Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132

Page: Zisa (goddess) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364537591]

• 1st revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364578238]
• 2nd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627134]
• 3rd revert: [Zisa_(goddess)&oldid=364627673]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:
The point for Bloodofox´s reverts is, that he claims, my claim is to dismiss Stephan Grundy as a neopagan person. As a fact, this writer is a neopagan man, and I see no problems behind it. I think it is essential in the article about the assumed goddes to mention this fact. Well, about, we can discuss. But I did also some changes and brought some citations, which Bloodofox with his revert has deleted.

Besides User Bloodfox´s has an earlier change in this article of his hand reverted. His behaviour against me is very bad and ashaming. I am not e native speaker of English and instead of correcting the grammar he starts to ridicule about it. Also he is not willing to discuss on a friendly and scientific level. --al-Qamar (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'll just copy and paste what I last wrote to Al-qamar here: "Do it—it's clear that this article could use more eyes. Again, claiming a specific scholar that you disagree with (and makes your point of view inconvenient to push) is a "neopagan representative" is absolutely inappropriate. Again, the cited work comes from a scholarly publication, as is quite plain to see, and makes it clear that not all scholars dismiss the source in modern times, unlike what the unsourced paragraph you've introduced claims." (From talk page)

With that in mind, take a look at the edit history ([1]) of the article and the situation should be plain enough. And for what it's worth, I'm sure that we can all agree that the business about "unthrustable" "hole"s is pretty epic ([2]). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No violation -- tariqabjotu 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now given in the discussion of Talk:Zisa (goddess) what I think about it. The administrator was in my opnion to fast and did believe all the denunciations of Bloodofox against me, without waiting for a fruitfull discussion, I have startet. Now the only point of view written in the article about Cisa is Bloodofox´s view!

It s a shame, user Bloodofox call s me ridicule since my first contact with him, says my English is bad (o.k. he is right, but I am not a native speaker), he says I am not capaple to write Wikipedia articles (allthough I am administrator in the Alemannich Wikipedia), he states that I tries to settle my point of view. But in contrary to him, I never have deleted a statement of him in an article!!! So the only one who tries to settle his only opinion is the Bloodofox, who deletes all edits in his article about Zisa and tries to page an edit-war. It is not true at all, that I have somethig against Stephan Grundy, I have now idea why he thinks that, and claiming this is pure denunciation! --al-Qamar (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

1. 23:51, 27 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364465529 by Tubby23 (talk) revert false positive")
2. 11:35, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364597275 by Tubby23 (talk) I strongly disagree")
3. 11:42, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Revert false positive - source issues had been previously discussed on talk page!")
4. 11:47, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Sorry...I have played by the rules and had explained that sources from wiki's and blogs are not suitable (not alone on this on talk page)")

• Diff of warning: here

IP is complaining that the reference given is inadequate, but appears not to be amenable to discussing it on the talk page (note the article itself has a number of optional extra references provided in comments). Despite the IP's insistence comment at my Talk page here, I don't see a consenus to remove this material -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - my reverts of edits by Tubby and Boing were based on what appeared to be reversions by them without knowledge of the previous discussions on the talk page regarding sources from wiki's, blogs, etc. It seemed that 3RR would not apply in that case since the user adding material had been notified of verifiability standards in the past but continues to add content from poor sources.

Additionally, it seems appropriate to notify editors to be very careful of throwing out the 'vandalism' claim, as reversion of poor sources and reversions based on good-faith efforts should not constitute vandalism.

Regardless, I will abide by any admin punishment deemed necessary. The content in question does relate to biographical information about a living person and I feel strongly that sources (positive or negative) should be of the highest caliber in that regard. Take care! 66.177.182.247 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about punishment - the

WP:3RR rule is about preventing edit-wars. Whatever your personal judgment of the actions of others, you cannot simply decide that your own opinions override everyone else's and keep reverting edits contrary to the actions of three other editors. If you disagree on a contentious issue (and this one is contentious - there was no consensus on the Talk page, and you cannot simply assert that your own judgment overrides that need), you must not act until you achieve consensus, and the current consensus in the edit history appears to be against you. I will be happy to start a discussion of the contentious references on the Talk page, but not until you agree to stop edit-warring and agree to abide by whatever consensus is achieved. (I'm actually undecided on the issue of the actual text under dispute - but that's not for this forum - all I'm trying to do here is stop you abusing the rules and guidelines that have guided Wikipedia so well for so long) -- Boing! said Zebedee

