T07:46:45 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) m (13,191 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of WWE pay-per-view events": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when I make two consecutive edits to an article, that doesn't mean it's two separate reverts, as you're suggesting. Anyway, I will continue to make these changes because A) I'm not violating any policy (it's not speculation or original research if I'm following the official, reliable sources (this all came from a change on the comany's official website, I might add.)) and B: as stated in the conscous policy, an agreement of a few people can't override the overall policies, and the overall policies state if the source is reliable (and it is, since it's used for so many articles in the project's scope.), then it should be added. Mshake3 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I will continue to make these changes - you do realise this classes as edit-warring, which could lead to a block? D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't help it if those reverting against me are wrong. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the name is going to be changed, but they just want something official is a specific, arbitrary way. Mshake3 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If the WWE's official website lists the name of the event as Extreme Rules, it's as official as it gets. Why else would they have it listed there? I say the article be updated to match this change. Anyone who says that wwe.com is not reliable enough for information concerning their own company is just being irrational. Continually changing an article so that it doesn't show something listed on the company's OFFICIAL WEBSITE should be reported. Not updating an article with factual information. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

90.201.141.210 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: 24 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [18]


This is us reverting him.

And his 7th revert, yet to be reverted by us.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

This same user has previously been blocked for long periods of time for edit warring, showing no regard to other editors. 90.201.141.202, 90.199.99.144, 90.201.141.112, 90.199.99.31 etc is him too. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NeutralityForever reported by LK (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [27]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]
  • Diff of 3RR warning after last ban: [33]

Just 4 days ago, User IP 99.2.224.110 was banned 48 hours for breaking 3RR. (Case and result here). User apparently registered an account NeutralityForever, and has been editing under that account. User has just broken 3RR again, and did so using an IP edit, apparently to avoid 3RR. I have warned the user about not creating the appearence of multiple users by using anonymous IP edits, and may also file a suspected sockpuppet case against the user if he/she continues to use anonymous IPs together with the registered account. LK (talk) 15:08,

31 January 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [34]



User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Lawrencekhoo have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours

NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LK reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [39]



  • Diff of 3RR warning:[43]

User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Skipsievert have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

YesOn8 reported by Irn (Result: 24 hour)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [44]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [51]

Blocked by C.Fred, but he should be unblocked and reblocked in the name of an uninvolved admin, so he can't say [52]. Erik9 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed this block and declined the request for unblock by YesOn8.--VS talk 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reported by Theserialcomma (Result: 24 hours for NPA)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [53]


  • first attempt to add 'perceived recoil' without a source [54]
  • first revert, after being asked to WP:PROVEIT on his talk page [55]
  • second revert, still wont provide a source [[56]
  • 3rd revert, still refuses to provide a source, says it's not necessary [57]

see ANI thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#edit_warring.2C_and_indirect_language_used_to_make_blatant_personal_attacks_and_uncivil_remarks where he refuses to add a source but will edit war to include it, and his talk page, where he also refuses to add a source. consensus on ANI is that he should add a source and stop edit warring. He is still edit warring and still refuses to provide a source.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already provided a reference. This user has been hounding and harassing me. This is the third fight he's picked with me over editing. I admitted I Was wrong the first time and he didn't back off. He questioned the source I provided that agreed with his. Now he is baiting me again by demanding a reference for every edit I make. Normally, one would fact tag and ask for a reference assuming the material is not dubious. He didn't. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Further, T...comma has already reported this to AI:N[58] that resolved itself in his favor where I was compelled to provide a source. I DID provide a source, hoever he felt the need to re-report this on another board using the shotgun effect to try and 'get one over' on me or whatever his obsessive goals are. This isn't the first time he's 'reported me'. See this discussion: [59]. One more thought. He also reported my reference (used to bolster and support the reference he was defending) here: [60]. I see this 'report' as a continuance of unresolved bitterness of this editor towards me and clearly not edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Interim result: Since I perceive that Nukes4Tots is the editor closer to being blocked, I've asked him to propose a resolution. Let's see if he can come up with something that could move things forward. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed, this was already solved on the other board. How many times do I have to be reported for two reversions and a source within two days? Reported, resolved, solution implemented, then he re-reports me. Do I get a "do-over" as well? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Result. That was not the conciliatory gesture I was hoping for. We expect our editors to be grownups. If you have a conflict, take it to WP:Dispute resolution. A quarrel of this intensity which has gone on so long makes the admin eager to block both parties, but Theserialcomma has reverted fewer times and has been careful in his use of language. Nukes has used a lot of four-letter words in conversations with his opponent on his own Talk page, so Nukes4tots is blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. I see that your language has previously been discussed on your own Talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. I shouldn't have to parse your usage of fucking moron to see who you are referring to and check that it's over the top. It is now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