14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there is a genuine case for a BLP exemption here, and the contentious claims really are judged to be potentially defamatory and inadequately sourced, I'll be happy to go with that decision (and I will also be happy to strike the warnings I issued to User:66.177.182.247) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No violation Falls within the BLP exemption to 3RR as poorly sourced controversial material.

talk

) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to accept that decision, and will now make good on my promise to strike my warnings and will offer an apology at User Talk:66.177.182.247 -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: Chaz Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Adrianbius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]
• 5th revert: [7]
• 6th revert: [8]

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

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

Comments:

Page protected -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Sharron Angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougieb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:57, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Did some major cleanup and reorganizing. What a pile of garbage this article is. Looks more like a slam piece. Could use some MAJOR monitored editing")
2. 22:12, 28 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364741648 by Cirt (talk) Agreed - this edit should stand until section is rewritten though.")
3. 00:04, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364754694 by Cirt (talk) Not true. I removed citations for irrelevant drivel.")
4. 00:16, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 364757694 by Coffeepusher (talk)")
5. 02:08, 29 May 2010 (edit summary: "Happy now? Chronological.")

• Additionally, as well as all of the above, Dougieb (talk · contribs) added completely unsourced material to the article, with the latest edit [9].
• The latest comment on the talk page by Dougieb (talk · contribs) strays close to violating WP:No legal threats, with, "I would sue for defamation seeing as Wiki has been duly advised that the citations are bogus.".

• Diff of warning: here

—-- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected three days. BLP makes this murky. If consensus is reached, ask for unprotection. Due to the harsh language in his comments ("irrelevant drivel", "pile of garbage", "removing bias") one might suspect that Dougieb is editing in support of a political POV. If this continues it could draw sanctions, since we strive for neutrality here. Editors don't have an unlimited right to insult one another. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: List of The Backyardigans episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:28, 29 May 2010
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:44, 29 May 2010
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:14, 29 May 2010
• 4th revert: Revision as of 22:27, 29 May 2010

I am trying to make article better, but he changes it back before I can fix it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] I have told him that I am trying to make it better. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

It is me, FanOfBackyard. I don't want a block too, I just want to add newest episode without other person changing it back.

• Declined You made no attempt to discuss these edits at the article talkpage. You yourself have reverted just as much as HalfShadow, so if I were to block anyone I would block both of you. Finally, to be honest your edits are just bad; they're not vandalism, but leaving a bunch of blank space in the article is not constructive, and HalfShadow was perfectly justified in removing it. If you disagree, discuss the issue at Talk:List of The Backyardigans episodes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: Dorgon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dorgon#Protected

Comments:
Blatant edit-warring behavior. Andres was starting to edit war with User:Colipon (first two reverts), and I went ahead and protected the page and invited him to discuss at the talk page. This was 5 days ago. During the interim he made no attempt to post a single message at the talk page and instead focused his efforts on my talkpage to complain about how I was playing favorites. After the page protection expired, he showed up and made another unexplained revert. User clearly doesn't get how collaborative editing works, and is incapable of communicating constructively. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really?, i guess you're boy knows how to "comunicate constructively" since he didnt leave a single message on my talk page just ran to cry to mommy and get the article protected,HYPOCRITE.--

Blatant edit-warring behavior. Andres was starting to edit war with User:Colipon (first two reverts), and I went ahead and protected the page and invited him to discuss at the talk page. This was 5 days ago. During the interim he made no attempt to post a single message at the talk page and instead focused his efforts on my talkpage to whine about how I was playing favorites. After the page protection expired, he showed up and made another unexplained revert. User clearly doesn't get how collaborative editing works, and is incapable of communicating in a mature way.

— original comment of Rjanag

• Result - Warned
  User:Andres rojas22 that he may be blocked if he reverts the article again before getting consensus on the talk page to support his change. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 96.237.120.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 01:06, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restored original content")
2. 01:15, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ cite states "nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law."")
3. 01:22, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* Meaning of "well regulated militia" */ restoring well sourced original content - SB- at this point you may be in an edit war.")
4. 01:33, 30 May 2010 (edit summary: "/* English history */ restored wiki links - seek OK to me")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Also, note that the AnonIP which geolocates to the Cambridge Massachusetts area has a long history of disruptive tenditious editing at this article, see this[15] for a portion of this history from 2009.

—SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these four reverts? Or four stages of one revert back to a previous version? SGGH ^ping! 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Consecutive reverts count as one revert. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: Metohija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

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

There are a series of edits that he is reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have repeatedly asked the user to not revert my edits.