74.37.87.91 reported by Marty Rockatansky (Result: no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [61]


  • 1st revert: [62]
  • 2nd revert: [63]
  • 3rd revert: [64]
  • 4th revert: [link]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Keeps repeatedly reverting the results format with no explanation given. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Obviously. Once upon a time you had to supply dates William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kyle1278 reported by Blubberboy92 (Result:no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [65]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [69]

User repeatedly removes information. Has stated on talk page that he will not quit. That's pretty much it. Jason (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree i most likely am guilty of the 3RR i was just doing what i thought was right i was not intending any vandalism. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, there have to be four reverts, not three, for a 3RR vio. So how about if I leave you and anyone else who may need it with an injunction to just not edit war, please. Discuss articles, come to consensus, pursue dispute resolution, all that good stuff. Can we do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ydnar12 reported by Plastikspork (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [70]


  • 1st revert: [71] (removed white font)
  • 2nd revert: [72] (removed white font)
  • 3rd revert: [73] (removed white font)
  • 4th revert: [74] (may or may not be same user, but same edit)
  • 5th revert: [75] (may or may not be same user, but same edit)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]

Note that I too am most likely guilty of 3RR in this particular case. There are two pages on which this revert-war is on going, I Love Money (Season 1) and I Love Money (Season 2), and I didn't realize until my last edit that I had committed more than two reverts on the same page. One can look at the edit history of the other page and see a similar revert pattern, but I decided to let it go on the other page. I had started a discussion, with my arguments on the talk pages of both articles. I plan to stop editing either of these pages until this issue is resolved. Sorry for not bringing this for arbitration earlier. Thank you! Plastikspork (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is entirely relevant, but here are links to the same revert on the Season 2 page: [77], [78], [79]. I stopped editing that section after the last linked revert. Plastikspork (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 10 days)[edit]

No warning necessary, experienced user with multiple previous 3RR blocks. Already two 3RR blocks in January 2009. Please block for longer period. Consider wider sanctions under WP:ARBMAC.

Fut.Perf. 07:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No cohones to block the guy yourself Fut. Perf? You're getting a bit soft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.191.46 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Future, get real. You provided zero reasons for your reverts on the Bryges article. Also, my edits contained secondary sources all adhering to WP:RS. User:Jingiby caused a little dissonance, but I smoothed things out with him on the talk page. Ultimately, you love to use me as a scapegoat. Meh, standard procedure. Deucalionite (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 10 days This editor has a colossal block log. Besides reverting four times in 24 hours this time around, Deucalionite seems to revert very persistently across a range of articles, and in my review I didn't notice him ever waiting for a Talk page consensus before making a controversial change. Since he has returned so recently from a one-week 3RR block I think some escalation is needed. Should problems recur, consider asking for a 1RR restriction at WP:AE. I notice he's already under WP:ARBMAC restriction for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
At this point, "colossal" would be an understatement. But I guess twelve blocks in a row is one hell of a record despite the fact that one of them was given to me based on inconclusive evidence. C'est la vie. Deucalionite (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR and overall pattern of disruptive editing by User:Supparluca reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (result: warned)[edit]

While not strictly done in 24 h, the user nonetheless violates the spirit of the 3RR quite clearly by reverting every day the same passage referring to the same refuted arguments again and again:

3RR[edit]

  1. 18:12, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "wikilinks")
  2. 10:24, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "wikilinks etc. - see the naming conventions - and category")
  3. 07:38, 31 January 2009 (edit summary: "3rd rule: "[...] all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article [...]" - and cat")
  4. 10:08, 1 February 2009 (edit summary: "1941-1943? See the naming conventions and the title of the article Province of Bolzano-Bozen - added category for the fourth time")
  5. 08:25, 2 February 2009 (edit summary: "fixed wikilink")

Notably,

  • His edits were done against the edits of three other users.
  • His last edit was done ignoring the Talk page to which I had pointed him.
  • His five reverts are part of a much larger, long-term disruptive editing pattern:

Disruptive editing[edit]

Supparluca's history reveals that for weeks, even months he has almost exclusively confined his edits to the Italianization of place names in South Tyrol, the German-speaking area in Italy, despite opposition from several other editors. Hereby, he seems to be guided by the belief that in any given context, the word "South Tyrol" and its derivants, as generally all English place names based on the German and the Ladin language are to be removed from Wikipedia.

(Important background information: Note that WP:placename conflicts (--> Multiple local names) stipulates that, other in the few cases where there is a widely used English name, names in South Tyrol "are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority", which in 111 out of 116 municipalities are German or Ladin.)

His actions include: He persistently changes the names and urls of references, although these reflect the true title of the refence respectively the original place where the source was retrieved (see Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007). Notably, he continued his disruptive actions in the face of repeated requests to refrain from this:

He systematically replaced the name "South Tyrol" (since 1919) with the anochronistic "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (only since 1948), although the General guidelines makes it clear that in historical contexts the historical names are to be preferred:

Moreover, he moves pages (see here) against the clear outcome of discussions and votes on the talk page (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco) (in April 2007). Note that he had already moved the page for the first time in (August 2007), that time directly against the actions of an admin.

I feel his overall editing behaviour is congruent with long-time Tendentious editing as per sentences 2-5). Work on the articles on South Tyrol has practically come to a halt these days because of Supparluca's constant renaming of place names, moving pages to other place names, changing German language references, etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You've said a lot of things here that really should be on the article talk page. And pointing S to this discussion would have been a good idea too. Really, this is not the place to talk through all the issues you raise. You need to find somewhere else to discuss this, centrally William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing is the discussions have already been taking place for quite a while in many of the 200 or so articles related to South Tyrol, but the strong thrust of the user for changing German, Ladin and English place names is making constructive work increasingly difficult, so I thought it was time to address this centrally - here. I am assuming good faith, however, and hope that we can work from now on on these articles, that is on their contents, constructively together, because that is why we are all here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka reported by User:Showwould40q (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [82]


  • 1st revert: [83]
  • 2nd revert: [link]
  • 3rd revert: [link]
  • 4th revert: [link]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

Please follow this link [85] for more information.

Please provide third party mediation. Thanks. -Showwould40q (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No vio, obviously. S's edit history is suspiciously short, presumably someone's sock. Take it to WP:DR or more plausibly an image copyright page. IM could be a bit more civil William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Siru108[edit]

Constant edit warring on the Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism pages, among others. Keeps POV-pushing and deleting spelling corrections. This has been going on non-stop for months now! Introspective Perspective (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is you first edit. Please tell us what former accounts you have used. Also, have you read the instructions for formatting reports? If not, why not; if so, why have you ignored them? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER reported by Onyxig (Result: 1 week each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [86]


Last 24hrs

Previously (same section + other)


Republika Srpska history (last message left for the vandalism in history)