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

Comments:

I would like some advice on this issue. Our goal is to include the albanian names in addition for the articles in kosovo. there should be no problem with this, and would like some advice on how to deal with it.

Please give me some advice on how to proceed. James Michael DuPont 10:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been no violation of

dispute resolution. SGGH ^ping!

15:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")
2. 13:56, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Please read
   WP:SOURCE - government's sources write about Statistical Division - according to Wikipedia:Verifiability
   , this is not subject to discussion. I'm sorry.")
3. 14:04, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "This article is not about a metro area. Name is "Sydney", not "Sydney metropolitan area". Government's sources write about Statistical Division, Wikipedia also.")
4. 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning: First edition (12:19, 30 May 2010 "according to the government's sources") this is not revert, this is standard change, reverts take place after this edition. Administrators, do not let yourselves be deceived :) Subtropical-man (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

First edition "# 12:19, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "according to the government's sources")" is not revert. This is my normal change. Please check. It is therefore not 3RR. Four edition "# 14:13, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "compromise")" is compromise, mix my on User Bidgee version. I made the only two reverts, not four. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a compromise as myself and another editor clearly do not agree with the edit, you have breached the

WP:3RR (Look at the listed edits you made above). Bidgee (talk

) 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR. Does not agree with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. First my edition is not revert, this is normal change. Four also, four my edition is compromise. Is this a scam? User:Bidgee make three reverts and write to User:AussieLegend [17] and this user undo my edit [18]. This is 3RR (4 reverts) with the help of a friend. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It sure looks like it stepped over

after the first time you were reverted. TFOWR^propaganda

14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Doesn't matter, you still breached the 3RR. Are you saying my report is a scam? I made a comment after they undid your revert, I in no way asked them to revert but rather discuss about your editing, so please to not make a claim which is false. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Since your edit was a partial reversion, it's still a revert. As a final note, I'd like to point out that the edit summary that I provided encouraged you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you had a problem, something you still haven't done. --AussieLegend (talk

) 15:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation :"As for your last edit not being a revert, WP:3RR states that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" - even if 4th edit is revert (although it is a compromise, at least I tried), this is not 3RR (4x revert). I did exactly the same number of reverts as User:Bidgee - three reverts. This notification on the page of WP:3RR is invalid. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you changed metropolitan area to something you wanted[21][22]. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Declined The first link is not a revert as I don't get the impression he intended to revert anyone there, but rather just make a simple change to the article. That being said, there were clearly some poor editing choices here (reverting three times in twenty minutes? seriously?) -- and not just from Subtropical I might add -- and I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped. But I'll put the article on my watchlist anyhow. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a comment on Subtropical-man's talk page about the changes being made (did you even look at Subtropical-man's talk page), this isn't the first time the editor has changed metropolitan to something they want and not the community[23][24]. Calling my reverting poor? I do not believe I made a poor choice since I was reverting to a stable version, I gave Subtropical-man a link showing that it is a metropolitan area. "I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert?, again I NEVER asked AussieLegend to revert, I suggest you remove the accusation that I did, as well as your claim of bad editing. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't want to give the impression that just because four reverts weren't made by a single person, that no one did anything wrong and no one could be blocked. But I gather that you all realize that now, and have apparently stopped." seems to be an accusation accusing me of asking another editor to revert

No it wasn't. How on Earth did you deduce that? -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.88.88.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]
• 6th revert: [31]
• 7th revert: [32]
• 8th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

IP is shouting and reverting and was requested to move to discussion but continued to revert to their favored position.

• Non-admin's comment. I asked for the semiprotection of the page, to avoids having to block the IP user... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours for 3RR and general incivility. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 21:49, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Used more common name for controversy")
2. 21:50, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 21:55, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365096855 by Stephan Schulz (talk)")
4. 22:03, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Removed empty/red link")
5. 22:05, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365098829 by
   talk) Clean up per WP
   ")
6. 22:12, 30 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 365099989 by
   talk
   ) undo 3RR violation")

• Diff of warning: here

Never mind, he's been blocked as a sock of banned user

talk

) 22:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Page: Annie Lobert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: sirozfox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

violate WP:3RR

This page is confusing. User:sirozfox is the husband of the subject of the article Annie Lobert. His comments represent a conflict of interest, lacking a neutral point of view. He has been warned regarding COI and NPOV. He fails to respond to comments on his talk page, but rather continues to revert editing. Additionally, he threatens others from editing this page. He has reverted article four times now. Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd for legal threats after I saw this.

talk

) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)