User PRODUCER has once again outdid himself in removal of information from Republika Srpska article. As you can see in the page history he keeps removing paragraphs, and keeps renaming the section. We already discussed this on the talk page numerous times. Furthermore if there is any confusion, the user publicly (on his page) supports abolishements of Republika Srpska entity, and yet he accuses those in support of it as having POV. Sick and tired of his unconstructive repetitive edits towards the article which he clearly despises. Onyxig (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1 week each, for edit warring and blatant failure to use the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:LOLthulu reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: all warned)[edit]

[93]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [98]

Article is touchy with Roman Catholics, article is target of ad hom Style over substance fallacy. Editor is now after doing 4rr copied text they deleted to the talkpage. (LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Why is this whole incident in comment tags? NEway, first revision wasn't a revert, and by the last there was broad consensus on the article talk page. LoveMonkey's WP:OWNership of this article is troubling, though. LOLthulu —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
I am asking that the entire section that was deleted be restored and collaboration be activiely engaged in on the talkpage of the article.(LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
You're being engaged on the talkpage. You just don't like what you're hearing. LOLthulu 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio, since 1st revert is well out of time. But you're both edit warring, so are both warned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ingushetia reported by User:Folantin (Result: indef)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [99]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [106]

User has long history of adding the same tendentious material to the article (it violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH). No communication on the article talk page. No response to recommendation on user talk page that he should undo his fourth revert. Deceptive edit summaries. Two other users have reverted his edits [107] [108] and warned him about 3RR in the summaries. The first also warned him he could be blocked without warning on the talk page [109]. --Folantin (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Update User has now added what I presume is a false anti-vandal protection template claiming the article is protected (in his version, of course) until May [110]. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked per name conflict and edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules reported by User:yoganate79 (Result:no vio)[edit]

I have a serious problem with a user on the Wiki page entitled List of United States inventions and discoveries.

User:LOTRrules continues to delete a valid, legal, licensed, and copyrighted picture approved by Wikipedia on the page listed above. The photo shown is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and has no ownership by anyone. The picture used and of concern is File:Franklingulfstream.jpg as it relates to Benjamin Franklin's invention of ocean current mapping on the page List of United States inventions and discoveries. This picture is also used legally and found on the Wiki page called Gulf stream. I have worked on the page List of United States inventions and discoveries tirelessly and for many weeks adding several citations, etc. Please make User:LOTRrules stop from deleting information which is allowed to be used on the page in question. Thank you. --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No 3RR violation here. In any case, it wasn't edit warring; I'll ask the user why he thinks the image is NFC. Also, a bit of a malformed edit report; try to fill it out next time? :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of lords420 reported by EdGl (Result:no block)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [111]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [117]

This user blanks the charts in the article, as shown with the diff links I provided. User is repeatedly warned to stop on his talk page but the user continues to revert to his edits without explanation or discussion. ~EdGl (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the warning about 3RR was after the most recent revert, no block for now. If he resumes, leave an update on this noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The user has just again made an unexplained deletion against ref in MxPx and blanked charts in MxPx discography. Dl2000 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and here's the diff. ~EdGl (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:NothingWorthy at ExxonMobil (result: 24h)[edit]

NothingWorthy(talk) continues to revert changes and refuses to discuss his argument on the talk page. The issue (as I see it) revolves around him using hazy language where concrete language could be used. Specifically, he says ExxonMobil is the most profitable company in the world rather than the company with the most profits. The latter is indisputably true, the former depends on what definition of profitable you're using (%-wise, Exxon is not the "most profitable"). I have reverted three times now and will refrain from doing it again. He has reverted the article to his way of thinking 8 times by my reckoning and seems pretty surly in general. TastyCakes (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We may have a sock. Brusegadi (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spartanad reported by User:Brusegadi (result:page protection)[edit]

Article Arnoldo_Alemán.

First_Version

First_Revert

Second_Revert

Third_Revert

Fourth_Revert

Warnings:

First_Warning

Second_Warning

Note that in each revert the user is attempting to re-introduce language that is not supported by any sources, such as "innocent of all charges." The edit war has evolved because Spartanad refuses to allow any mention of the controversy over this politician's recently earned freedom. I understand that there is a BLP concern but the sources used to discuss the controversy are highly regarded, NYT, Time, The Economist among others. Finally, the source used by the editor does not support his language as well. I have been trying to make some more progress in narrating the political events that led to Aleman's freedom along with User:Academic Challenger and User:Notmyrealname but we have not been able to get it past the talk page because of the constant disruption. Any help would be appreciated. Brusegadi (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to block anyone; I'll just protect the page. Discuss it on the talk page, please; even if you feel you have consensus, try to reach a compromise with Spartanad.
Oh, and please use the reporting template next time, ok? It'd be much appreciated. Thanks! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Can I keep in touch with you if it gets frustrating? Ok, ciao. Brusegadi (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SonofFeanor and associated IPs reported by Yilloslime (Result:user warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [118] (the issue here is the adding the {{POV}} tag)


Yilloslime (t) 07:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, good detective work, and thanks for the well-formed report! I'm not going to block anyone, as it seems you guys have resolved your fight, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. I'll leave a note on SonofFeanor's talk page, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dayewalker reported by User:dunno who (Result: no vio)[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User has been warned, and was informed of the wikipedia criteria for notability, which both Berger and Napolatino meet. Berger has had a biography in forbes, and his actions are frequently cited by others in his field. Napolatino meets the criteria for creative professional notibility because he co-created the original pennysaver publications - a concept which is now used weekly by many different stores and your average american gets one pennysaver publication a week in their mail, albeit from different sources. Tried explaining this on the talk page several times today, only to repeatedly have my explanations replaced by Dayewalker stating that I need to explain what makes these people notable each time I put up the information

71.240.72.131 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Brent

  • Comment: This one seems to be filed against me, so I'll respond. The IP (or another similar one) has been trying to put these two names in the article for a month now, and has been reverted by multiple editors. I've tried on the talk page to get them to understand notability and to give reliable sources showing some kind of notability, and the IP claims to have already done so, although a quick check of his contributions shows nothing.
  • As for their accusations I've removed comments from the talk page, they are completely false. I've asked for him to show any DIFFs or evidence, and heard nothing. Dayewalker (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Some diffs are a month old. Not reported properly, and not a violation. Grsz11Review 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Concur, no vio. Doesn't seem to be high enough level of anon trouble for semi William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3 IPs reported by Politizer (Result: Protected)[edit]



  • 1st revert (Mismatch negativity): [124]
  • 2nd revert (Mismatch negativity): [125]
  • 3rd revert (Mismatch negativity): [126]
  • 4th revert (Mismatch negativity): [127]
  • 5th revert (Mismatch negativity): [128]
  • 6th revert (Mismatch negativity): [129]
  • 1st revert (Neurolinguistics): [130]
  • 2nd revert (Neurolinguistics): [131]
  • 3rd revert (Neurolinguistics): [132]


This user has for almost a month been involved in a battle to remove two references from the Mismatch negativity article, references which he says are irrelevant to the context, not "seminal," and not cited in the same citation style as references in scientific articles. For what it's worth, my argument has been that the references provide extra examples of the main point, and aren't hurting anything. I recognize that the material and concepts in this edit war may be difficult for someone who's not familiar with the field, but hopefully through reading Talk:Mismatch negativity and the edit summaries of my reverts you might be able to get a picture of what's been going on. If it helps, Looie496 has also come into the dispute (a while ago) to offer a 3rd opinion, and might be able to summarize the issues more clearly than I can.

Basically, the user started out repeatedly removing these two refs and saying they were "typographically inconsistent." I restored them and explained to him that it's inappropriate to remove refs because of the format in which they're typed; rather, he was welcome to change the format. He continued removing them (for a while using that same "inconsistent" reason), eventually starting to say basically "this section is about the MMN in general, and those references are about studies of the MMN in langauge"; my respo